Cardiology

A diet high in flavonoids, such as black tea, can help prevent abdominal aortic calcification (AAC) in women later in life, according to the Heart Foundation and researchers from Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia.

What to know

• Elderly women who drank black tea on a regular basis or consumed a high level of flavonoids in their diet were found to be far less likely to develop extensive AAC.
• AAC is calcification of the large artery that supplies oxygenated blood from the heart to the abdominal organs and lower limbs. It is associated with cardiovascular disorders, such as heart attack and stroke, as well as late-life dementia.
• Flavonoids are naturally occurring substances that regulate cellular activity. They are found in many common foods and beverages, such as black tea, green tea, apples, nuts, citrus fruit, berries, red wine, dark chocolate, and others.
• Study participants who had a higher intake of total flavonoids, flavan-3-ols, and flavonols were almost 40% less likely to have extensive AAC, while those who drank two to six cups of black tea per day had up to 42% less chance of experiencing extensive AAC.
• People who do not drink tea can still benefit by including foods rich in flavonoids in their diet, which protects against extensive calcification of the arteries.
•  

This is a summary of the article, “Higher Habitual Dietary Flavonoid Intake Associates With Less Extensive Abdominal Aortic Calcification in a Cohort of Older Women,” published in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology on Nov. 2, 2022. The full article can be found on ahajournals.org. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

A diet high in flavonoids, such as black tea, can help prevent abdominal aortic calcification (AAC) in women later in life, according to the Heart Foundation and researchers from Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia.

What to know

• Elderly women who drank black tea on a regular basis or consumed a high level of flavonoids in their diet were found to be far less likely to develop extensive AAC.
• AAC is calcification of the large artery that supplies oxygenated blood from the heart to the abdominal organs and lower limbs. It is associated with cardiovascular disorders, such as heart attack and stroke, as well as late-life dementia.
• Flavonoids are naturally occurring substances that regulate cellular activity. They are found in many common foods and beverages, such as black tea, green tea, apples, nuts, citrus fruit, berries, red wine, dark chocolate, and others.
• Study participants who had a higher intake of total flavonoids, flavan-3-ols, and flavonols were almost 40% less likely to have extensive AAC, while those who drank two to six cups of black tea per day had up to 42% less chance of experiencing extensive AAC.
• People who do not drink tea can still benefit by including foods rich in flavonoids in their diet, which protects against extensive calcification of the arteries.
•  

This is a summary of the article, “Higher Habitual Dietary Flavonoid Intake Associates With Less Extensive Abdominal Aortic Calcification in a Cohort of Older Women,” published in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology on Nov. 2, 2022. The full article can be found on ahajournals.org. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

A diet high in flavonoids, such as black tea, can help prevent abdominal aortic calcification (AAC) in women later in life, according to the Heart Foundation and researchers from Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia.

What to know

• Elderly women who drank black tea on a regular basis or consumed a high level of flavonoids in their diet were found to be far less likely to develop extensive AAC.
• AAC is calcification of the large artery that supplies oxygenated blood from the heart to the abdominal organs and lower limbs. It is associated with cardiovascular disorders, such as heart attack and stroke, as well as late-life dementia.
• Flavonoids are naturally occurring substances that regulate cellular activity. They are found in many common foods and beverages, such as black tea, green tea, apples, nuts, citrus fruit, berries, red wine, dark chocolate, and others.
• Study participants who had a higher intake of total flavonoids, flavan-3-ols, and flavonols were almost 40% less likely to have extensive AAC, while those who drank two to six cups of black tea per day had up to 42% less chance of experiencing extensive AAC.
• People who do not drink tea can still benefit by including foods rich in flavonoids in their diet, which protects against extensive calcification of the arteries.
•  

This is a summary of the article, “Higher Habitual Dietary Flavonoid Intake Associates With Less Extensive Abdominal Aortic Calcification in a Cohort of Older Women,” published in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology on Nov. 2, 2022. The full article can be found on ahajournals.org. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Among adults hospitalized for COVID-19, acute cardiac events are common, particularly among those with underlying heart disease, and are associated with more severe disease outcomes, a new study suggests.

“We expected to see acute cardiac events occurring among adults hospitalized with COVID-19 but were surprised by how frequently they occurred,” Rebecca C. Woodruff, PhD, MPH, of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, told this news organization.

Overall, she said, “about 1 in 10 adults experienced an acute cardiac event – including heart attacks and acute heart failure – while hospitalized with COVID-19, and this included people with no preexisting heart disease.”

However, she added, “about a quarter of those with underlying heart disease had an acute cardiac event. These patients tended to experience more severe disease outcomes relative to patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who did not experience an acute cardiac event.”

The findings might be relevant to hospitalizations for other viral diseases, “though we can’t say for sure,” she noted. “This study was modeled off a previous study conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic among adults hospitalized with influenza. About 11.7% of [those] adults experienced an acute cardiac event, which was a similar percentage as what we found among patients hospitalized with COVID-19.”

The study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Underlying cardiac disease key

Dr. Woodruff and colleagues analyzed medical records on a probability sample of 8,460 adults hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection identified from 99 U.S. counties in 14 U.S. states (about 10% of the United States population) from January to November 2021.

Among participants, 11.4% had an acute cardiac event during their hospitalization. The median age was 69 years; 56.5% were men; 48.7%, non-Hispanic White; 33.6%, non-Hispanic Black; 7.4%, Hispanic; and 7.1%, non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander.

As indicated, the prevalence was higher among those with underlying cardiac disease (23.4%), compared with those without (6.2%).

Acute ischemic heart disease (5.5%) and acute heart failure (5.4%) were the most prevalent events; 0.3% of participants had acute myocarditis or pericarditis.

Risk factors varied, depending on underlying cardiac disease status. Those who experienced one or more acute cardiac events had a greater risk for intensive care unit admission (adjusted risk ratio,1.9) and in-hospital death (aRR, 1.7) versus those who did not.

In multivariable analyses, the risk of experiencing acute heart failure was significantly greater among men (aRR, 1.5) and among those with a history of congestive heart failure (aRR, 13.5), atrial fibrillation (aRR, 1.6) or hypertension (aRR,1.3).

Among patients who experienced one or more acute cardiac events, 39.2% required an intensive care unit stay for a median of 5 days. Approximately 22.4% required invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and 21.1% died while hospitalized.

“Persons at greater risk for experiencing acute cardiac events during COVID-19–associated hospitalizations might benefit from more intensive clinical evaluation and monitoring during hospitalization,” the authors conclude.

The team currently is taking a closer look at acute myocarditis among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, Dr. Woodruff said. Preliminary results were presented at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association and a paper is forthcoming.
 

Contemporary data needed

James A. de Lemos, MD, co-chair of the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 CVD Registry Steering Committee and professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said the findings mirror his team’s clinical experience in 2020 and 2021 and echo what was seen in the AHA COVID registry: that is, a 0.3% rate of myocarditis.

“The major caveat is that [the findings] may not be generalizable to contemporary COVID infection, both due to changing viral variants and higher levels of immunity in the population,” he said.

“Rates of COVID hospitalization are markedly lower with the current dominant variants, and we would expect the cardiac risk to be lower as well. I would like to see more contemporary data with current variants, particularly focused on higher risk patients with cardiovascular disease,” Dr. de Lemos added.

In a related editorial, George A. Mensa, MD, of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md., and colleagues suggest that the broader impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on human health remains “incompletely examined.”

“The impact of COVID-19 on cardiovascular mortality, in particular, appears to have varied widely, with no large increases seen in a number of the most developed countries but marked increases in hypertensive heart disease mortality seen in the United States in 2021,” they conclude. “The potential contribution of COVID-19 to these deaths, either directly or indirectly, remains to be determined.”

No commercial funding or relevant financial relationships were reported.

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

Among adults hospitalized for COVID-19, acute cardiac events are common, particularly among those with underlying heart disease, and are associated with more severe disease outcomes, a new study suggests.

“We expected to see acute cardiac events occurring among adults hospitalized with COVID-19 but were surprised by how frequently they occurred,” Rebecca C. Woodruff, PhD, MPH, of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, told this news organization.

Overall, she said, “about 1 in 10 adults experienced an acute cardiac event – including heart attacks and acute heart failure – while hospitalized with COVID-19, and this included people with no preexisting heart disease.”

However, she added, “about a quarter of those with underlying heart disease had an acute cardiac event. These patients tended to experience more severe disease outcomes relative to patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who did not experience an acute cardiac event.”

The findings might be relevant to hospitalizations for other viral diseases, “though we can’t say for sure,” she noted. “This study was modeled off a previous study conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic among adults hospitalized with influenza. About 11.7% of [those] adults experienced an acute cardiac event, which was a similar percentage as what we found among patients hospitalized with COVID-19.”

The study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Underlying cardiac disease key

Dr. Woodruff and colleagues analyzed medical records on a probability sample of 8,460 adults hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection identified from 99 U.S. counties in 14 U.S. states (about 10% of the United States population) from January to November 2021.

Among participants, 11.4% had an acute cardiac event during their hospitalization. The median age was 69 years; 56.5% were men; 48.7%, non-Hispanic White; 33.6%, non-Hispanic Black; 7.4%, Hispanic; and 7.1%, non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander.

As indicated, the prevalence was higher among those with underlying cardiac disease (23.4%), compared with those without (6.2%).

Acute ischemic heart disease (5.5%) and acute heart failure (5.4%) were the most prevalent events; 0.3% of participants had acute myocarditis or pericarditis.

Risk factors varied, depending on underlying cardiac disease status. Those who experienced one or more acute cardiac events had a greater risk for intensive care unit admission (adjusted risk ratio,1.9) and in-hospital death (aRR, 1.7) versus those who did not.

In multivariable analyses, the risk of experiencing acute heart failure was significantly greater among men (aRR, 1.5) and among those with a history of congestive heart failure (aRR, 13.5), atrial fibrillation (aRR, 1.6) or hypertension (aRR,1.3).

Among patients who experienced one or more acute cardiac events, 39.2% required an intensive care unit stay for a median of 5 days. Approximately 22.4% required invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and 21.1% died while hospitalized.

“Persons at greater risk for experiencing acute cardiac events during COVID-19–associated hospitalizations might benefit from more intensive clinical evaluation and monitoring during hospitalization,” the authors conclude.

The team currently is taking a closer look at acute myocarditis among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, Dr. Woodruff said. Preliminary results were presented at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association and a paper is forthcoming.
 

Contemporary data needed

James A. de Lemos, MD, co-chair of the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 CVD Registry Steering Committee and professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said the findings mirror his team’s clinical experience in 2020 and 2021 and echo what was seen in the AHA COVID registry: that is, a 0.3% rate of myocarditis.

“The major caveat is that [the findings] may not be generalizable to contemporary COVID infection, both due to changing viral variants and higher levels of immunity in the population,” he said.

“Rates of COVID hospitalization are markedly lower with the current dominant variants, and we would expect the cardiac risk to be lower as well. I would like to see more contemporary data with current variants, particularly focused on higher risk patients with cardiovascular disease,” Dr. de Lemos added.

In a related editorial, George A. Mensa, MD, of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md., and colleagues suggest that the broader impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on human health remains “incompletely examined.”

“The impact of COVID-19 on cardiovascular mortality, in particular, appears to have varied widely, with no large increases seen in a number of the most developed countries but marked increases in hypertensive heart disease mortality seen in the United States in 2021,” they conclude. “The potential contribution of COVID-19 to these deaths, either directly or indirectly, remains to be determined.”

No commercial funding or relevant financial relationships were reported.

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

Among adults hospitalized for COVID-19, acute cardiac events are common, particularly among those with underlying heart disease, and are associated with more severe disease outcomes, a new study suggests.

“We expected to see acute cardiac events occurring among adults hospitalized with COVID-19 but were surprised by how frequently they occurred,” Rebecca C. Woodruff, PhD, MPH, of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, told this news organization.

Overall, she said, “about 1 in 10 adults experienced an acute cardiac event – including heart attacks and acute heart failure – while hospitalized with COVID-19, and this included people with no preexisting heart disease.”

However, she added, “about a quarter of those with underlying heart disease had an acute cardiac event. These patients tended to experience more severe disease outcomes relative to patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who did not experience an acute cardiac event.”

The findings might be relevant to hospitalizations for other viral diseases, “though we can’t say for sure,” she noted. “This study was modeled off a previous study conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic among adults hospitalized with influenza. About 11.7% of [those] adults experienced an acute cardiac event, which was a similar percentage as what we found among patients hospitalized with COVID-19.”

The study was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

Underlying cardiac disease key

Dr. Woodruff and colleagues analyzed medical records on a probability sample of 8,460 adults hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection identified from 99 U.S. counties in 14 U.S. states (about 10% of the United States population) from January to November 2021.

Among participants, 11.4% had an acute cardiac event during their hospitalization. The median age was 69 years; 56.5% were men; 48.7%, non-Hispanic White; 33.6%, non-Hispanic Black; 7.4%, Hispanic; and 7.1%, non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander.

As indicated, the prevalence was higher among those with underlying cardiac disease (23.4%), compared with those without (6.2%).

Acute ischemic heart disease (5.5%) and acute heart failure (5.4%) were the most prevalent events; 0.3% of participants had acute myocarditis or pericarditis.

Risk factors varied, depending on underlying cardiac disease status. Those who experienced one or more acute cardiac events had a greater risk for intensive care unit admission (adjusted risk ratio,1.9) and in-hospital death (aRR, 1.7) versus those who did not.

In multivariable analyses, the risk of experiencing acute heart failure was significantly greater among men (aRR, 1.5) and among those with a history of congestive heart failure (aRR, 13.5), atrial fibrillation (aRR, 1.6) or hypertension (aRR,1.3).

Among patients who experienced one or more acute cardiac events, 39.2% required an intensive care unit stay for a median of 5 days. Approximately 22.4% required invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and 21.1% died while hospitalized.

“Persons at greater risk for experiencing acute cardiac events during COVID-19–associated hospitalizations might benefit from more intensive clinical evaluation and monitoring during hospitalization,” the authors conclude.

The team currently is taking a closer look at acute myocarditis among patients hospitalized with COVID-19, Dr. Woodruff said. Preliminary results were presented at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association and a paper is forthcoming.
 

Contemporary data needed

James A. de Lemos, MD, co-chair of the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 CVD Registry Steering Committee and professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said the findings mirror his team’s clinical experience in 2020 and 2021 and echo what was seen in the AHA COVID registry: that is, a 0.3% rate of myocarditis.

“The major caveat is that [the findings] may not be generalizable to contemporary COVID infection, both due to changing viral variants and higher levels of immunity in the population,” he said.

“Rates of COVID hospitalization are markedly lower with the current dominant variants, and we would expect the cardiac risk to be lower as well. I would like to see more contemporary data with current variants, particularly focused on higher risk patients with cardiovascular disease,” Dr. de Lemos added.

In a related editorial, George A. Mensa, MD, of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Md., and colleagues suggest that the broader impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on human health remains “incompletely examined.”

“The impact of COVID-19 on cardiovascular mortality, in particular, appears to have varied widely, with no large increases seen in a number of the most developed countries but marked increases in hypertensive heart disease mortality seen in the United States in 2021,” they conclude. “The potential contribution of COVID-19 to these deaths, either directly or indirectly, remains to be determined.”

No commercial funding or relevant financial relationships were reported.

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

One year ago, as the sun was setting on a late fall day, Andrés Snitcofsky, a 40-year-old designer from Buenos Aires, Argentina, heard harrowing cries for help. It was the niece and the wife of one of his neighbors: a man in his 60s who the women had found “passed out” in the bedroom. While they were all waiting for the ambulance, Mr. Snitcofsky went over, tilted the man’s head back, and confirmed that he wasn’t breathing, that he wasn’t choking. And then he started chest compressions, just like he’d learned in a CPR class he’d taken 2 decades earlier. “I did CPR for 5 minutes straight until a friend of the victim came in and asked me to stop, telling me that the man had probably been dead for 2 or 3 hours already. But I had no idea because I’d never seen a dead body before,” Mr. Snitcofsky told this news organization. A few minutes later, the ambulance arrived. The doctor confirmed that there was nothing more that could be done.

Mr. Snitcofsky went home. Nobody had asked for his name or address or phone number. … And it wasn’t because they already knew who he was. In fact, there wasn’t any sort of relationship there. Mr. Snitcofsky had only known his neighbors by sight. His actions that day, however, “did not come without a cost. It took me weeks – months, actually – to put myself together again,” he said. The things he saw, the things he heard, everything about that night played over and over in his head. “I had trouble sleeping. I would play out different scenarios in my head. I questioned myself. I second-guessed myself, criticized myself. It’s like some taboo subject. There’s no one to share the experience with, no one who gets it. But with time, I was able to process the event.

“For 2 months, I talked to my psychologist about it all,” he continued. “That really helped me a lot. In addition to therapy, I reached out to a couple I know – they’re both physicians – and to a firefighter who teaches CPR. Their insight and guidance allowed me to get to a point where I was able to understand that what I did was a good thing and that what I did was all that could have been done. But anyone who finds themselves in the position of having to do CPR – they’re going to be affected in many, many ways. It goes beyond the euphoria of seeing a person come back to life. Of that, I’m quite certain.”

We’ve all seen campaigns encouraging people to learn CPR and to be prepared if the need arises. But in training the public (and even health care professionals), not much, if anything, is said about the “collateral damage”: the psychological and emotional consequences of carrying out the procedure. These especially come into play when you don’t know whether the person survived, when your efforts weren’t able to reverse the sudden cardiac arrest, or when the person you gave CPR to was a loved one – a case that may entail immediate therapeutic interventions to minimize or prevent the risk of suffering long-lasting trauma.

In May 2020, popular American activist and educator Kristin Flanary saw someone suffering cardiac arrest. She stepped in and started doing CPR. And she continued doing CPR … for 10 long minutes. The person she was trying to save was her 34-year-old husband, ophthalmologist and comedian Will Flanary. On Twitter, where she’s known as Lady Glaucomflecken, Ms. Flanary recently shared the following message, putting the topic of CPR and automated external defibrillator training front and center.

“Yes, everyone should learn #CPRandAED. But if we are going to ask people to perform such a brutal task, it’s imperative that we also provide them with the info and resources they need to process it mentally and emotionally. It’s traumatic and life changing. It’s irresponsible and unethical to ask people to help in such a brutal and traumatic way and then neglect to help them in return.” In less than a month, the tweet has racked up over 200,000 views.
 

Doing one’s duty

There are many people who work to promote CPR and strengthen the other links in the chain of survival for out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest, such as prompt access to and delivery of early defibrillation. According to them, any negative psychological impact of intervening is temporary and, when compared with the satisfaction of having done one’s duty, quite insignificant – even if the efforts to save a person’s life are not successful.

“In 99.9% of cases, people who have performed CPR feel a sense of satisfaction, even happiness, knowing that they’ve helped. The individuals I’ve spoken with, I’ve never heard any of them say that they felt worse after the event or that they needed to see a psychologist,” said Mario Fitz Maurice, MD, director of the Arrhythmia Council of the Argentine Society of Cardiology and head of Electrophysiology at Rivadavia Hospital in Buenos Aires. He went on to tell this news organization, “Of course, some degree of fear, sadness, or melancholy can remain afterward. But it seems to me, and there are reports saying as much, that, in the end, what stands out in the person’s mind is the fact that they tried to save a life. And for them, there’s joy in knowing this.”

Dr. Fitz Maurice, who is also the director of the National Arrhythmia Institute in Buenos Aires, pointed out that the kind of person who takes CPR classes “has a profile that’s going to allow them to be psychologically involved; they’re the caring person, the one who’s ready and willing to help people.” And he added that, at his hospital, if they can identify the individuals or first responders who have done CPR on a patient, the protocol is to always contact them to offer psychological care and assistance. “But in 99% of cases, they don’t even understand why we’re calling them, they’re extremely happy to have taken part.”

Some studies, though, paint a much different picture, one that shows that providing CPR can be emotionally challenging and have consequences in terms of one’s family and work life. A qualitative study published in 2016 looked into the experiences of 20 lay rescuers in Norway – five were health educated – who had provided CPR to 18 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) victims, 66% of whom survived. The time from experiencing the OHCA incident to participating in the interview ranged from 6 days to 13 years (median 5.5 years). Several participants reported the OHCA incident as a “shocking and terrifying” experience. Tiredness, exhaustion, confusion, and feeling alone about the OHCA experience were individual reactions that could vary in time from days to months. Anxiety and insomnia were also experienced following the incident.

Some lay rescuers described the influence on work and family life, and a few of them described deep sorrow, even several years after the incident. Overall, they reported repetitive self-criticism regarding whether they could have carried out anything else to achieve a better outcome for the cardiac arrest victim. All of them wanted to be informed about the outcome. And four of the lay rescuers needed professional counseling to process the OHCA experience.

In 2020, another qualitative study was conducted, this time in Taiwan. There were nine participants, none of whom were health professionals. Each had provided initial CPR and defibrillation with AED in public locations. Event-to-interview duration was within 1 year and 1-2 years. The major findings from the study were the following:

• The lay rescuers possessed helping traits and high motivation.  
• The lay rescuers reported certain aspects of rescue reality that differed much from prior training and expectations, including difficulty in the depth of chest compression, and uncertainties in real emergency situations.
• The lay rescuers gained positive personal fulfillment in sharing their experience and receiving positive feedback from others, and were willing to help next time, although they experienced a short-term negative psychological impact from the event.
“Measures should be taken to increase [a] layperson’s confidence and situation awareness, to reduce training-reality discrepancy, and to build up a support system to avoid negative psychological effects.” This was the conclusion of the study team, which was led by Matthew Huei-Ming Ma, MD, PhD. A professor in the department of emergency medicine at National Taiwan University in Taipei, he is also on the board of directors of the Resuscitation Council of Asia.

Potential trauma

In recalling his experience, Mr. Snitcofsky said, “The hardest part of it all was the moment that I stopped giving CPR, that moment of letting go. This became the image that kept coming back to me, the traumatic moment I hadn’t thought about.”

Psychiatrist Daniel Mosca, MD, is the founder and former president of the Argentine Society of Trauma Psychology. He is also the coordinator of the human factors team at the City of Buenos Aires Emergency Medical Care System. “Any event has the potential to be traumatic, all the more so when it’s an event where you come face to face with death and uncertainty. But how a rescuer reacts will depend on their psychological makeup.” Of the individuals who were held for months or years in the jungle as hostages of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, “only” half developed symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder.

Dr. Mosca believes that a comment by Frank Ochberg, MD, speaks to this finding. “In many cases, peritraumatic symptoms are a normal person’s normal response to an abnormal situation.” For a lot of people who have found themselves having to perform CPR, the symptoms associated with the initial acute stress reaction will resolve on their own in 30-90 days. “But if this doesn’t happen, and those symptoms persist, psychotherapeutic or pharmacological intervention will be necessary,” he noted.

“In CPR classes, it would be good for the instructors to talk about the warning signs that people should look out for in themselves and their fellow rescuers. So, for example, insomnia, anxiety, a heightened state of alertness, feeling disconnected from reality,” Dr. Mosca told this news organization.

“Another thing that can help rescuers is letting them know what happened to the person they gave CPR to. This way, they can get closure,” suggested Manlio Márquez Murillo, MD, a cardiologist and electrophysiologist in Mexico. He is also the coordinator of the Alliance Against Sudden Cardiac Death at the Interamerican Society of Cardiology.

“Medical and nursing societies would have to develop a brief protocol or performance standard. The goal would be to ensure that rescuers are asked for their contact information and that someone gets in touch to debrief them and to offer them care. Next would come the treatment part, to resolve any remaining aftereffects,” said in an interview.

For example, a three-stage Lay Responder Support Model (LRSM) was developed and implemented as part of a lay responder support program established in 2014 by the Peel Regional Council in Ontario. The LRSM identifies and engages individuals who witnessed or participated directly or indirectly in an OHCA, inviting them to participate in a debriefing session facilitated by a trained practitioner. Held 24-48 hours post event, the debriefing allows lay responders to contextualize their reaction to the event. The conversation also serves as an opportunity for them to fully articulate their concerns, questions, and thoughts. The facilitator can communicate stress reduction techniques and address psychological first aid needs as they emerge. Approximately 1 week post event, a secondary follow-up occurs. If the lay responder communicates a continuing struggle with symptoms impacting and interfering with everyday life, the facilitator offers a coordinated or facilitated referral for mental health support.

In an article published in the Journal of Cardiac Failure. Ms. Flanary speaks about the three kinds of language that anyone who was either forced to or inspired to perform CPR can use to help process their trauma: words that explain what happened, words that name (eg, “forgotten patients”), and words that validate the experience and allow the person to articulate their feelings. The tools and technologies that organizations and health care professionals provide can help the healing process. Empathy and compassion, too, have a place.

But there are virtually no standardized and proactive initiatives of this kind in much of the world, including Latin America. So, most people who just happened to be in the right place at the right time find that they have to navigate the “after” part all on their own.
 

Other obstacles

Dr. Márquez Murillo finds it unfortunate that countries in the region have yet to enact “Good Samaritan” laws. If individuals render aid to someone suffering cardiac arrest, then these laws would ensure that they will not be held liable in any way. This is the case in Argentina and Uruguay. So, the fear of things turning into a legal matter may be holding people back from taking action; that fear could also create additional stress for those who end up stepping in to help.

Even with the legal safeguards, exceptional circumstances may arise where rescuers find themselves facing unexpected emotional challenges. In Argentina, Virginia Pérez Antonelli, the 17-year-old who tried in vain to save the life of Fernando Báez Sosa, had to testify at the trial of the eight defendants accused of brutally beating him in January 2020. The press, the public – the attention of an entire country – was focused on her. She had to respond to the defense attorneys who were able to ask whether she was sure that she performed the CPR maneuvers correctly. And a few weeks ago, a medical examiner hired by the defense suggested that “the CPR may have made the situation worse” for the victim. An indignant Dr. Fitz Maurice responded on Twitter: “CPR SAVES LIVES!! Let’s not let a CHEAP AND BASELESS argument destroy all the work that’s been done…!”

Of course, there are consequences that are beyond our control and others that can, in fact, be anticipated and planned for. Dr. Fitz Maurice brought up a preventive approach: Make CPR second nature, teach it in schools, help people overcome their fears. “Cardiac deaths are 200 times more frequent than deaths resulting from fires – and we practice fire drills a lot more than we practice CPR,” he told this news organization. In a society where there is widespread training on the procedure, where people regularly practice the technique, those who have had the experience of giving someone CPR will feel less alone, will be better understood by others.

“On the other hand, beyond the initial impact and the lack of a formal support system, the medium- and long-term outcome for those who acted is also psychologically and emotionally favorable,” said Jorge Bombau, MD, an obstetrician/gynecologist in Buenos Aires. After Dr. Bombau’s 14-year-old son Beltrán suddenly died during a school sports tournament, Dr. Bombau became a prominent advocate spreading the word about CPR.

“I don’t know anyone who regrets doing CPR,” he told this news organization. “There may be a brief period when the person feels distressed or depressed, when they have trouble sleeping. But it’s been proven that doing a good deed improves one’s mood. And what better deed is there than trying to save someone’s life? Whether their efforts were successful or in vain, that person has, at the end of the day, done something meaningful and worthwhile.”

Mr. Snitcofsky shares this sentiment. For several months now, he’s been feeling he’s “in a good place.” And he’s been actively promoting CPR on social media. As he recently posted on Twitter, “I’m here to retweet everything that has to do with getting us all to become familiar with how to do CPR and working up the courage to do it. The training takes no more than a few hours.

“I want to know that, if I ever have an out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest, there will be neighbors, friends, or family members around who know how to do CPR. Every person who knows how to do CPR can persuade others, and those of us who’ve had to do CPR in real life are even better candidates for persuading others. And if one day a person ends up needing CPR, I want to step in again and make up for lost time. Here’s hoping it’ll do the job,” he concluded.

It’s the same for Matías Alonso, a journalist in Buenos Aires. On New Year’s Eve 15 years ago, he was at a family dinner when, a few minutes before midnight, he found himself giving CPR to his stepmother’s father. “Unfortunately, he passed away, but I continued doing CPR on him until the ambulance arrived. For some time, I felt a little guilty for not taking charge of the situation from the beginning, and because I had this idea in my head that more people pulled through and recovered. But afterwards, they really thanked me a lot. And that helped me realize that I’d done something. I didn’t stand still when faced with the inevitability of death. I understood that it was good to have tried,” Mr. Alonso told this news organization. “And next time … hopefully there won’t be a next time … but I’m more prepared, and I now know how I can do better.”

Mr. Alonso, Mr. Snitcofsky, Dr. Fitz Maurice, Dr. Mosca, Dr. Bombau, and Dr. Márquez Murillo disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from Medscape Spanish.

One year ago, as the sun was setting on a late fall day, Andrés Snitcofsky, a 40-year-old designer from Buenos Aires, Argentina, heard harrowing cries for help. It was the niece and the wife of one of his neighbors: a man in his 60s who the women had found “passed out” in the bedroom. While they were all waiting for the ambulance, Mr. Snitcofsky went over, tilted the man’s head back, and confirmed that he wasn’t breathing, that he wasn’t choking. And then he started chest compressions, just like he’d learned in a CPR class he’d taken 2 decades earlier. “I did CPR for 5 minutes straight until a friend of the victim came in and asked me to stop, telling me that the man had probably been dead for 2 or 3 hours already. But I had no idea because I’d never seen a dead body before,” Mr. Snitcofsky told this news organization. A few minutes later, the ambulance arrived. The doctor confirmed that there was nothing more that could be done.

Mr. Snitcofsky went home. Nobody had asked for his name or address or phone number. … And it wasn’t because they already knew who he was. In fact, there wasn’t any sort of relationship there. Mr. Snitcofsky had only known his neighbors by sight. His actions that day, however, “did not come without a cost. It took me weeks – months, actually – to put myself together again,” he said. The things he saw, the things he heard, everything about that night played over and over in his head. “I had trouble sleeping. I would play out different scenarios in my head. I questioned myself. I second-guessed myself, criticized myself. It’s like some taboo subject. There’s no one to share the experience with, no one who gets it. But with time, I was able to process the event.

“For 2 months, I talked to my psychologist about it all,” he continued. “That really helped me a lot. In addition to therapy, I reached out to a couple I know – they’re both physicians – and to a firefighter who teaches CPR. Their insight and guidance allowed me to get to a point where I was able to understand that what I did was a good thing and that what I did was all that could have been done. But anyone who finds themselves in the position of having to do CPR – they’re going to be affected in many, many ways. It goes beyond the euphoria of seeing a person come back to life. Of that, I’m quite certain.”

We’ve all seen campaigns encouraging people to learn CPR and to be prepared if the need arises. But in training the public (and even health care professionals), not much, if anything, is said about the “collateral damage”: the psychological and emotional consequences of carrying out the procedure. These especially come into play when you don’t know whether the person survived, when your efforts weren’t able to reverse the sudden cardiac arrest, or when the person you gave CPR to was a loved one – a case that may entail immediate therapeutic interventions to minimize or prevent the risk of suffering long-lasting trauma.

In May 2020, popular American activist and educator Kristin Flanary saw someone suffering cardiac arrest. She stepped in and started doing CPR. And she continued doing CPR … for 10 long minutes. The person she was trying to save was her 34-year-old husband, ophthalmologist and comedian Will Flanary. On Twitter, where she’s known as Lady Glaucomflecken, Ms. Flanary recently shared the following message, putting the topic of CPR and automated external defibrillator training front and center.

“Yes, everyone should learn #CPRandAED. But if we are going to ask people to perform such a brutal task, it’s imperative that we also provide them with the info and resources they need to process it mentally and emotionally. It’s traumatic and life changing. It’s irresponsible and unethical to ask people to help in such a brutal and traumatic way and then neglect to help them in return.” In less than a month, the tweet has racked up over 200,000 views.
 

Doing one’s duty

There are many people who work to promote CPR and strengthen the other links in the chain of survival for out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest, such as prompt access to and delivery of early defibrillation. According to them, any negative psychological impact of intervening is temporary and, when compared with the satisfaction of having done one’s duty, quite insignificant – even if the efforts to save a person’s life are not successful.

“In 99.9% of cases, people who have performed CPR feel a sense of satisfaction, even happiness, knowing that they’ve helped. The individuals I’ve spoken with, I’ve never heard any of them say that they felt worse after the event or that they needed to see a psychologist,” said Mario Fitz Maurice, MD, director of the Arrhythmia Council of the Argentine Society of Cardiology and head of Electrophysiology at Rivadavia Hospital in Buenos Aires. He went on to tell this news organization, “Of course, some degree of fear, sadness, or melancholy can remain afterward. But it seems to me, and there are reports saying as much, that, in the end, what stands out in the person’s mind is the fact that they tried to save a life. And for them, there’s joy in knowing this.”

Dr. Fitz Maurice, who is also the director of the National Arrhythmia Institute in Buenos Aires, pointed out that the kind of person who takes CPR classes “has a profile that’s going to allow them to be psychologically involved; they’re the caring person, the one who’s ready and willing to help people.” And he added that, at his hospital, if they can identify the individuals or first responders who have done CPR on a patient, the protocol is to always contact them to offer psychological care and assistance. “But in 99% of cases, they don’t even understand why we’re calling them, they’re extremely happy to have taken part.”

Some studies, though, paint a much different picture, one that shows that providing CPR can be emotionally challenging and have consequences in terms of one’s family and work life. A qualitative study published in 2016 looked into the experiences of 20 lay rescuers in Norway – five were health educated – who had provided CPR to 18 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) victims, 66% of whom survived. The time from experiencing the OHCA incident to participating in the interview ranged from 6 days to 13 years (median 5.5 years). Several participants reported the OHCA incident as a “shocking and terrifying” experience. Tiredness, exhaustion, confusion, and feeling alone about the OHCA experience were individual reactions that could vary in time from days to months. Anxiety and insomnia were also experienced following the incident.

Some lay rescuers described the influence on work and family life, and a few of them described deep sorrow, even several years after the incident. Overall, they reported repetitive self-criticism regarding whether they could have carried out anything else to achieve a better outcome for the cardiac arrest victim. All of them wanted to be informed about the outcome. And four of the lay rescuers needed professional counseling to process the OHCA experience.

In 2020, another qualitative study was conducted, this time in Taiwan. There were nine participants, none of whom were health professionals. Each had provided initial CPR and defibrillation with AED in public locations. Event-to-interview duration was within 1 year and 1-2 years. The major findings from the study were the following:

• The lay rescuers possessed helping traits and high motivation.  
• The lay rescuers reported certain aspects of rescue reality that differed much from prior training and expectations, including difficulty in the depth of chest compression, and uncertainties in real emergency situations.
• The lay rescuers gained positive personal fulfillment in sharing their experience and receiving positive feedback from others, and were willing to help next time, although they experienced a short-term negative psychological impact from the event.
“Measures should be taken to increase [a] layperson’s confidence and situation awareness, to reduce training-reality discrepancy, and to build up a support system to avoid negative psychological effects.” This was the conclusion of the study team, which was led by Matthew Huei-Ming Ma, MD, PhD. A professor in the department of emergency medicine at National Taiwan University in Taipei, he is also on the board of directors of the Resuscitation Council of Asia.

Potential trauma

In recalling his experience, Mr. Snitcofsky said, “The hardest part of it all was the moment that I stopped giving CPR, that moment of letting go. This became the image that kept coming back to me, the traumatic moment I hadn’t thought about.”

Psychiatrist Daniel Mosca, MD, is the founder and former president of the Argentine Society of Trauma Psychology. He is also the coordinator of the human factors team at the City of Buenos Aires Emergency Medical Care System. “Any event has the potential to be traumatic, all the more so when it’s an event where you come face to face with death and uncertainty. But how a rescuer reacts will depend on their psychological makeup.” Of the individuals who were held for months or years in the jungle as hostages of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, “only” half developed symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder.

Dr. Mosca believes that a comment by Frank Ochberg, MD, speaks to this finding. “In many cases, peritraumatic symptoms are a normal person’s normal response to an abnormal situation.” For a lot of people who have found themselves having to perform CPR, the symptoms associated with the initial acute stress reaction will resolve on their own in 30-90 days. “But if this doesn’t happen, and those symptoms persist, psychotherapeutic or pharmacological intervention will be necessary,” he noted.

“In CPR classes, it would be good for the instructors to talk about the warning signs that people should look out for in themselves and their fellow rescuers. So, for example, insomnia, anxiety, a heightened state of alertness, feeling disconnected from reality,” Dr. Mosca told this news organization.

“Another thing that can help rescuers is letting them know what happened to the person they gave CPR to. This way, they can get closure,” suggested Manlio Márquez Murillo, MD, a cardiologist and electrophysiologist in Mexico. He is also the coordinator of the Alliance Against Sudden Cardiac Death at the Interamerican Society of Cardiology.

“Medical and nursing societies would have to develop a brief protocol or performance standard. The goal would be to ensure that rescuers are asked for their contact information and that someone gets in touch to debrief them and to offer them care. Next would come the treatment part, to resolve any remaining aftereffects,” said in an interview.

For example, a three-stage Lay Responder Support Model (LRSM) was developed and implemented as part of a lay responder support program established in 2014 by the Peel Regional Council in Ontario. The LRSM identifies and engages individuals who witnessed or participated directly or indirectly in an OHCA, inviting them to participate in a debriefing session facilitated by a trained practitioner. Held 24-48 hours post event, the debriefing allows lay responders to contextualize their reaction to the event. The conversation also serves as an opportunity for them to fully articulate their concerns, questions, and thoughts. The facilitator can communicate stress reduction techniques and address psychological first aid needs as they emerge. Approximately 1 week post event, a secondary follow-up occurs. If the lay responder communicates a continuing struggle with symptoms impacting and interfering with everyday life, the facilitator offers a coordinated or facilitated referral for mental health support.

In an article published in the Journal of Cardiac Failure. Ms. Flanary speaks about the three kinds of language that anyone who was either forced to or inspired to perform CPR can use to help process their trauma: words that explain what happened, words that name (eg, “forgotten patients”), and words that validate the experience and allow the person to articulate their feelings. The tools and technologies that organizations and health care professionals provide can help the healing process. Empathy and compassion, too, have a place.

But there are virtually no standardized and proactive initiatives of this kind in much of the world, including Latin America. So, most people who just happened to be in the right place at the right time find that they have to navigate the “after” part all on their own.
 

Other obstacles

Dr. Márquez Murillo finds it unfortunate that countries in the region have yet to enact “Good Samaritan” laws. If individuals render aid to someone suffering cardiac arrest, then these laws would ensure that they will not be held liable in any way. This is the case in Argentina and Uruguay. So, the fear of things turning into a legal matter may be holding people back from taking action; that fear could also create additional stress for those who end up stepping in to help.

Even with the legal safeguards, exceptional circumstances may arise where rescuers find themselves facing unexpected emotional challenges. In Argentina, Virginia Pérez Antonelli, the 17-year-old who tried in vain to save the life of Fernando Báez Sosa, had to testify at the trial of the eight defendants accused of brutally beating him in January 2020. The press, the public – the attention of an entire country – was focused on her. She had to respond to the defense attorneys who were able to ask whether she was sure that she performed the CPR maneuvers correctly. And a few weeks ago, a medical examiner hired by the defense suggested that “the CPR may have made the situation worse” for the victim. An indignant Dr. Fitz Maurice responded on Twitter: “CPR SAVES LIVES!! Let’s not let a CHEAP AND BASELESS argument destroy all the work that’s been done…!”

Of course, there are consequences that are beyond our control and others that can, in fact, be anticipated and planned for. Dr. Fitz Maurice brought up a preventive approach: Make CPR second nature, teach it in schools, help people overcome their fears. “Cardiac deaths are 200 times more frequent than deaths resulting from fires – and we practice fire drills a lot more than we practice CPR,” he told this news organization. In a society where there is widespread training on the procedure, where people regularly practice the technique, those who have had the experience of giving someone CPR will feel less alone, will be better understood by others.

“On the other hand, beyond the initial impact and the lack of a formal support system, the medium- and long-term outcome for those who acted is also psychologically and emotionally favorable,” said Jorge Bombau, MD, an obstetrician/gynecologist in Buenos Aires. After Dr. Bombau’s 14-year-old son Beltrán suddenly died during a school sports tournament, Dr. Bombau became a prominent advocate spreading the word about CPR.

“I don’t know anyone who regrets doing CPR,” he told this news organization. “There may be a brief period when the person feels distressed or depressed, when they have trouble sleeping. But it’s been proven that doing a good deed improves one’s mood. And what better deed is there than trying to save someone’s life? Whether their efforts were successful or in vain, that person has, at the end of the day, done something meaningful and worthwhile.”

Mr. Snitcofsky shares this sentiment. For several months now, he’s been feeling he’s “in a good place.” And he’s been actively promoting CPR on social media. As he recently posted on Twitter, “I’m here to retweet everything that has to do with getting us all to become familiar with how to do CPR and working up the courage to do it. The training takes no more than a few hours.

“I want to know that, if I ever have an out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest, there will be neighbors, friends, or family members around who know how to do CPR. Every person who knows how to do CPR can persuade others, and those of us who’ve had to do CPR in real life are even better candidates for persuading others. And if one day a person ends up needing CPR, I want to step in again and make up for lost time. Here’s hoping it’ll do the job,” he concluded.

It’s the same for Matías Alonso, a journalist in Buenos Aires. On New Year’s Eve 15 years ago, he was at a family dinner when, a few minutes before midnight, he found himself giving CPR to his stepmother’s father. “Unfortunately, he passed away, but I continued doing CPR on him until the ambulance arrived. For some time, I felt a little guilty for not taking charge of the situation from the beginning, and because I had this idea in my head that more people pulled through and recovered. But afterwards, they really thanked me a lot. And that helped me realize that I’d done something. I didn’t stand still when faced with the inevitability of death. I understood that it was good to have tried,” Mr. Alonso told this news organization. “And next time … hopefully there won’t be a next time … but I’m more prepared, and I now know how I can do better.”

Mr. Alonso, Mr. Snitcofsky, Dr. Fitz Maurice, Dr. Mosca, Dr. Bombau, and Dr. Márquez Murillo disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from Medscape Spanish.

One year ago, as the sun was setting on a late fall day, Andrés Snitcofsky, a 40-year-old designer from Buenos Aires, Argentina, heard harrowing cries for help. It was the niece and the wife of one of his neighbors: a man in his 60s who the women had found “passed out” in the bedroom. While they were all waiting for the ambulance, Mr. Snitcofsky went over, tilted the man’s head back, and confirmed that he wasn’t breathing, that he wasn’t choking. And then he started chest compressions, just like he’d learned in a CPR class he’d taken 2 decades earlier. “I did CPR for 5 minutes straight until a friend of the victim came in and asked me to stop, telling me that the man had probably been dead for 2 or 3 hours already. But I had no idea because I’d never seen a dead body before,” Mr. Snitcofsky told this news organization. A few minutes later, the ambulance arrived. The doctor confirmed that there was nothing more that could be done.

Mr. Snitcofsky went home. Nobody had asked for his name or address or phone number. … And it wasn’t because they already knew who he was. In fact, there wasn’t any sort of relationship there. Mr. Snitcofsky had only known his neighbors by sight. His actions that day, however, “did not come without a cost. It took me weeks – months, actually – to put myself together again,” he said. The things he saw, the things he heard, everything about that night played over and over in his head. “I had trouble sleeping. I would play out different scenarios in my head. I questioned myself. I second-guessed myself, criticized myself. It’s like some taboo subject. There’s no one to share the experience with, no one who gets it. But with time, I was able to process the event.

“For 2 months, I talked to my psychologist about it all,” he continued. “That really helped me a lot. In addition to therapy, I reached out to a couple I know – they’re both physicians – and to a firefighter who teaches CPR. Their insight and guidance allowed me to get to a point where I was able to understand that what I did was a good thing and that what I did was all that could have been done. But anyone who finds themselves in the position of having to do CPR – they’re going to be affected in many, many ways. It goes beyond the euphoria of seeing a person come back to life. Of that, I’m quite certain.”

We’ve all seen campaigns encouraging people to learn CPR and to be prepared if the need arises. But in training the public (and even health care professionals), not much, if anything, is said about the “collateral damage”: the psychological and emotional consequences of carrying out the procedure. These especially come into play when you don’t know whether the person survived, when your efforts weren’t able to reverse the sudden cardiac arrest, or when the person you gave CPR to was a loved one – a case that may entail immediate therapeutic interventions to minimize or prevent the risk of suffering long-lasting trauma.

In May 2020, popular American activist and educator Kristin Flanary saw someone suffering cardiac arrest. She stepped in and started doing CPR. And she continued doing CPR … for 10 long minutes. The person she was trying to save was her 34-year-old husband, ophthalmologist and comedian Will Flanary. On Twitter, where she’s known as Lady Glaucomflecken, Ms. Flanary recently shared the following message, putting the topic of CPR and automated external defibrillator training front and center.

“Yes, everyone should learn #CPRandAED. But if we are going to ask people to perform such a brutal task, it’s imperative that we also provide them with the info and resources they need to process it mentally and emotionally. It’s traumatic and life changing. It’s irresponsible and unethical to ask people to help in such a brutal and traumatic way and then neglect to help them in return.” In less than a month, the tweet has racked up over 200,000 views.
 

Doing one’s duty

There are many people who work to promote CPR and strengthen the other links in the chain of survival for out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest, such as prompt access to and delivery of early defibrillation. According to them, any negative psychological impact of intervening is temporary and, when compared with the satisfaction of having done one’s duty, quite insignificant – even if the efforts to save a person’s life are not successful.

“In 99.9% of cases, people who have performed CPR feel a sense of satisfaction, even happiness, knowing that they’ve helped. The individuals I’ve spoken with, I’ve never heard any of them say that they felt worse after the event or that they needed to see a psychologist,” said Mario Fitz Maurice, MD, director of the Arrhythmia Council of the Argentine Society of Cardiology and head of Electrophysiology at Rivadavia Hospital in Buenos Aires. He went on to tell this news organization, “Of course, some degree of fear, sadness, or melancholy can remain afterward. But it seems to me, and there are reports saying as much, that, in the end, what stands out in the person’s mind is the fact that they tried to save a life. And for them, there’s joy in knowing this.”

Dr. Fitz Maurice, who is also the director of the National Arrhythmia Institute in Buenos Aires, pointed out that the kind of person who takes CPR classes “has a profile that’s going to allow them to be psychologically involved; they’re the caring person, the one who’s ready and willing to help people.” And he added that, at his hospital, if they can identify the individuals or first responders who have done CPR on a patient, the protocol is to always contact them to offer psychological care and assistance. “But in 99% of cases, they don’t even understand why we’re calling them, they’re extremely happy to have taken part.”

Some studies, though, paint a much different picture, one that shows that providing CPR can be emotionally challenging and have consequences in terms of one’s family and work life. A qualitative study published in 2016 looked into the experiences of 20 lay rescuers in Norway – five were health educated – who had provided CPR to 18 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) victims, 66% of whom survived. The time from experiencing the OHCA incident to participating in the interview ranged from 6 days to 13 years (median 5.5 years). Several participants reported the OHCA incident as a “shocking and terrifying” experience. Tiredness, exhaustion, confusion, and feeling alone about the OHCA experience were individual reactions that could vary in time from days to months. Anxiety and insomnia were also experienced following the incident.

Some lay rescuers described the influence on work and family life, and a few of them described deep sorrow, even several years after the incident. Overall, they reported repetitive self-criticism regarding whether they could have carried out anything else to achieve a better outcome for the cardiac arrest victim. All of them wanted to be informed about the outcome. And four of the lay rescuers needed professional counseling to process the OHCA experience.

In 2020, another qualitative study was conducted, this time in Taiwan. There were nine participants, none of whom were health professionals. Each had provided initial CPR and defibrillation with AED in public locations. Event-to-interview duration was within 1 year and 1-2 years. The major findings from the study were the following:

• The lay rescuers possessed helping traits and high motivation.  
• The lay rescuers reported certain aspects of rescue reality that differed much from prior training and expectations, including difficulty in the depth of chest compression, and uncertainties in real emergency situations.
• The lay rescuers gained positive personal fulfillment in sharing their experience and receiving positive feedback from others, and were willing to help next time, although they experienced a short-term negative psychological impact from the event.
“Measures should be taken to increase [a] layperson’s confidence and situation awareness, to reduce training-reality discrepancy, and to build up a support system to avoid negative psychological effects.” This was the conclusion of the study team, which was led by Matthew Huei-Ming Ma, MD, PhD. A professor in the department of emergency medicine at National Taiwan University in Taipei, he is also on the board of directors of the Resuscitation Council of Asia.

Potential trauma

In recalling his experience, Mr. Snitcofsky said, “The hardest part of it all was the moment that I stopped giving CPR, that moment of letting go. This became the image that kept coming back to me, the traumatic moment I hadn’t thought about.”

Psychiatrist Daniel Mosca, MD, is the founder and former president of the Argentine Society of Trauma Psychology. He is also the coordinator of the human factors team at the City of Buenos Aires Emergency Medical Care System. “Any event has the potential to be traumatic, all the more so when it’s an event where you come face to face with death and uncertainty. But how a rescuer reacts will depend on their psychological makeup.” Of the individuals who were held for months or years in the jungle as hostages of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, “only” half developed symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder.

Dr. Mosca believes that a comment by Frank Ochberg, MD, speaks to this finding. “In many cases, peritraumatic symptoms are a normal person’s normal response to an abnormal situation.” For a lot of people who have found themselves having to perform CPR, the symptoms associated with the initial acute stress reaction will resolve on their own in 30-90 days. “But if this doesn’t happen, and those symptoms persist, psychotherapeutic or pharmacological intervention will be necessary,” he noted.

“In CPR classes, it would be good for the instructors to talk about the warning signs that people should look out for in themselves and their fellow rescuers. So, for example, insomnia, anxiety, a heightened state of alertness, feeling disconnected from reality,” Dr. Mosca told this news organization.

“Another thing that can help rescuers is letting them know what happened to the person they gave CPR to. This way, they can get closure,” suggested Manlio Márquez Murillo, MD, a cardiologist and electrophysiologist in Mexico. He is also the coordinator of the Alliance Against Sudden Cardiac Death at the Interamerican Society of Cardiology.

“Medical and nursing societies would have to develop a brief protocol or performance standard. The goal would be to ensure that rescuers are asked for their contact information and that someone gets in touch to debrief them and to offer them care. Next would come the treatment part, to resolve any remaining aftereffects,” said in an interview.

For example, a three-stage Lay Responder Support Model (LRSM) was developed and implemented as part of a lay responder support program established in 2014 by the Peel Regional Council in Ontario. The LRSM identifies and engages individuals who witnessed or participated directly or indirectly in an OHCA, inviting them to participate in a debriefing session facilitated by a trained practitioner. Held 24-48 hours post event, the debriefing allows lay responders to contextualize their reaction to the event. The conversation also serves as an opportunity for them to fully articulate their concerns, questions, and thoughts. The facilitator can communicate stress reduction techniques and address psychological first aid needs as they emerge. Approximately 1 week post event, a secondary follow-up occurs. If the lay responder communicates a continuing struggle with symptoms impacting and interfering with everyday life, the facilitator offers a coordinated or facilitated referral for mental health support.

In an article published in the Journal of Cardiac Failure. Ms. Flanary speaks about the three kinds of language that anyone who was either forced to or inspired to perform CPR can use to help process their trauma: words that explain what happened, words that name (eg, “forgotten patients”), and words that validate the experience and allow the person to articulate their feelings. The tools and technologies that organizations and health care professionals provide can help the healing process. Empathy and compassion, too, have a place.

But there are virtually no standardized and proactive initiatives of this kind in much of the world, including Latin America. So, most people who just happened to be in the right place at the right time find that they have to navigate the “after” part all on their own.
 

Other obstacles

Dr. Márquez Murillo finds it unfortunate that countries in the region have yet to enact “Good Samaritan” laws. If individuals render aid to someone suffering cardiac arrest, then these laws would ensure that they will not be held liable in any way. This is the case in Argentina and Uruguay. So, the fear of things turning into a legal matter may be holding people back from taking action; that fear could also create additional stress for those who end up stepping in to help.

Even with the legal safeguards, exceptional circumstances may arise where rescuers find themselves facing unexpected emotional challenges. In Argentina, Virginia Pérez Antonelli, the 17-year-old who tried in vain to save the life of Fernando Báez Sosa, had to testify at the trial of the eight defendants accused of brutally beating him in January 2020. The press, the public – the attention of an entire country – was focused on her. She had to respond to the defense attorneys who were able to ask whether she was sure that she performed the CPR maneuvers correctly. And a few weeks ago, a medical examiner hired by the defense suggested that “the CPR may have made the situation worse” for the victim. An indignant Dr. Fitz Maurice responded on Twitter: “CPR SAVES LIVES!! Let’s not let a CHEAP AND BASELESS argument destroy all the work that’s been done…!”

Of course, there are consequences that are beyond our control and others that can, in fact, be anticipated and planned for. Dr. Fitz Maurice brought up a preventive approach: Make CPR second nature, teach it in schools, help people overcome their fears. “Cardiac deaths are 200 times more frequent than deaths resulting from fires – and we practice fire drills a lot more than we practice CPR,” he told this news organization. In a society where there is widespread training on the procedure, where people regularly practice the technique, those who have had the experience of giving someone CPR will feel less alone, will be better understood by others.

“On the other hand, beyond the initial impact and the lack of a formal support system, the medium- and long-term outcome for those who acted is also psychologically and emotionally favorable,” said Jorge Bombau, MD, an obstetrician/gynecologist in Buenos Aires. After Dr. Bombau’s 14-year-old son Beltrán suddenly died during a school sports tournament, Dr. Bombau became a prominent advocate spreading the word about CPR.

“I don’t know anyone who regrets doing CPR,” he told this news organization. “There may be a brief period when the person feels distressed or depressed, when they have trouble sleeping. But it’s been proven that doing a good deed improves one’s mood. And what better deed is there than trying to save someone’s life? Whether their efforts were successful or in vain, that person has, at the end of the day, done something meaningful and worthwhile.”

Mr. Snitcofsky shares this sentiment. For several months now, he’s been feeling he’s “in a good place.” And he’s been actively promoting CPR on social media. As he recently posted on Twitter, “I’m here to retweet everything that has to do with getting us all to become familiar with how to do CPR and working up the courage to do it. The training takes no more than a few hours.

“I want to know that, if I ever have an out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest, there will be neighbors, friends, or family members around who know how to do CPR. Every person who knows how to do CPR can persuade others, and those of us who’ve had to do CPR in real life are even better candidates for persuading others. And if one day a person ends up needing CPR, I want to step in again and make up for lost time. Here’s hoping it’ll do the job,” he concluded.

It’s the same for Matías Alonso, a journalist in Buenos Aires. On New Year’s Eve 15 years ago, he was at a family dinner when, a few minutes before midnight, he found himself giving CPR to his stepmother’s father. “Unfortunately, he passed away, but I continued doing CPR on him until the ambulance arrived. For some time, I felt a little guilty for not taking charge of the situation from the beginning, and because I had this idea in my head that more people pulled through and recovered. But afterwards, they really thanked me a lot. And that helped me realize that I’d done something. I didn’t stand still when faced with the inevitability of death. I understood that it was good to have tried,” Mr. Alonso told this news organization. “And next time … hopefully there won’t be a next time … but I’m more prepared, and I now know how I can do better.”

Mr. Alonso, Mr. Snitcofsky, Dr. Fitz Maurice, Dr. Mosca, Dr. Bombau, and Dr. Márquez Murillo disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from Medscape Spanish.

Adults with mainly type 2 diabetes had gaps in the use of medications for managing blood glucose, hypertension, and lipids, in an analysis of nationally representative U.S. survey data.

A mean of 19.5%, 17.1%, and 43.3% of survey participants had inconsistent use of glucose-, BP-, or lipid-lowering medications, respectively, over 2 years in a series of successive 2-year surveys in 2005-2019.

A new group of participants was enrolled for each successive 2-year survey.

“We found persistent and sometimes increasing gaps in continuity of use of these [glycemia, hypertension, and lipid] treatments at the national level,” the researchers wrote.

Moreover, “this outcome was found despite long-lasting guidelines that generally recommend medications as an ongoing part of therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes to reduce macrovascular and microvascular disease risk,” they stressed.

The data did not distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes, but more than 90% of diabetes diagnoses in the United States are type 2 diabetes, the researchers noted.

Therefore, it is “correct, our findings primarily reflect type 2 diabetes,” lead author Puneet Kaur Chehal, PhD, assistant professor, Emory University, Atlanta, clarified in an email.

“The clinical guidelines for treatment of type 1 diabetes are distinct,” she added, so “it is difficult to draw any conclusions from our study for this population.”

“To observe national trends in continuous use decrease at the same time that diabetes complications are increasing and physicians are guided to shift away from treat-to-target and towards individual patient needs certainly caught our attention,” she said.

“Our findings highlight the need for additional research to understand what is going on here,” according to Dr. Chehal.

“We did not observe levels of glucose (or blood pressure and lipids) to explore if the decrease in glucose-lowering drugs was warranted,” she added. “Our evidence of differences in continuity in use across subgroups (by race/ethnicity, payer, and age) does warrant further analysis of whether the decreasing trends we observe are lapses in access or deliberate changes in treatment.”

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Investigating trends in medication adherence

Type 2 diabetes is a chronic condition and medications to control blood glucose, BP, and lipids lower the risk of diabetes-associated complications, Dr. Chehal and colleagues wrote.  

After years of improvement, these cardiometabolic parameters plateaued and even decreased in 2013-2021, in parallel with increasing rates of diabetes complications, especially in younger adults, certain ethnic minority groups, and people with increased risks.

Suboptimal medication adherence among people with type 2 diabetes is associated with preventable complications and onset of heart disease, kidney disease, or diabetic neuropathy, which can lead to amputation.

However, previous studies of medication adherence were typically limited to patients covered by Medicare or commercial insurance, or studies only had 1-year follow-up.

Therefore, the researchers performed a cross-sectional analysis of a series of 2-year data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), in which participants reply to five interviews in 2 years and new participants are selected each year.

The researchers analyzed data from 15,237 adults aged 18 and older with type 2 diabetes who participated in 1 of 14 2-year MEPS survey panels in 2005-2019.

About half of participants (47.4%) were age 45-64 and about half (54.2%) were women. They were also racially diverse (43% non-Latino White, 25% Latino, and 24% non-Latino Black).

Participants were classified as having “inconsistent use” of glucose-lowering medication, for example, if they did not fill at least one prescription for a glucose-lowering drug in each of the 2 years.

“As long as [the medication] was some type of glucose-, blood pressure–, or lipid-lowering medication and was filled, it counted as continued use for that category,” Dr. Chehal explained.

They are preparing another paper that explores changes in medication regimens.

The current study showed continued use of glucose-lowering medication in both years decreased from 84.5% in 2005-2006 to 77.4% in 2018-2019, no use of glucose-lowering medication in either of the 2 years increased from 8.1% in 2005-2006 to 12.9% in 2018-2019, inconsistent use of glucose-lowering medication increased from 3.3% in 2005-2006 to 7.1% in 2018-2019, and new use of glucose-lowering medications in year 2 fluctuated between 2% and 4% across panels.

It also showed inconsistent use of BP-lowering medication increased from 3.9% in 2005-2006 to 9.0% in 2016-2017 and inconsistent use of lipid-lowering medication increased to a high of 9.9% in 2017-2018.

Younger and Black participants were less likely to consistently use glucose-lowering medication, Latino patients were less likely to consistently use BP-lowering medications, and Black and Latino patients were less likely to continuously use lipid-lowering medications. Uninsured adults were more likely to use no medications or use medications inconsistently.

“Changes and inconsistencies in payer formularies and out-of-pocket cost burden, especially among adults with no or insufficient insurance (i.e., Medicare Part D), remain prominent issues,” according to Dr. Chehal and colleagues.

“Decreases in continuity in use of glucose-lowering medications in recent panels may explain worsening diabetes complications,” they wrote.

This may be partly caused by recommended decreases in sulfonylurea and thiazolidinedione use and increased prescribing of new and more cost-prohibitive medications, they suggested.

Or this may be caused by the shift away from treating aggressively until a target is achieved toward individualizing treatment based on a patient’s age, phenotype, or comorbidities (for example, kidney disease).

The study was supported by a grant from MSD, a subsidiary of Merck, to Emory University. Some of the researchers received grants from Merck for the submitted work or were partially supported by a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health to the Georgia Center for Diabetes Translation Research. Dr. Chehal reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adults with mainly type 2 diabetes had gaps in the use of medications for managing blood glucose, hypertension, and lipids, in an analysis of nationally representative U.S. survey data.

A mean of 19.5%, 17.1%, and 43.3% of survey participants had inconsistent use of glucose-, BP-, or lipid-lowering medications, respectively, over 2 years in a series of successive 2-year surveys in 2005-2019.

A new group of participants was enrolled for each successive 2-year survey.

“We found persistent and sometimes increasing gaps in continuity of use of these [glycemia, hypertension, and lipid] treatments at the national level,” the researchers wrote.

Moreover, “this outcome was found despite long-lasting guidelines that generally recommend medications as an ongoing part of therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes to reduce macrovascular and microvascular disease risk,” they stressed.

The data did not distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes, but more than 90% of diabetes diagnoses in the United States are type 2 diabetes, the researchers noted.

Therefore, it is “correct, our findings primarily reflect type 2 diabetes,” lead author Puneet Kaur Chehal, PhD, assistant professor, Emory University, Atlanta, clarified in an email.

“The clinical guidelines for treatment of type 1 diabetes are distinct,” she added, so “it is difficult to draw any conclusions from our study for this population.”

“To observe national trends in continuous use decrease at the same time that diabetes complications are increasing and physicians are guided to shift away from treat-to-target and towards individual patient needs certainly caught our attention,” she said.

“Our findings highlight the need for additional research to understand what is going on here,” according to Dr. Chehal.

“We did not observe levels of glucose (or blood pressure and lipids) to explore if the decrease in glucose-lowering drugs was warranted,” she added. “Our evidence of differences in continuity in use across subgroups (by race/ethnicity, payer, and age) does warrant further analysis of whether the decreasing trends we observe are lapses in access or deliberate changes in treatment.”

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Investigating trends in medication adherence

Type 2 diabetes is a chronic condition and medications to control blood glucose, BP, and lipids lower the risk of diabetes-associated complications, Dr. Chehal and colleagues wrote.  

After years of improvement, these cardiometabolic parameters plateaued and even decreased in 2013-2021, in parallel with increasing rates of diabetes complications, especially in younger adults, certain ethnic minority groups, and people with increased risks.

Suboptimal medication adherence among people with type 2 diabetes is associated with preventable complications and onset of heart disease, kidney disease, or diabetic neuropathy, which can lead to amputation.

However, previous studies of medication adherence were typically limited to patients covered by Medicare or commercial insurance, or studies only had 1-year follow-up.

Therefore, the researchers performed a cross-sectional analysis of a series of 2-year data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), in which participants reply to five interviews in 2 years and new participants are selected each year.

The researchers analyzed data from 15,237 adults aged 18 and older with type 2 diabetes who participated in 1 of 14 2-year MEPS survey panels in 2005-2019.

About half of participants (47.4%) were age 45-64 and about half (54.2%) were women. They were also racially diverse (43% non-Latino White, 25% Latino, and 24% non-Latino Black).

Participants were classified as having “inconsistent use” of glucose-lowering medication, for example, if they did not fill at least one prescription for a glucose-lowering drug in each of the 2 years.

“As long as [the medication] was some type of glucose-, blood pressure–, or lipid-lowering medication and was filled, it counted as continued use for that category,” Dr. Chehal explained.

They are preparing another paper that explores changes in medication regimens.

The current study showed continued use of glucose-lowering medication in both years decreased from 84.5% in 2005-2006 to 77.4% in 2018-2019, no use of glucose-lowering medication in either of the 2 years increased from 8.1% in 2005-2006 to 12.9% in 2018-2019, inconsistent use of glucose-lowering medication increased from 3.3% in 2005-2006 to 7.1% in 2018-2019, and new use of glucose-lowering medications in year 2 fluctuated between 2% and 4% across panels.

It also showed inconsistent use of BP-lowering medication increased from 3.9% in 2005-2006 to 9.0% in 2016-2017 and inconsistent use of lipid-lowering medication increased to a high of 9.9% in 2017-2018.

Younger and Black participants were less likely to consistently use glucose-lowering medication, Latino patients were less likely to consistently use BP-lowering medications, and Black and Latino patients were less likely to continuously use lipid-lowering medications. Uninsured adults were more likely to use no medications or use medications inconsistently.

“Changes and inconsistencies in payer formularies and out-of-pocket cost burden, especially among adults with no or insufficient insurance (i.e., Medicare Part D), remain prominent issues,” according to Dr. Chehal and colleagues.

“Decreases in continuity in use of glucose-lowering medications in recent panels may explain worsening diabetes complications,” they wrote.

This may be partly caused by recommended decreases in sulfonylurea and thiazolidinedione use and increased prescribing of new and more cost-prohibitive medications, they suggested.

Or this may be caused by the shift away from treating aggressively until a target is achieved toward individualizing treatment based on a patient’s age, phenotype, or comorbidities (for example, kidney disease).

The study was supported by a grant from MSD, a subsidiary of Merck, to Emory University. Some of the researchers received grants from Merck for the submitted work or were partially supported by a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health to the Georgia Center for Diabetes Translation Research. Dr. Chehal reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adults with mainly type 2 diabetes had gaps in the use of medications for managing blood glucose, hypertension, and lipids, in an analysis of nationally representative U.S. survey data.

A mean of 19.5%, 17.1%, and 43.3% of survey participants had inconsistent use of glucose-, BP-, or lipid-lowering medications, respectively, over 2 years in a series of successive 2-year surveys in 2005-2019.

A new group of participants was enrolled for each successive 2-year survey.

“We found persistent and sometimes increasing gaps in continuity of use of these [glycemia, hypertension, and lipid] treatments at the national level,” the researchers wrote.

Moreover, “this outcome was found despite long-lasting guidelines that generally recommend medications as an ongoing part of therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes to reduce macrovascular and microvascular disease risk,” they stressed.

The data did not distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes, but more than 90% of diabetes diagnoses in the United States are type 2 diabetes, the researchers noted.

Therefore, it is “correct, our findings primarily reflect type 2 diabetes,” lead author Puneet Kaur Chehal, PhD, assistant professor, Emory University, Atlanta, clarified in an email.

“The clinical guidelines for treatment of type 1 diabetes are distinct,” she added, so “it is difficult to draw any conclusions from our study for this population.”

“To observe national trends in continuous use decrease at the same time that diabetes complications are increasing and physicians are guided to shift away from treat-to-target and towards individual patient needs certainly caught our attention,” she said.

“Our findings highlight the need for additional research to understand what is going on here,” according to Dr. Chehal.

“We did not observe levels of glucose (or blood pressure and lipids) to explore if the decrease in glucose-lowering drugs was warranted,” she added. “Our evidence of differences in continuity in use across subgroups (by race/ethnicity, payer, and age) does warrant further analysis of whether the decreasing trends we observe are lapses in access or deliberate changes in treatment.”

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Investigating trends in medication adherence

Type 2 diabetes is a chronic condition and medications to control blood glucose, BP, and lipids lower the risk of diabetes-associated complications, Dr. Chehal and colleagues wrote.  

After years of improvement, these cardiometabolic parameters plateaued and even decreased in 2013-2021, in parallel with increasing rates of diabetes complications, especially in younger adults, certain ethnic minority groups, and people with increased risks.

Suboptimal medication adherence among people with type 2 diabetes is associated with preventable complications and onset of heart disease, kidney disease, or diabetic neuropathy, which can lead to amputation.

However, previous studies of medication adherence were typically limited to patients covered by Medicare or commercial insurance, or studies only had 1-year follow-up.

Therefore, the researchers performed a cross-sectional analysis of a series of 2-year data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), in which participants reply to five interviews in 2 years and new participants are selected each year.

The researchers analyzed data from 15,237 adults aged 18 and older with type 2 diabetes who participated in 1 of 14 2-year MEPS survey panels in 2005-2019.

About half of participants (47.4%) were age 45-64 and about half (54.2%) were women. They were also racially diverse (43% non-Latino White, 25% Latino, and 24% non-Latino Black).

Participants were classified as having “inconsistent use” of glucose-lowering medication, for example, if they did not fill at least one prescription for a glucose-lowering drug in each of the 2 years.

“As long as [the medication] was some type of glucose-, blood pressure–, or lipid-lowering medication and was filled, it counted as continued use for that category,” Dr. Chehal explained.

They are preparing another paper that explores changes in medication regimens.

The current study showed continued use of glucose-lowering medication in both years decreased from 84.5% in 2005-2006 to 77.4% in 2018-2019, no use of glucose-lowering medication in either of the 2 years increased from 8.1% in 2005-2006 to 12.9% in 2018-2019, inconsistent use of glucose-lowering medication increased from 3.3% in 2005-2006 to 7.1% in 2018-2019, and new use of glucose-lowering medications in year 2 fluctuated between 2% and 4% across panels.

It also showed inconsistent use of BP-lowering medication increased from 3.9% in 2005-2006 to 9.0% in 2016-2017 and inconsistent use of lipid-lowering medication increased to a high of 9.9% in 2017-2018.

Younger and Black participants were less likely to consistently use glucose-lowering medication, Latino patients were less likely to consistently use BP-lowering medications, and Black and Latino patients were less likely to continuously use lipid-lowering medications. Uninsured adults were more likely to use no medications or use medications inconsistently.

“Changes and inconsistencies in payer formularies and out-of-pocket cost burden, especially among adults with no or insufficient insurance (i.e., Medicare Part D), remain prominent issues,” according to Dr. Chehal and colleagues.

“Decreases in continuity in use of glucose-lowering medications in recent panels may explain worsening diabetes complications,” they wrote.

This may be partly caused by recommended decreases in sulfonylurea and thiazolidinedione use and increased prescribing of new and more cost-prohibitive medications, they suggested.

Or this may be caused by the shift away from treating aggressively until a target is achieved toward individualizing treatment based on a patient’s age, phenotype, or comorbidities (for example, kidney disease).

The study was supported by a grant from MSD, a subsidiary of Merck, to Emory University. Some of the researchers received grants from Merck for the submitted work or were partially supported by a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health to the Georgia Center for Diabetes Translation Research. Dr. Chehal reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Evidence supporting medications that slow the heart rate (HR), notably beta-blockers, is overwhelming in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. Underwhelming, however, is clinical trial support for such agents in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).
 

Indeed, at least for some such patients, a treatment that modestly accelerates resting HR may be a more promising strategy, suggests an early line of research that challenges prevalent thinking about HFpEF therapy.

In a small, randomized test of the idea, patients with HFpEF and standard pacemakers set to a backup resting HR a bit higher than a standard of care 60 bpm, usually to about 75 bpm, reaped important quality of life benefits.

More strikingly, their natriuretic peptide levels and burden of atrial fibrillation (AFib) fell significantly, the latter by 27% over 1 year.

The trial enrolled only HFpEF patients with pacemakers previously implanted for sick sinus syndrome or atrioventricular block. But researchers say their 107-patient study called myPACE – if confirmed in larger, multicenter trials – lays the groundwork for a device therapy that is broadly useful, potentially, in patients with “preclinical or overt” HFpEF.

Indeed, some of the intervention’s “quite substantial” benefits rivaled or surpassed what his group has observed with available HFpEF drug therapies, including the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, observed Markus Meyer, MD, PhD, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Moreover, the study may be “the first to show that, with this approach, we can actually also reduce atrial fibrillation,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Meyer said his group is “confident” that the HR-modulation strategy will be successful in appropriate clinical trials and that “pacemakers, in the end, will become a treatment modality for HFpEF.”

Meyer is senior author on the trial’s publication in JAMA Cardiology in JAMA Cardiology (2023 Feb 1. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2022.5320), with lead author Margaret Infeld, MD, University of Vermont, Burlington.

The trial entered pacemaker patients with HFpEF of stage B or C – that is, either asymptomatic with structural disease or fully symptomatic. But, Dr. Meyer said, “we saw that the treatment effect was much more pronounced in the patients who had overt heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.”
 

Challenging beta-blocker dogma

The study, the report states, “contradicts canonical thinking” by suggesting HFpEF patients may benefit from a higher resting heart rate, which would presumably shorten diastolic filling time. It also “may help reduce the overprescription of beta-blockers to allow higher heart rates in this population.”

Indeed, Dr. Meyer observed, no one really knows whether beta-blockers work in HFpEF, “because they really have never been studied in a sufficiently powered randomized controlled trial.”

The current study “basically rewrites what we know about the pathophysiology of this form of clinical heart failure,” said Michael R. Zile, MD, Medical University of South Carolina and Veterans Affairs Medical Center, both in Charleston, who was not part of the trial or report.

Previously in HFpEF, Dr. Zile said in an interview, “everybody thought you needed to make diastole longer to give the ventricle a longer time to fill. And none of that really made any sense. It was just sort of accepted as dogma.”

The idea led to widespread use of beta-blockers in HFpEF but “turned out just not to be true.” Indeed, European and North American guidelines, Dr. Zile observed, “have all taken beta-blockers out of the equation for HFpEF” except for treating comorbidities that can be associated with HFpEF, like hypertension or AFib.

Many patients with HFpEF and chronotropic incompetence could be provided with standard pacemakers with primarily conduction-system pacing but are not getting them, he observed.

The current study might help change that. No one is suggesting, based on the current study, “that we start putting pacemakers in every single patient with HFpEF,” Dr. Zile said. Still, for HFpEF patients already with a pacemaker, the study provides “reasonable assurance” that its criteria for elevated resting HR may well improve symptoms.

Moreover, it suggests such pacemakers, programmed as in the study, might potentially give a boost to HFpEF patients without chronotropic incompetence but with persisting symptoms despite guideline-directed drug therapy. That’s certainly worth exploring in further trials, Dr. Zile said.
 

How the study worked

The single-center trial entered 107 participants with HFpEF and pacemakers set, at baseline, to a backup resting HR of 60 bpm; their age averaged 75 and 48% were women. Only patients with devices for atrial pacing, conduction-system pacing, or biventricular pacing – which are unlikely to promote ventricular dyssynchrony – were included.

They were randomly assigned, double-blind, to have their devices set to an accelerated backup rate or to be continued at 60 bpm. The backup resting rate set for the intervention group’s 50 patients was individualized based on height and other factors; the median was 75 bpm.

Scores on the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, the primary endpoint, improved in the intervention group, compared with baseline, by about 11 points after 1 month and by 15 points after 1 year (P < .001).

The scores in the usual-care group deteriorated by half a point and by 3.5 points at 1 month and 1 year (P = .03), respectively.

Consistent advantages for the accelerated-HR strategy were evident throughout the major secondary endpoints. For example, levels of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide fell an average 109 pg/dL after 1 month in the accelerated-HR group and rose a mean of 128 pg/dL in the usual-care group (P = .02).

Mean daily pacemaker-monitored activity level rose by 47 minutes by 1 year in the accelerated-HR group, compared with a drop of 22 minutes for those assigned to the standard-care rate (P < .001).

AFib was detected in 18% of intervention patients at the 1-year follow-up, down from 31% at baseline. Their risk ratio for AFib at 1 year was 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.99, P = .04), compared with the control group.

In other patients with HFpEF “we have done pacing studies where we just ramped up the pacing rate, and we see that these pressures in the left atrium actually drop immediately,” Dr. Meyer said. It’s that “unburdening of the atria,” he added, that probably leads to the reduction in AFib.

Dr. Meyer reported holding a patent for pacemakers for HFpEF licensed to Medtronic. Dr. Zile said he consults for Medtronic and has no other relevant financial relationships.

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

Evidence supporting medications that slow the heart rate (HR), notably beta-blockers, is overwhelming in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. Underwhelming, however, is clinical trial support for such agents in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).
 

Indeed, at least for some such patients, a treatment that modestly accelerates resting HR may be a more promising strategy, suggests an early line of research that challenges prevalent thinking about HFpEF therapy.

In a small, randomized test of the idea, patients with HFpEF and standard pacemakers set to a backup resting HR a bit higher than a standard of care 60 bpm, usually to about 75 bpm, reaped important quality of life benefits.

More strikingly, their natriuretic peptide levels and burden of atrial fibrillation (AFib) fell significantly, the latter by 27% over 1 year.

The trial enrolled only HFpEF patients with pacemakers previously implanted for sick sinus syndrome or atrioventricular block. But researchers say their 107-patient study called myPACE – if confirmed in larger, multicenter trials – lays the groundwork for a device therapy that is broadly useful, potentially, in patients with “preclinical or overt” HFpEF.

Indeed, some of the intervention’s “quite substantial” benefits rivaled or surpassed what his group has observed with available HFpEF drug therapies, including the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, observed Markus Meyer, MD, PhD, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Moreover, the study may be “the first to show that, with this approach, we can actually also reduce atrial fibrillation,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Meyer said his group is “confident” that the HR-modulation strategy will be successful in appropriate clinical trials and that “pacemakers, in the end, will become a treatment modality for HFpEF.”

Meyer is senior author on the trial’s publication in JAMA Cardiology in JAMA Cardiology (2023 Feb 1. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2022.5320), with lead author Margaret Infeld, MD, University of Vermont, Burlington.

The trial entered pacemaker patients with HFpEF of stage B or C – that is, either asymptomatic with structural disease or fully symptomatic. But, Dr. Meyer said, “we saw that the treatment effect was much more pronounced in the patients who had overt heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.”
 

Challenging beta-blocker dogma

The study, the report states, “contradicts canonical thinking” by suggesting HFpEF patients may benefit from a higher resting heart rate, which would presumably shorten diastolic filling time. It also “may help reduce the overprescription of beta-blockers to allow higher heart rates in this population.”

Indeed, Dr. Meyer observed, no one really knows whether beta-blockers work in HFpEF, “because they really have never been studied in a sufficiently powered randomized controlled trial.”

The current study “basically rewrites what we know about the pathophysiology of this form of clinical heart failure,” said Michael R. Zile, MD, Medical University of South Carolina and Veterans Affairs Medical Center, both in Charleston, who was not part of the trial or report.

Previously in HFpEF, Dr. Zile said in an interview, “everybody thought you needed to make diastole longer to give the ventricle a longer time to fill. And none of that really made any sense. It was just sort of accepted as dogma.”

The idea led to widespread use of beta-blockers in HFpEF but “turned out just not to be true.” Indeed, European and North American guidelines, Dr. Zile observed, “have all taken beta-blockers out of the equation for HFpEF” except for treating comorbidities that can be associated with HFpEF, like hypertension or AFib.

Many patients with HFpEF and chronotropic incompetence could be provided with standard pacemakers with primarily conduction-system pacing but are not getting them, he observed.

The current study might help change that. No one is suggesting, based on the current study, “that we start putting pacemakers in every single patient with HFpEF,” Dr. Zile said. Still, for HFpEF patients already with a pacemaker, the study provides “reasonable assurance” that its criteria for elevated resting HR may well improve symptoms.

Moreover, it suggests such pacemakers, programmed as in the study, might potentially give a boost to HFpEF patients without chronotropic incompetence but with persisting symptoms despite guideline-directed drug therapy. That’s certainly worth exploring in further trials, Dr. Zile said.
 

How the study worked

The single-center trial entered 107 participants with HFpEF and pacemakers set, at baseline, to a backup resting HR of 60 bpm; their age averaged 75 and 48% were women. Only patients with devices for atrial pacing, conduction-system pacing, or biventricular pacing – which are unlikely to promote ventricular dyssynchrony – were included.

They were randomly assigned, double-blind, to have their devices set to an accelerated backup rate or to be continued at 60 bpm. The backup resting rate set for the intervention group’s 50 patients was individualized based on height and other factors; the median was 75 bpm.

Scores on the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, the primary endpoint, improved in the intervention group, compared with baseline, by about 11 points after 1 month and by 15 points after 1 year (P < .001).

The scores in the usual-care group deteriorated by half a point and by 3.5 points at 1 month and 1 year (P = .03), respectively.

Consistent advantages for the accelerated-HR strategy were evident throughout the major secondary endpoints. For example, levels of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide fell an average 109 pg/dL after 1 month in the accelerated-HR group and rose a mean of 128 pg/dL in the usual-care group (P = .02).

Mean daily pacemaker-monitored activity level rose by 47 minutes by 1 year in the accelerated-HR group, compared with a drop of 22 minutes for those assigned to the standard-care rate (P < .001).

AFib was detected in 18% of intervention patients at the 1-year follow-up, down from 31% at baseline. Their risk ratio for AFib at 1 year was 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.99, P = .04), compared with the control group.

In other patients with HFpEF “we have done pacing studies where we just ramped up the pacing rate, and we see that these pressures in the left atrium actually drop immediately,” Dr. Meyer said. It’s that “unburdening of the atria,” he added, that probably leads to the reduction in AFib.

Dr. Meyer reported holding a patent for pacemakers for HFpEF licensed to Medtronic. Dr. Zile said he consults for Medtronic and has no other relevant financial relationships.

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

Evidence supporting medications that slow the heart rate (HR), notably beta-blockers, is overwhelming in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. Underwhelming, however, is clinical trial support for such agents in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).
 

Indeed, at least for some such patients, a treatment that modestly accelerates resting HR may be a more promising strategy, suggests an early line of research that challenges prevalent thinking about HFpEF therapy.

In a small, randomized test of the idea, patients with HFpEF and standard pacemakers set to a backup resting HR a bit higher than a standard of care 60 bpm, usually to about 75 bpm, reaped important quality of life benefits.

More strikingly, their natriuretic peptide levels and burden of atrial fibrillation (AFib) fell significantly, the latter by 27% over 1 year.

The trial enrolled only HFpEF patients with pacemakers previously implanted for sick sinus syndrome or atrioventricular block. But researchers say their 107-patient study called myPACE – if confirmed in larger, multicenter trials – lays the groundwork for a device therapy that is broadly useful, potentially, in patients with “preclinical or overt” HFpEF.

Indeed, some of the intervention’s “quite substantial” benefits rivaled or surpassed what his group has observed with available HFpEF drug therapies, including the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, observed Markus Meyer, MD, PhD, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Moreover, the study may be “the first to show that, with this approach, we can actually also reduce atrial fibrillation,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Meyer said his group is “confident” that the HR-modulation strategy will be successful in appropriate clinical trials and that “pacemakers, in the end, will become a treatment modality for HFpEF.”

Meyer is senior author on the trial’s publication in JAMA Cardiology in JAMA Cardiology (2023 Feb 1. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2022.5320), with lead author Margaret Infeld, MD, University of Vermont, Burlington.

The trial entered pacemaker patients with HFpEF of stage B or C – that is, either asymptomatic with structural disease or fully symptomatic. But, Dr. Meyer said, “we saw that the treatment effect was much more pronounced in the patients who had overt heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.”
 

Challenging beta-blocker dogma

The study, the report states, “contradicts canonical thinking” by suggesting HFpEF patients may benefit from a higher resting heart rate, which would presumably shorten diastolic filling time. It also “may help reduce the overprescription of beta-blockers to allow higher heart rates in this population.”

Indeed, Dr. Meyer observed, no one really knows whether beta-blockers work in HFpEF, “because they really have never been studied in a sufficiently powered randomized controlled trial.”

The current study “basically rewrites what we know about the pathophysiology of this form of clinical heart failure,” said Michael R. Zile, MD, Medical University of South Carolina and Veterans Affairs Medical Center, both in Charleston, who was not part of the trial or report.

Previously in HFpEF, Dr. Zile said in an interview, “everybody thought you needed to make diastole longer to give the ventricle a longer time to fill. And none of that really made any sense. It was just sort of accepted as dogma.”

The idea led to widespread use of beta-blockers in HFpEF but “turned out just not to be true.” Indeed, European and North American guidelines, Dr. Zile observed, “have all taken beta-blockers out of the equation for HFpEF” except for treating comorbidities that can be associated with HFpEF, like hypertension or AFib.

Many patients with HFpEF and chronotropic incompetence could be provided with standard pacemakers with primarily conduction-system pacing but are not getting them, he observed.

The current study might help change that. No one is suggesting, based on the current study, “that we start putting pacemakers in every single patient with HFpEF,” Dr. Zile said. Still, for HFpEF patients already with a pacemaker, the study provides “reasonable assurance” that its criteria for elevated resting HR may well improve symptoms.

Moreover, it suggests such pacemakers, programmed as in the study, might potentially give a boost to HFpEF patients without chronotropic incompetence but with persisting symptoms despite guideline-directed drug therapy. That’s certainly worth exploring in further trials, Dr. Zile said.
 

How the study worked

The single-center trial entered 107 participants with HFpEF and pacemakers set, at baseline, to a backup resting HR of 60 bpm; their age averaged 75 and 48% were women. Only patients with devices for atrial pacing, conduction-system pacing, or biventricular pacing – which are unlikely to promote ventricular dyssynchrony – were included.

They were randomly assigned, double-blind, to have their devices set to an accelerated backup rate or to be continued at 60 bpm. The backup resting rate set for the intervention group’s 50 patients was individualized based on height and other factors; the median was 75 bpm.

Scores on the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, the primary endpoint, improved in the intervention group, compared with baseline, by about 11 points after 1 month and by 15 points after 1 year (P < .001).

The scores in the usual-care group deteriorated by half a point and by 3.5 points at 1 month and 1 year (P = .03), respectively.

Consistent advantages for the accelerated-HR strategy were evident throughout the major secondary endpoints. For example, levels of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide fell an average 109 pg/dL after 1 month in the accelerated-HR group and rose a mean of 128 pg/dL in the usual-care group (P = .02).

Mean daily pacemaker-monitored activity level rose by 47 minutes by 1 year in the accelerated-HR group, compared with a drop of 22 minutes for those assigned to the standard-care rate (P < .001).

AFib was detected in 18% of intervention patients at the 1-year follow-up, down from 31% at baseline. Their risk ratio for AFib at 1 year was 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.99, P = .04), compared with the control group.

In other patients with HFpEF “we have done pacing studies where we just ramped up the pacing rate, and we see that these pressures in the left atrium actually drop immediately,” Dr. Meyer said. It’s that “unburdening of the atria,” he added, that probably leads to the reduction in AFib.

Dr. Meyer reported holding a patent for pacemakers for HFpEF licensed to Medtronic. Dr. Zile said he consults for Medtronic and has no other relevant financial relationships.

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

The longer people had diabetes, the greater their rate of incident heart failure, suggests a recently published review of prospectively collected observational data from nearly 24,000 people with diabetes in the UK Biobank.

The findings “add to the growing body of evidence suggesting that duration of diabetes is an important and independent determinant of heart failure among patients with diabetes,” comments Justin B. Echouffo-Tcheugui, MD, PhD, in an accompanying editorial.

Collectively, the new UK Biobank results and prior findings, “provide additional persuasive evidence that the link between duration of diabetes and heart failure is real,” although the physiological mechanisms behind the relationship remain incompletely understood, wrote Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui, an endocrinologist at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

“The duration of diabetes may reflect cumulative effects of various adverse processes in the setting of diabetes” that result in “intrinsic myocardial lesions,” he suggested. These adverse processes might include not only hyperglycemia, but also glucotoxicity, lipotoxicity, hyperinsulinemia, advanced glycosylation end products, oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, cardiac autonomic neuropathy, and coronary microvascular dysfunction. Long-duration diabetes may also contribute to declining kidney function, which can further worsen heart failure risk.

The upshot is that clinicians may need to consider more systematically the duration of diabetes when assessing people with diabetes for heart failure.

Existing risk-assessment tools for predicting heart failure in people with diabetes “have not always accounted for diabetes duration,” Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui noted.
 

Intensify heart failure detection with longer diabetes duration

“Active heart failure detection should perhaps be intensified with increased diabetes duration,” Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui suggested in his editorial. He noted that a 2022 consensus report by the American Diabetes Association recommends clinicians measure natriuretic peptide or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin in all people with diabetes “on at least a yearly basis to identify the earliest heart failure stages and implement strategies to prevent transition to symptomatic heart failure.”

The UK Biobank study was run by investigators primarily based in China and included data from 23,754 people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and no heart failure at baseline. The prospectively collected data allowed for a median follow-up of 11.7 years, during which time 2,081 people developed incident heart failure.

In an analysis that divided participants into four categories of diabetes duration (< 5 years, 5-9 years, 10-14 years, and ≥ 15 years) and adjusted for potential confounders, heart failure incidence showed a significant 32% increased incidence among those with diabetes for at least 15 years, compared with those with diabetes for less than 5 years. People with a diabetes duration of 5-14 years showed a trend toward having more incident heart failure, compared with those with diabetes for less than 5 years, but the difference was not significant. 

An adjusted analysis also showed poor glycemic control at baseline (hemoglobin A1c ≥ 8.0%) significantly linked with a 46% increased incidence of heart failure, compared with those with baseline A1c less than 7.0%.
 

Additive effect?

When the authors analyzed the effect of both these variables, they saw a roughly additive effect.

Patients with diabetes for at least 15 years and a baseline A1c of at least 8.0% had a 98% increased incidence of heart failure, compared with those who had diabetes for less than 5 years and a baseline A1c less than 7.0%, after adjustment. This association was independent of age, sex, and race.

These findings “highlight the paramount role of the duration of diabetes and its interaction with glycemic control in the development of heart failure,” the authors concluded. “Long duration of diabetes and poor glycemic control may result in structural and functional changes in the myocardium, which is likely to underlie the pathogenesis of heart failure among individuals with diabetes.”

In his editorial, Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui lauded the report for its “robust” analyses that included a large sample and accounted for key confounders, such as glycemic control. However, he also cited eight “shortcomings” of the study, including its sole reliance on A1c levels to identify diabetes, a likely underestimation of diabetes duration, the lumping together of people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and lack of a subanalysis of incident heart failure in those with preserved or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.

Among prior reports of evidence also suggesting an effect of diabetes duration on incident heart failure, Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui cited a study he led, published in 2021, that analyzed prospective, longitudinal, observational data from 9,734 adults enrolled in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study. The results showed that, compared with those without diabetes, the incidence of heart failure rose with longer diabetes duration, with the highest risk among those with diabetes for at least 15 years, who had a 2.8-fold increase in heart failure versus the reference group. Each 5-year increase in diabetes duration was associated with a significant 17% relative increase in heart failure incidence.

The study received no commercial funding. The authors and editorialist reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The longer people had diabetes, the greater their rate of incident heart failure, suggests a recently published review of prospectively collected observational data from nearly 24,000 people with diabetes in the UK Biobank.

The findings “add to the growing body of evidence suggesting that duration of diabetes is an important and independent determinant of heart failure among patients with diabetes,” comments Justin B. Echouffo-Tcheugui, MD, PhD, in an accompanying editorial.

Collectively, the new UK Biobank results and prior findings, “provide additional persuasive evidence that the link between duration of diabetes and heart failure is real,” although the physiological mechanisms behind the relationship remain incompletely understood, wrote Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui, an endocrinologist at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

“The duration of diabetes may reflect cumulative effects of various adverse processes in the setting of diabetes” that result in “intrinsic myocardial lesions,” he suggested. These adverse processes might include not only hyperglycemia, but also glucotoxicity, lipotoxicity, hyperinsulinemia, advanced glycosylation end products, oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, cardiac autonomic neuropathy, and coronary microvascular dysfunction. Long-duration diabetes may also contribute to declining kidney function, which can further worsen heart failure risk.

The upshot is that clinicians may need to consider more systematically the duration of diabetes when assessing people with diabetes for heart failure.

Existing risk-assessment tools for predicting heart failure in people with diabetes “have not always accounted for diabetes duration,” Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui noted.
 

Intensify heart failure detection with longer diabetes duration

“Active heart failure detection should perhaps be intensified with increased diabetes duration,” Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui suggested in his editorial. He noted that a 2022 consensus report by the American Diabetes Association recommends clinicians measure natriuretic peptide or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin in all people with diabetes “on at least a yearly basis to identify the earliest heart failure stages and implement strategies to prevent transition to symptomatic heart failure.”

The UK Biobank study was run by investigators primarily based in China and included data from 23,754 people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and no heart failure at baseline. The prospectively collected data allowed for a median follow-up of 11.7 years, during which time 2,081 people developed incident heart failure.

In an analysis that divided participants into four categories of diabetes duration (< 5 years, 5-9 years, 10-14 years, and ≥ 15 years) and adjusted for potential confounders, heart failure incidence showed a significant 32% increased incidence among those with diabetes for at least 15 years, compared with those with diabetes for less than 5 years. People with a diabetes duration of 5-14 years showed a trend toward having more incident heart failure, compared with those with diabetes for less than 5 years, but the difference was not significant. 

An adjusted analysis also showed poor glycemic control at baseline (hemoglobin A1c ≥ 8.0%) significantly linked with a 46% increased incidence of heart failure, compared with those with baseline A1c less than 7.0%.
 

Additive effect?

When the authors analyzed the effect of both these variables, they saw a roughly additive effect.

Patients with diabetes for at least 15 years and a baseline A1c of at least 8.0% had a 98% increased incidence of heart failure, compared with those who had diabetes for less than 5 years and a baseline A1c less than 7.0%, after adjustment. This association was independent of age, sex, and race.

These findings “highlight the paramount role of the duration of diabetes and its interaction with glycemic control in the development of heart failure,” the authors concluded. “Long duration of diabetes and poor glycemic control may result in structural and functional changes in the myocardium, which is likely to underlie the pathogenesis of heart failure among individuals with diabetes.”

In his editorial, Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui lauded the report for its “robust” analyses that included a large sample and accounted for key confounders, such as glycemic control. However, he also cited eight “shortcomings” of the study, including its sole reliance on A1c levels to identify diabetes, a likely underestimation of diabetes duration, the lumping together of people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and lack of a subanalysis of incident heart failure in those with preserved or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.

Among prior reports of evidence also suggesting an effect of diabetes duration on incident heart failure, Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui cited a study he led, published in 2021, that analyzed prospective, longitudinal, observational data from 9,734 adults enrolled in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study. The results showed that, compared with those without diabetes, the incidence of heart failure rose with longer diabetes duration, with the highest risk among those with diabetes for at least 15 years, who had a 2.8-fold increase in heart failure versus the reference group. Each 5-year increase in diabetes duration was associated with a significant 17% relative increase in heart failure incidence.

The study received no commercial funding. The authors and editorialist reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The longer people had diabetes, the greater their rate of incident heart failure, suggests a recently published review of prospectively collected observational data from nearly 24,000 people with diabetes in the UK Biobank.

The findings “add to the growing body of evidence suggesting that duration of diabetes is an important and independent determinant of heart failure among patients with diabetes,” comments Justin B. Echouffo-Tcheugui, MD, PhD, in an accompanying editorial.

Collectively, the new UK Biobank results and prior findings, “provide additional persuasive evidence that the link between duration of diabetes and heart failure is real,” although the physiological mechanisms behind the relationship remain incompletely understood, wrote Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui, an endocrinologist at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore.

“The duration of diabetes may reflect cumulative effects of various adverse processes in the setting of diabetes” that result in “intrinsic myocardial lesions,” he suggested. These adverse processes might include not only hyperglycemia, but also glucotoxicity, lipotoxicity, hyperinsulinemia, advanced glycosylation end products, oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, cardiac autonomic neuropathy, and coronary microvascular dysfunction. Long-duration diabetes may also contribute to declining kidney function, which can further worsen heart failure risk.

The upshot is that clinicians may need to consider more systematically the duration of diabetes when assessing people with diabetes for heart failure.

Existing risk-assessment tools for predicting heart failure in people with diabetes “have not always accounted for diabetes duration,” Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui noted.
 

Intensify heart failure detection with longer diabetes duration

“Active heart failure detection should perhaps be intensified with increased diabetes duration,” Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui suggested in his editorial. He noted that a 2022 consensus report by the American Diabetes Association recommends clinicians measure natriuretic peptide or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin in all people with diabetes “on at least a yearly basis to identify the earliest heart failure stages and implement strategies to prevent transition to symptomatic heart failure.”

The UK Biobank study was run by investigators primarily based in China and included data from 23,754 people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and no heart failure at baseline. The prospectively collected data allowed for a median follow-up of 11.7 years, during which time 2,081 people developed incident heart failure.

In an analysis that divided participants into four categories of diabetes duration (< 5 years, 5-9 years, 10-14 years, and ≥ 15 years) and adjusted for potential confounders, heart failure incidence showed a significant 32% increased incidence among those with diabetes for at least 15 years, compared with those with diabetes for less than 5 years. People with a diabetes duration of 5-14 years showed a trend toward having more incident heart failure, compared with those with diabetes for less than 5 years, but the difference was not significant. 

An adjusted analysis also showed poor glycemic control at baseline (hemoglobin A1c ≥ 8.0%) significantly linked with a 46% increased incidence of heart failure, compared with those with baseline A1c less than 7.0%.
 

Additive effect?

When the authors analyzed the effect of both these variables, they saw a roughly additive effect.

Patients with diabetes for at least 15 years and a baseline A1c of at least 8.0% had a 98% increased incidence of heart failure, compared with those who had diabetes for less than 5 years and a baseline A1c less than 7.0%, after adjustment. This association was independent of age, sex, and race.

These findings “highlight the paramount role of the duration of diabetes and its interaction with glycemic control in the development of heart failure,” the authors concluded. “Long duration of diabetes and poor glycemic control may result in structural and functional changes in the myocardium, which is likely to underlie the pathogenesis of heart failure among individuals with diabetes.”

In his editorial, Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui lauded the report for its “robust” analyses that included a large sample and accounted for key confounders, such as glycemic control. However, he also cited eight “shortcomings” of the study, including its sole reliance on A1c levels to identify diabetes, a likely underestimation of diabetes duration, the lumping together of people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and lack of a subanalysis of incident heart failure in those with preserved or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.

Among prior reports of evidence also suggesting an effect of diabetes duration on incident heart failure, Dr. Echouffo-Tcheugui cited a study he led, published in 2021, that analyzed prospective, longitudinal, observational data from 9,734 adults enrolled in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study. The results showed that, compared with those without diabetes, the incidence of heart failure rose with longer diabetes duration, with the highest risk among those with diabetes for at least 15 years, who had a 2.8-fold increase in heart failure versus the reference group. Each 5-year increase in diabetes duration was associated with a significant 17% relative increase in heart failure incidence.

The study received no commercial funding. The authors and editorialist reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Frequent visits to green spaces such as parks and community gardens are associated with a reduced use of certain prescription medications among city dwellers, a new analysis suggests.

In a cross-sectional cohort study, frequent green space visits were associated with less frequent use of psychotropic, antihypertensive, and asthma medications in urban environments.

Viewing green or so called “blue” spaces (views of lakes, rivers, or other water views) from the home was not associated with reduced medication use.

Flickr-Rickr [CC BY-SA 2.0](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Nature exposure a timely topic

Exposure to natural environments is thought to be beneficial for human health, but the evidence is inconsistent, Dr. Turunen said.

“The potential health benefits of nature exposure is a very timely topic in environmental epidemiology. Scientific evidence indicates that residential exposure to greenery and water bodies might be beneficial, especially for mental, cardiovascular, and respiratory health, but the findings are partly inconsistent and thus, more detailed information is needed,” she said.

In the current cross-sectional study, the investigators surveyed 16,000 residents of three urban areas in Finland – Helsinki, Espoo, and Vantaa – over the period of 12 months from 2015 to 2016, about their exposure to green and blue spaces.

Of this number, 43% responded, resulting in 7,321 participants.

In the questionnaire, green areas were defined as forests, parks, fields, meadows, boglands, and rocks, as well as any playgrounds or playing fields within those areas, and blue areas were defined as sea, lakes, and rivers. 

Residents were asked about their use of anxiolytics, hypnotics, antidepressants, antihypertensives, and asthma medication within the past 7 to 52 weeks.

They were also asked if they had any green and blue views from any of the windows of their home, and if so, how often did they look out of those windows, selecting “seldom” to “often.”

They were also asked about how much time they spent outdoors in green spaces during the months of May and September. If so, did they spend any of that time exercising? Options ranged from never to five or more times a week.

In addition, amounts of residential green and blue spaces located within a 1 km radius of the respondents’ homes were assessed from land use and land cover data.

Covariates included health behaviors, outdoor air pollution and noise, and socioeconomic status, including household income and educational attainment.

Results showed that the presence of green and blue spaces at home, and the amount of time spent viewing them, had no association with the use of the prescribed medicines.

However, greater frequency of green space visits was associated with lower odds of using the medications surveyed.

For psychotropic medications, the odds ratios were 0.67 (95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.82) for 3-4 times per week and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.63-0.96) for 5 or more times per week.

For antihypertensive meds, the ORs were 0.64 (95% CI, 0.52-0.78) for 3-4 times per week and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.48-0.74) for 5 or more times per week.

For asthma medications, the ORs were 0.74 (95% CI, 0.58-0.94) for 3-4 times per week and 0.76 (95% CI, 0.59-0.99) for 5 or more times per week.

The observed associations were attenuated by body mass index.

“We observed that those who reported visiting green spaces often had a slightly lower BMI than those who visited green spaces less often,” Dr. Turunen said. However, no consistent interactions with socioeconomic status indicators were observed.

“We are hoping to see new results from different countries and different settings,” she noted. “Longitudinal studies, especially, are needed. In epidemiology, a large body of consistent evidence is needed to draw strong conclusions and to make recommendations.”
 

Evidence mounts on the benefits of nature

There is growing evidence that exposure to nature could benefit human health, especially mental and cardiovascular health, says Jochem Klompmaker, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of environmental health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston.

Dr. Klompmaker has researched the association between exposure to green spaces and health outcomes related to neurological diseases.

In a study recently published in JAMA Network Open, and reported by this news organization, Dr. Klompmaker and his team found that among a large cohort of about 6.7 million fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in the United States aged 65 or older, living in areas rich with greenery, parks, and waterways was associated with fewer hospitalizations for certain neurological disorders, including Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and related dementias.

Commenting on the current study, Dr. Klompmaker noted its strengths.

“A particular strength of this study is that they used data about the amount of green and blue spaces around the residential addresses of the participants, data about green space visit frequency, and data about green and blue views from home. Most other studies only have data about the amount of green and blue spaces in general,” he said.

“The strong protective associations of frequency of green space visits make sense to me and indicate the importance of one’s actual nature exposure,” he added. “Like the results of our study, these results provide clinicians with more evidence of the importance of being close to nature and of encouraging patients to take more walks. If they live near a park, that could be a good place to be more physically active and reduce stress levels.”

The study was supported by the Academy of Finland and the Ministry of the Environment. Dr. Turunen and Dr. Klompmaker report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Frequent visits to green spaces such as parks and community gardens are associated with a reduced use of certain prescription medications among city dwellers, a new analysis suggests.

In a cross-sectional cohort study, frequent green space visits were associated with less frequent use of psychotropic, antihypertensive, and asthma medications in urban environments.

Viewing green or so called “blue” spaces (views of lakes, rivers, or other water views) from the home was not associated with reduced medication use.

Flickr-Rickr [CC BY-SA 2.0](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Nature exposure a timely topic

Exposure to natural environments is thought to be beneficial for human health, but the evidence is inconsistent, Dr. Turunen said.

“The potential health benefits of nature exposure is a very timely topic in environmental epidemiology. Scientific evidence indicates that residential exposure to greenery and water bodies might be beneficial, especially for mental, cardiovascular, and respiratory health, but the findings are partly inconsistent and thus, more detailed information is needed,” she said.

In the current cross-sectional study, the investigators surveyed 16,000 residents of three urban areas in Finland – Helsinki, Espoo, and Vantaa – over the period of 12 months from 2015 to 2016, about their exposure to green and blue spaces.

Of this number, 43% responded, resulting in 7,321 participants.

In the questionnaire, green areas were defined as forests, parks, fields, meadows, boglands, and rocks, as well as any playgrounds or playing fields within those areas, and blue areas were defined as sea, lakes, and rivers. 

Residents were asked about their use of anxiolytics, hypnotics, antidepressants, antihypertensives, and asthma medication within the past 7 to 52 weeks.

They were also asked if they had any green and blue views from any of the windows of their home, and if so, how often did they look out of those windows, selecting “seldom” to “often.”

They were also asked about how much time they spent outdoors in green spaces during the months of May and September. If so, did they spend any of that time exercising? Options ranged from never to five or more times a week.

In addition, amounts of residential green and blue spaces located within a 1 km radius of the respondents’ homes were assessed from land use and land cover data.

Covariates included health behaviors, outdoor air pollution and noise, and socioeconomic status, including household income and educational attainment.

Results showed that the presence of green and blue spaces at home, and the amount of time spent viewing them, had no association with the use of the prescribed medicines.

However, greater frequency of green space visits was associated with lower odds of using the medications surveyed.

For psychotropic medications, the odds ratios were 0.67 (95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.82) for 3-4 times per week and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.63-0.96) for 5 or more times per week.

For antihypertensive meds, the ORs were 0.64 (95% CI, 0.52-0.78) for 3-4 times per week and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.48-0.74) for 5 or more times per week.

For asthma medications, the ORs were 0.74 (95% CI, 0.58-0.94) for 3-4 times per week and 0.76 (95% CI, 0.59-0.99) for 5 or more times per week.

The observed associations were attenuated by body mass index.

“We observed that those who reported visiting green spaces often had a slightly lower BMI than those who visited green spaces less often,” Dr. Turunen said. However, no consistent interactions with socioeconomic status indicators were observed.

“We are hoping to see new results from different countries and different settings,” she noted. “Longitudinal studies, especially, are needed. In epidemiology, a large body of consistent evidence is needed to draw strong conclusions and to make recommendations.”
 

Evidence mounts on the benefits of nature

There is growing evidence that exposure to nature could benefit human health, especially mental and cardiovascular health, says Jochem Klompmaker, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of environmental health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston.

Dr. Klompmaker has researched the association between exposure to green spaces and health outcomes related to neurological diseases.

In a study recently published in JAMA Network Open, and reported by this news organization, Dr. Klompmaker and his team found that among a large cohort of about 6.7 million fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in the United States aged 65 or older, living in areas rich with greenery, parks, and waterways was associated with fewer hospitalizations for certain neurological disorders, including Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and related dementias.

Commenting on the current study, Dr. Klompmaker noted its strengths.

“A particular strength of this study is that they used data about the amount of green and blue spaces around the residential addresses of the participants, data about green space visit frequency, and data about green and blue views from home. Most other studies only have data about the amount of green and blue spaces in general,” he said.

“The strong protective associations of frequency of green space visits make sense to me and indicate the importance of one’s actual nature exposure,” he added. “Like the results of our study, these results provide clinicians with more evidence of the importance of being close to nature and of encouraging patients to take more walks. If they live near a park, that could be a good place to be more physically active and reduce stress levels.”

The study was supported by the Academy of Finland and the Ministry of the Environment. Dr. Turunen and Dr. Klompmaker report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Frequent visits to green spaces such as parks and community gardens are associated with a reduced use of certain prescription medications among city dwellers, a new analysis suggests.

In a cross-sectional cohort study, frequent green space visits were associated with less frequent use of psychotropic, antihypertensive, and asthma medications in urban environments.

Viewing green or so called “blue” spaces (views of lakes, rivers, or other water views) from the home was not associated with reduced medication use.

Flickr-Rickr [CC BY-SA 2.0](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Nature exposure a timely topic

Exposure to natural environments is thought to be beneficial for human health, but the evidence is inconsistent, Dr. Turunen said.

“The potential health benefits of nature exposure is a very timely topic in environmental epidemiology. Scientific evidence indicates that residential exposure to greenery and water bodies might be beneficial, especially for mental, cardiovascular, and respiratory health, but the findings are partly inconsistent and thus, more detailed information is needed,” she said.

In the current cross-sectional study, the investigators surveyed 16,000 residents of three urban areas in Finland – Helsinki, Espoo, and Vantaa – over the period of 12 months from 2015 to 2016, about their exposure to green and blue spaces.

Of this number, 43% responded, resulting in 7,321 participants.

In the questionnaire, green areas were defined as forests, parks, fields, meadows, boglands, and rocks, as well as any playgrounds or playing fields within those areas, and blue areas were defined as sea, lakes, and rivers. 

Residents were asked about their use of anxiolytics, hypnotics, antidepressants, antihypertensives, and asthma medication within the past 7 to 52 weeks.

They were also asked if they had any green and blue views from any of the windows of their home, and if so, how often did they look out of those windows, selecting “seldom” to “often.”

They were also asked about how much time they spent outdoors in green spaces during the months of May and September. If so, did they spend any of that time exercising? Options ranged from never to five or more times a week.

In addition, amounts of residential green and blue spaces located within a 1 km radius of the respondents’ homes were assessed from land use and land cover data.

Covariates included health behaviors, outdoor air pollution and noise, and socioeconomic status, including household income and educational attainment.

Results showed that the presence of green and blue spaces at home, and the amount of time spent viewing them, had no association with the use of the prescribed medicines.

However, greater frequency of green space visits was associated with lower odds of using the medications surveyed.

For psychotropic medications, the odds ratios were 0.67 (95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.82) for 3-4 times per week and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.63-0.96) for 5 or more times per week.

For antihypertensive meds, the ORs were 0.64 (95% CI, 0.52-0.78) for 3-4 times per week and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.48-0.74) for 5 or more times per week.

For asthma medications, the ORs were 0.74 (95% CI, 0.58-0.94) for 3-4 times per week and 0.76 (95% CI, 0.59-0.99) for 5 or more times per week.

The observed associations were attenuated by body mass index.

“We observed that those who reported visiting green spaces often had a slightly lower BMI than those who visited green spaces less often,” Dr. Turunen said. However, no consistent interactions with socioeconomic status indicators were observed.

“We are hoping to see new results from different countries and different settings,” she noted. “Longitudinal studies, especially, are needed. In epidemiology, a large body of consistent evidence is needed to draw strong conclusions and to make recommendations.”
 

Evidence mounts on the benefits of nature

There is growing evidence that exposure to nature could benefit human health, especially mental and cardiovascular health, says Jochem Klompmaker, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher in the department of environmental health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston.

Dr. Klompmaker has researched the association between exposure to green spaces and health outcomes related to neurological diseases.

In a study recently published in JAMA Network Open, and reported by this news organization, Dr. Klompmaker and his team found that among a large cohort of about 6.7 million fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in the United States aged 65 or older, living in areas rich with greenery, parks, and waterways was associated with fewer hospitalizations for certain neurological disorders, including Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and related dementias.

Commenting on the current study, Dr. Klompmaker noted its strengths.

“A particular strength of this study is that they used data about the amount of green and blue spaces around the residential addresses of the participants, data about green space visit frequency, and data about green and blue views from home. Most other studies only have data about the amount of green and blue spaces in general,” he said.

“The strong protective associations of frequency of green space visits make sense to me and indicate the importance of one’s actual nature exposure,” he added. “Like the results of our study, these results provide clinicians with more evidence of the importance of being close to nature and of encouraging patients to take more walks. If they live near a park, that could be a good place to be more physically active and reduce stress levels.”

The study was supported by the Academy of Finland and the Ministry of the Environment. Dr. Turunen and Dr. Klompmaker report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Functions like sensing and pacing in implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) tend to resist interference from the energy fields generated by MRI, as long as device programming is properly adjusted before the scan.

That applies even to patients with older “legacy” devices implanted before the 2015 advent of MRI-conditional ICDs despite, in practice, prevalent but misguided resistance to obtaining MRI scans in such cases.

Less is known whether such non–MRI-conditional devices, once exposed to MRI, will then reliably deliver antiarrhythmic shocks or antitachycardia pacing (ATP) when needed.

A new cohort study has tried to fill in some of that knowledge gap. It showed no evidence of an excess risk for death or ICD failure to deliver therapy within about 2 years of clinically indicated MRI scans in 629 patients with non–MRI-conditional devices.

The findings, published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine, come with caveats. For example, they’re based on the experience of one, albeit major, center and on MRIs that were for varied indications using 1.5-tesla equipment only.

Despite such safety evidence for appropriately adjusted non–MRI-conditional ICDs, many patients with the devices don›t receive clinically indicated MRI scans due to “perceived risk” that the ICDs won’t then reliably deliver appropriate therapy, observe the authors, led by Joshua Ra, MD, University of California, San Francisco.

Any such risks are “largely theoretical,” but may still explain “why some institutions are shying away from offering MRI exams” to patients with non–MRI-conditional ICDs, Dr. Ra told this news organization.

Many such hospitals refer such patients to more experienced centers, creating “significant logistical barriers in terms of patient access to these MRIs,” he said. “That seems to still be prevalent, unfortunately.”

The current findings “provide another layer of reassurance” that MRI scans in patients with non–MRI-conditional ICDs don’t impair a device’s ability to deliver shocks or ATP, Dr. Ra said.

The cohort consisted of 629 patients with non–MRI-conditional ICDs who underwent 813 clinically indicated MRI exams from 2003 to early 2015 at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Scans performed within 4 weeks of device implantation were excluded because, the report notes, that’s when spontaneous lead dislodgements or changes to device parameters are most likely to occur. Also excluded were patients with permanent epicardial leads, abandoned leads, or subcutaneous ICD lead systems, the report states.

Still, Dr. Ra said, the cohort is fairly representative of “the modern patient population” of non–MRI-conditional ICD recipients.

A total of 4,177 arrhythmia episodes were documented during a median 2.2 years between scans and last device interrogation prior to pulse-generator change-out or lead exchange.

Of note, Dr. Ra observed, the arrhythmias were confirmed in only 85% of the cohort. Most of the remainder were referral patients who were lost to follow-up whose devices were unavailable for interrogation.

Device therapy terminated “nearly all” documented spontaneous arrhythmias in that 85% of patients, the report states. They included 757 episodes of ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF), including 130 that were shocked and the remainder that were managed with ATP. There were also 105 supraventricular tachycardias, all successfully terminated with shocks.

There were no cases of VT or VF detection delay from undersensing or instances of syncope because of “abnormalities” in device detection of arrhythmias, the report states.

Of the 210 known deaths, which occurred a median 1.7 years after the scan, about half were noncardiac and more than a third were cardiac but nonarrhythmic.

Ten patients died from arrhythmia-related cardiac causes, representing 5% of deaths; but 7% of deaths were of undetermined cause.

“No direct relationship of deaths attributable to prior MRI exposure was found or reported,” the report states.

The researchers informally compared outcomes between older and more recently implanted non–MRI-conditional ICDs, the latter presumably with more modern design features. Their data, based on device interrogations, Dr. Ra said, “seem to suggest there were no differences.”

The study was supported by Johns Hopkins University and the National Institutes of Health. Author disclosures are available at apconline.org.

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

Functions like sensing and pacing in implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) tend to resist interference from the energy fields generated by MRI, as long as device programming is properly adjusted before the scan.

That applies even to patients with older “legacy” devices implanted before the 2015 advent of MRI-conditional ICDs despite, in practice, prevalent but misguided resistance to obtaining MRI scans in such cases.

Less is known whether such non–MRI-conditional devices, once exposed to MRI, will then reliably deliver antiarrhythmic shocks or antitachycardia pacing (ATP) when needed.

A new cohort study has tried to fill in some of that knowledge gap. It showed no evidence of an excess risk for death or ICD failure to deliver therapy within about 2 years of clinically indicated MRI scans in 629 patients with non–MRI-conditional devices.

The findings, published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine, come with caveats. For example, they’re based on the experience of one, albeit major, center and on MRIs that were for varied indications using 1.5-tesla equipment only.

Despite such safety evidence for appropriately adjusted non–MRI-conditional ICDs, many patients with the devices don›t receive clinically indicated MRI scans due to “perceived risk” that the ICDs won’t then reliably deliver appropriate therapy, observe the authors, led by Joshua Ra, MD, University of California, San Francisco.

Any such risks are “largely theoretical,” but may still explain “why some institutions are shying away from offering MRI exams” to patients with non–MRI-conditional ICDs, Dr. Ra told this news organization.

Many such hospitals refer such patients to more experienced centers, creating “significant logistical barriers in terms of patient access to these MRIs,” he said. “That seems to still be prevalent, unfortunately.”

The current findings “provide another layer of reassurance” that MRI scans in patients with non–MRI-conditional ICDs don’t impair a device’s ability to deliver shocks or ATP, Dr. Ra said.

The cohort consisted of 629 patients with non–MRI-conditional ICDs who underwent 813 clinically indicated MRI exams from 2003 to early 2015 at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Scans performed within 4 weeks of device implantation were excluded because, the report notes, that’s when spontaneous lead dislodgements or changes to device parameters are most likely to occur. Also excluded were patients with permanent epicardial leads, abandoned leads, or subcutaneous ICD lead systems, the report states.

Still, Dr. Ra said, the cohort is fairly representative of “the modern patient population” of non–MRI-conditional ICD recipients.

A total of 4,177 arrhythmia episodes were documented during a median 2.2 years between scans and last device interrogation prior to pulse-generator change-out or lead exchange.

Of note, Dr. Ra observed, the arrhythmias were confirmed in only 85% of the cohort. Most of the remainder were referral patients who were lost to follow-up whose devices were unavailable for interrogation.

Device therapy terminated “nearly all” documented spontaneous arrhythmias in that 85% of patients, the report states. They included 757 episodes of ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF), including 130 that were shocked and the remainder that were managed with ATP. There were also 105 supraventricular tachycardias, all successfully terminated with shocks.

There were no cases of VT or VF detection delay from undersensing or instances of syncope because of “abnormalities” in device detection of arrhythmias, the report states.

Of the 210 known deaths, which occurred a median 1.7 years after the scan, about half were noncardiac and more than a third were cardiac but nonarrhythmic.

Ten patients died from arrhythmia-related cardiac causes, representing 5% of deaths; but 7% of deaths were of undetermined cause.

“No direct relationship of deaths attributable to prior MRI exposure was found or reported,” the report states.

The researchers informally compared outcomes between older and more recently implanted non–MRI-conditional ICDs, the latter presumably with more modern design features. Their data, based on device interrogations, Dr. Ra said, “seem to suggest there were no differences.”

The study was supported by Johns Hopkins University and the National Institutes of Health. Author disclosures are available at apconline.org.

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

Functions like sensing and pacing in implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) tend to resist interference from the energy fields generated by MRI, as long as device programming is properly adjusted before the scan.

That applies even to patients with older “legacy” devices implanted before the 2015 advent of MRI-conditional ICDs despite, in practice, prevalent but misguided resistance to obtaining MRI scans in such cases.

Less is known whether such non–MRI-conditional devices, once exposed to MRI, will then reliably deliver antiarrhythmic shocks or antitachycardia pacing (ATP) when needed.

A new cohort study has tried to fill in some of that knowledge gap. It showed no evidence of an excess risk for death or ICD failure to deliver therapy within about 2 years of clinically indicated MRI scans in 629 patients with non–MRI-conditional devices.

The findings, published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine, come with caveats. For example, they’re based on the experience of one, albeit major, center and on MRIs that were for varied indications using 1.5-tesla equipment only.

Despite such safety evidence for appropriately adjusted non–MRI-conditional ICDs, many patients with the devices don›t receive clinically indicated MRI scans due to “perceived risk” that the ICDs won’t then reliably deliver appropriate therapy, observe the authors, led by Joshua Ra, MD, University of California, San Francisco.

Any such risks are “largely theoretical,” but may still explain “why some institutions are shying away from offering MRI exams” to patients with non–MRI-conditional ICDs, Dr. Ra told this news organization.

Many such hospitals refer such patients to more experienced centers, creating “significant logistical barriers in terms of patient access to these MRIs,” he said. “That seems to still be prevalent, unfortunately.”

The current findings “provide another layer of reassurance” that MRI scans in patients with non–MRI-conditional ICDs don’t impair a device’s ability to deliver shocks or ATP, Dr. Ra said.

The cohort consisted of 629 patients with non–MRI-conditional ICDs who underwent 813 clinically indicated MRI exams from 2003 to early 2015 at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Scans performed within 4 weeks of device implantation were excluded because, the report notes, that’s when spontaneous lead dislodgements or changes to device parameters are most likely to occur. Also excluded were patients with permanent epicardial leads, abandoned leads, or subcutaneous ICD lead systems, the report states.

Still, Dr. Ra said, the cohort is fairly representative of “the modern patient population” of non–MRI-conditional ICD recipients.

A total of 4,177 arrhythmia episodes were documented during a median 2.2 years between scans and last device interrogation prior to pulse-generator change-out or lead exchange.

Of note, Dr. Ra observed, the arrhythmias were confirmed in only 85% of the cohort. Most of the remainder were referral patients who were lost to follow-up whose devices were unavailable for interrogation.

Device therapy terminated “nearly all” documented spontaneous arrhythmias in that 85% of patients, the report states. They included 757 episodes of ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF), including 130 that were shocked and the remainder that were managed with ATP. There were also 105 supraventricular tachycardias, all successfully terminated with shocks.

There were no cases of VT or VF detection delay from undersensing or instances of syncope because of “abnormalities” in device detection of arrhythmias, the report states.

Of the 210 known deaths, which occurred a median 1.7 years after the scan, about half were noncardiac and more than a third were cardiac but nonarrhythmic.

Ten patients died from arrhythmia-related cardiac causes, representing 5% of deaths; but 7% of deaths were of undetermined cause.

“No direct relationship of deaths attributable to prior MRI exposure was found or reported,” the report states.

The researchers informally compared outcomes between older and more recently implanted non–MRI-conditional ICDs, the latter presumably with more modern design features. Their data, based on device interrogations, Dr. Ra said, “seem to suggest there were no differences.”

The study was supported by Johns Hopkins University and the National Institutes of Health. Author disclosures are available at apconline.org.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. Today we are going to talk about the new Blood Pressure Targets in Adults With Hypertension: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the AAFP. There are very few things that we treat more often than hypertension, so you’d think the guidelines would have been clear a long time ago. Less than 10 years ago, in 2014, JNC 8 (Eighth Joint National Committee) recommended target blood pressure for individuals under 60 to be less than 140/90, and for those older than 60, less than 150/90.

Then, based primarily on the SPRINT trial (which included only people with or at significantly elevated risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease), in 2017 the American Heart Association’s hypertension guidelines lowered the target BP to less than 130/80 for most individuals. It’s a little more nuanced than that, but most of us don’t remember the nuance. I’ve written about my reservations with that statement in the AHA’s journal, Circulation.

Now the American Academy of Family Physicians has updated its recommendations, and they recommend a BP less than 140/90. This is not a small change, as it often takes additional medication to achieve lower BP targets, and additional medicines lead to additional adverse effects. I’m going share with you some details from the new guideline, and then I’m going share my opinion about it.

The AAFP guideline applies to adults with hypertension, with or without cardiovascular disease. In the comprehensive literature review, the trials ran for an average of 3.7 years, and about 75% of the patients in the trials did not have preexisting cardiovascular disease.

The key to their recommendations is that target BPs lower than 140/90 did not show a statistically significant decrease in total mortality. In regard to serious adverse events, though, lower targets led to a nominal increase that didn’t reach statistical significance. Serious adverse events were defined as death or events that required hospitalization or resulted in significant disability. In regard to all other adverse events, including syncope and hypotension, there was a significant increase, with a relative risk of 1.44 (a 44% increase in adverse events). This reflected an absolute risk increase of 3%, compared with the standard target group (specifically 9.8% vs. 6.8%), with a number needed to harm of 33 over 3.7 years.

Another potential harm of low BP targets was the need for an average of one additional medicine to reach lower BP targets. One systematic review cited an eightfold higher withdrawal rate because of adverse events in the lower-target BP groups.

The AAFP guidelines said that, in the comprehensive review of the literature, while there was no difference in mortality or stroke with lower BP targets, a small additional benefit was observed in myocardial infarction – a 16% lower incidence, with a number needed to treat of 137 over 3.7 years.

So that’s the background. Let me now go over the specifics of the AAFP recommendations.

AAFP gives a strong recommendation for a standard BP target of less than 140/90. They go on to say – and grade this next statement as a weak recommendation – that, while treating to a lower BP target does not provide additional mortality benefit, a target BP of less than 135/85 can be considered to lower the risk for MI, noting that lower BP may increase harms. They state that the lower BP target could be considered based on patient preferences and values.

The AAFP guideline is incredibly helpful. The difference in the recommendations of two large societies – American Heart Association and AAFP — stems from two things. I believe that AHA focused on the composite endpoints in trials such as SPRINT, which included only high-risk patients, and the AAFP uses mortality as the driving endpoint in a broader group of patients that included both high- and lower-risk patients.

In addition, it appears that the two organizations weigh adverse events differently in coming to their conclusions. Clearly, we see more adverse events when aiming for a lower BP level, and in my experience, patients care a lot about adverse events.

Interestingly, the International Society of Hypertension recommends an “essential” BP target of less than 140/90 for most individuals, and for those under 65, they provide the option of an “optimal” BP of less than 130/80. Remember that for certain comorbidities there are also other guidelines out there. The American Diabetes Association this year revised its target BP to less than 130/80 for people with diabetes; for prevention of recurrent stroke, guidelines from the AHA/American Stroke Association in 2021 recommend BP less than 130/80, and the International Society for Hypertension as well as the AHA recommends a BP of less than 130/80 for those with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

To repeat, though, the main topic for today is that as a general target, the AAFP guidelines recommend a BP less than 140/90.

Dr. Skolnik is professor, department of family medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed conflicts of interest with AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Bayer.

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

*This article was updated on 2/7/2023.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. Today we are going to talk about the new Blood Pressure Targets in Adults With Hypertension: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the AAFP. There are very few things that we treat more often than hypertension, so you’d think the guidelines would have been clear a long time ago. Less than 10 years ago, in 2014, JNC 8 (Eighth Joint National Committee) recommended target blood pressure for individuals under 60 to be less than 140/90, and for those older than 60, less than 150/90.

Then, based primarily on the SPRINT trial (which included only people with or at significantly elevated risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease), in 2017 the American Heart Association’s hypertension guidelines lowered the target BP to less than 130/80 for most individuals. It’s a little more nuanced than that, but most of us don’t remember the nuance. I’ve written about my reservations with that statement in the AHA’s journal, Circulation.

Now the American Academy of Family Physicians has updated its recommendations, and they recommend a BP less than 140/90. This is not a small change, as it often takes additional medication to achieve lower BP targets, and additional medicines lead to additional adverse effects. I’m going share with you some details from the new guideline, and then I’m going share my opinion about it.

The AAFP guideline applies to adults with hypertension, with or without cardiovascular disease. In the comprehensive literature review, the trials ran for an average of 3.7 years, and about 75% of the patients in the trials did not have preexisting cardiovascular disease.

The key to their recommendations is that target BPs lower than 140/90 did not show a statistically significant decrease in total mortality. In regard to serious adverse events, though, lower targets led to a nominal increase that didn’t reach statistical significance. Serious adverse events were defined as death or events that required hospitalization or resulted in significant disability. In regard to all other adverse events, including syncope and hypotension, there was a significant increase, with a relative risk of 1.44 (a 44% increase in adverse events). This reflected an absolute risk increase of 3%, compared with the standard target group (specifically 9.8% vs. 6.8%), with a number needed to harm of 33 over 3.7 years.

Another potential harm of low BP targets was the need for an average of one additional medicine to reach lower BP targets. One systematic review cited an eightfold higher withdrawal rate because of adverse events in the lower-target BP groups.

The AAFP guidelines said that, in the comprehensive review of the literature, while there was no difference in mortality or stroke with lower BP targets, a small additional benefit was observed in myocardial infarction – a 16% lower incidence, with a number needed to treat of 137 over 3.7 years.

So that’s the background. Let me now go over the specifics of the AAFP recommendations.

AAFP gives a strong recommendation for a standard BP target of less than 140/90. They go on to say – and grade this next statement as a weak recommendation – that, while treating to a lower BP target does not provide additional mortality benefit, a target BP of less than 135/85 can be considered to lower the risk for MI, noting that lower BP may increase harms. They state that the lower BP target could be considered based on patient preferences and values.

The AAFP guideline is incredibly helpful. The difference in the recommendations of two large societies – American Heart Association and AAFP — stems from two things. I believe that AHA focused on the composite endpoints in trials such as SPRINT, which included only high-risk patients, and the AAFP uses mortality as the driving endpoint in a broader group of patients that included both high- and lower-risk patients.

In addition, it appears that the two organizations weigh adverse events differently in coming to their conclusions. Clearly, we see more adverse events when aiming for a lower BP level, and in my experience, patients care a lot about adverse events.

Interestingly, the International Society of Hypertension recommends an “essential” BP target of less than 140/90 for most individuals, and for those under 65, they provide the option of an “optimal” BP of less than 130/80. Remember that for certain comorbidities there are also other guidelines out there. The American Diabetes Association this year revised its target BP to less than 130/80 for people with diabetes; for prevention of recurrent stroke, guidelines from the AHA/American Stroke Association in 2021 recommend BP less than 130/80, and the International Society for Hypertension as well as the AHA recommends a BP of less than 130/80 for those with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

To repeat, though, the main topic for today is that as a general target, the AAFP guidelines recommend a BP less than 140/90.

Dr. Skolnik is professor, department of family medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed conflicts of interest with AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Bayer.

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

*This article was updated on 2/7/2023.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

I’m Dr. Neil Skolnik. Today we are going to talk about the new Blood Pressure Targets in Adults With Hypertension: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the AAFP. There are very few things that we treat more often than hypertension, so you’d think the guidelines would have been clear a long time ago. Less than 10 years ago, in 2014, JNC 8 (Eighth Joint National Committee) recommended target blood pressure for individuals under 60 to be less than 140/90, and for those older than 60, less than 150/90.

Then, based primarily on the SPRINT trial (which included only people with or at significantly elevated risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease), in 2017 the American Heart Association’s hypertension guidelines lowered the target BP to less than 130/80 for most individuals. It’s a little more nuanced than that, but most of us don’t remember the nuance. I’ve written about my reservations with that statement in the AHA’s journal, Circulation.

Now the American Academy of Family Physicians has updated its recommendations, and they recommend a BP less than 140/90. This is not a small change, as it often takes additional medication to achieve lower BP targets, and additional medicines lead to additional adverse effects. I’m going share with you some details from the new guideline, and then I’m going share my opinion about it.

The AAFP guideline applies to adults with hypertension, with or without cardiovascular disease. In the comprehensive literature review, the trials ran for an average of 3.7 years, and about 75% of the patients in the trials did not have preexisting cardiovascular disease.

The key to their recommendations is that target BPs lower than 140/90 did not show a statistically significant decrease in total mortality. In regard to serious adverse events, though, lower targets led to a nominal increase that didn’t reach statistical significance. Serious adverse events were defined as death or events that required hospitalization or resulted in significant disability. In regard to all other adverse events, including syncope and hypotension, there was a significant increase, with a relative risk of 1.44 (a 44% increase in adverse events). This reflected an absolute risk increase of 3%, compared with the standard target group (specifically 9.8% vs. 6.8%), with a number needed to harm of 33 over 3.7 years.

Another potential harm of low BP targets was the need for an average of one additional medicine to reach lower BP targets. One systematic review cited an eightfold higher withdrawal rate because of adverse events in the lower-target BP groups.

The AAFP guidelines said that, in the comprehensive review of the literature, while there was no difference in mortality or stroke with lower BP targets, a small additional benefit was observed in myocardial infarction – a 16% lower incidence, with a number needed to treat of 137 over 3.7 years.

So that’s the background. Let me now go over the specifics of the AAFP recommendations.

AAFP gives a strong recommendation for a standard BP target of less than 140/90. They go on to say – and grade this next statement as a weak recommendation – that, while treating to a lower BP target does not provide additional mortality benefit, a target BP of less than 135/85 can be considered to lower the risk for MI, noting that lower BP may increase harms. They state that the lower BP target could be considered based on patient preferences and values.

The AAFP guideline is incredibly helpful. The difference in the recommendations of two large societies – American Heart Association and AAFP — stems from two things. I believe that AHA focused on the composite endpoints in trials such as SPRINT, which included only high-risk patients, and the AAFP uses mortality as the driving endpoint in a broader group of patients that included both high- and lower-risk patients.

In addition, it appears that the two organizations weigh adverse events differently in coming to their conclusions. Clearly, we see more adverse events when aiming for a lower BP level, and in my experience, patients care a lot about adverse events.

Interestingly, the International Society of Hypertension recommends an “essential” BP target of less than 140/90 for most individuals, and for those under 65, they provide the option of an “optimal” BP of less than 130/80. Remember that for certain comorbidities there are also other guidelines out there. The American Diabetes Association this year revised its target BP to less than 130/80 for people with diabetes; for prevention of recurrent stroke, guidelines from the AHA/American Stroke Association in 2021 recommend BP less than 130/80, and the International Society for Hypertension as well as the AHA recommends a BP of less than 130/80 for those with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

To repeat, though, the main topic for today is that as a general target, the AAFP guidelines recommend a BP less than 140/90.

Dr. Skolnik is professor, department of family medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director, department of family medicine, Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. He disclosed conflicts of interest with AstraZeneca, Teva, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Bayer.

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

*This article was updated on 2/7/2023.

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] was first identified in 1963, just about the time that my 16-year-old arteries were probably developing fatty streaks. It soon became clear that Lp(a) was associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but whether an elevated blood level was a biomarker or a causal factor proved difficult to determine. Studies of inheritance patterns confirmed that blood levels were primarily genetically determined and largely resistant to lifestyle and pharmacologic intervention. It seemed senseless to test for something that was deemed “unmodifiable,” so untreatable. That label stuck for decades.

Fortunately, a resurgent interest in molecular pathophysiology this past decade has clarified Lp(a)’s unique contribution to atherothrombotic disease and calcific aortic stenosis. While there remains much to be learned about this complex, highly atherogenic molecule and its role in cardiac disease, it seems shortsighted not to take the simple step of identifying who carries this risk. Why are we not testing everyone for an extremely common and potent risk factor for the most lethal disease on the planet?

Epidemiologic studies project a stunning number of people in the United States to be at increased risk for Lp(a)-mediated coronary and cerebrovascular events. Because the LPA gene which codes for the apo(a) component of the Lp(a) molecule is fully expressed at age 2, this is a truly lifelong risk factor for a projected 64 million individuals with blood levels (> 60 mg/dL) high enough to double their risk for ASCVD. Because risk increases linearly, this includes 16 million, like me, with levels > 116 mg/dL, who are at four times the risk for ASCVD as those with normal levels (< 30 mg/dL).

Because Lp(a) level remains relatively constant throughout life, a single blood test would help stratify the risk it confers on millions of people who, under current U.S. guidelines, would never be tested. Until Lp(a) is integrated into its algorithms, the commonly used ASCVD Risk Calculator will substantially underestimate risk in 20% of the population.

A potential barrier to universal testing is that the ideal method to measure Lp(a) has yet to be determined. Lp(a) comprises an apoB particle bonded to an apo(a) particle. Apo(a) is complex and has a number of isoforms that can result in large heterogeneity in apo(a) size between, as well as within, individuals. This contributes to controversy about the ideal assay and whether Lp(a) levels should be expressed as mass (mg/dL) or number of particles (nmols/L). This should not, however, deter universal testing.
 

One-time cost, lifetime benefit?

Absent universal testing, it’s impossible to estimate the economic toll that Lp(a) exacts, but it’s surely an extraordinary number, particularly because the highest-risk individuals are prone to recurrent, nonfatal vascular events. The substantial price tag for my personal decade of Lp(a)-induced vascular havoc included four percutaneous coronary interventions with rapid stent restenosis, an eventual bypass surgery, and an aborted left hemispheric stroke, requiring an urgent carotid endarterectomy.

As a frame of reference, U.S. expenditures related to ASCVD are estimated to be $351 billion annually. If everyone in the United States over the age of 18 were tested for Lp(a) at a cost of $100 per person, this would be a $21 billion expenditure. This nonrecurring expense would identify the 20% – or almost 42 million individuals – at high risk for ASCVD, a number of whom would have already had vascular events. This one-time cost would be a foundational step in securing year-after-year savings from enhanced ASCVD prevention and reduction in recurrent vascular events.

Such savings would be significantly enhanced if and when targeted, effective Lp(a) treatments become available, but it seems shortsighted to make this the linchpin for universal testing. It’s noteworthy that Canadian and European guidelines already endorse one-time testing for all.

The confirmation of Lp(a)’s causal role in ASCVD remains underappreciated by medical providers across all specialties. Much of the elegant Lp(a)-related science of the past decade has yet to translate to the clinical world. What better way to rectify this than by identifying those with high Lp(a)? Since the advent of the statin era, “good” and “bad” cholesterol values are common conversational fare, in part because virtually every adult has had not one, but many lipid panels. Universal Lp(a) testing would spotlight this pervasive and important risk factor that was referred to as the “horrible” cholesterol in a recent review.
 

U.S. guidelines need updating

To foster this, U.S. guidelines, which influence every aspect of care, including testing, prevention, treatment, reimbursement, and medical legal issues, need to be simplified. The discussion of Lp(a) testing in the 2018 U.S. guidelines on cholesterol management is already obsolete. The contingencies on when testing is “reasonable” or “may be reasonable” are dated and cumbersome. In contrast, a recommendation to test everyone once, perhaps in adolescence, would be a useful, forward-looking strategy.

To date, trials of an antisense oligonucleotide and a small interfering RNA molecule targeting hepatic LPA messenger RNA have confirmed that plasma Lp(a) levels can be significantly and safely lowered. If the ongoing Lp(a) HORIZON and OCEAN(a) phase 3 trials have positive outcomes in patients with known ASCVD, this would spawn a host of clinical trials to explore the possibilities of these therapies in primary prevention as well. These will require tens of thousands of enrollees, and universal testing would expand the pool of potential participants.

The majority of at-risk individuals identified through universal testing would be candidates for primary prevention. This large, currently unidentified cohort should have all coexisting risk factors assessed and managed; lowering elevated LDL cholesterol early and aggressively is paramount. Recent data from the United Kingdom suggest that attainment of specific LDL cholesterol levels may offset the risk for vascular events in those with high Lp(a) levels.

Of note, this was the advice given to the small fraction of high-risk individuals like me, who had their Lp(a) level tested long before its ominous implications were understood. This recommendation was informed mostly by common sense. For any number of reasons, the same might be said for universal testing.

Dr. Leahy, a retired cardiologist in San Diego, has an abiding professional and personal interest in Lp(a), which has been responsible for a number of cardiovascular events in his own life over the past 2 decades. He was a participant in the phase 2 clinical trial of the Lp(a)-lowering antisense oligonucleotide being studied in the Lp(a) HORIZON trial, funded by Novartis, and is currently undergoing apheresis treatment. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] was first identified in 1963, just about the time that my 16-year-old arteries were probably developing fatty streaks. It soon became clear that Lp(a) was associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but whether an elevated blood level was a biomarker or a causal factor proved difficult to determine. Studies of inheritance patterns confirmed that blood levels were primarily genetically determined and largely resistant to lifestyle and pharmacologic intervention. It seemed senseless to test for something that was deemed “unmodifiable,” so untreatable. That label stuck for decades.

Fortunately, a resurgent interest in molecular pathophysiology this past decade has clarified Lp(a)’s unique contribution to atherothrombotic disease and calcific aortic stenosis. While there remains much to be learned about this complex, highly atherogenic molecule and its role in cardiac disease, it seems shortsighted not to take the simple step of identifying who carries this risk. Why are we not testing everyone for an extremely common and potent risk factor for the most lethal disease on the planet?

Epidemiologic studies project a stunning number of people in the United States to be at increased risk for Lp(a)-mediated coronary and cerebrovascular events. Because the LPA gene which codes for the apo(a) component of the Lp(a) molecule is fully expressed at age 2, this is a truly lifelong risk factor for a projected 64 million individuals with blood levels (> 60 mg/dL) high enough to double their risk for ASCVD. Because risk increases linearly, this includes 16 million, like me, with levels > 116 mg/dL, who are at four times the risk for ASCVD as those with normal levels (< 30 mg/dL).

Because Lp(a) level remains relatively constant throughout life, a single blood test would help stratify the risk it confers on millions of people who, under current U.S. guidelines, would never be tested. Until Lp(a) is integrated into its algorithms, the commonly used ASCVD Risk Calculator will substantially underestimate risk in 20% of the population.

A potential barrier to universal testing is that the ideal method to measure Lp(a) has yet to be determined. Lp(a) comprises an apoB particle bonded to an apo(a) particle. Apo(a) is complex and has a number of isoforms that can result in large heterogeneity in apo(a) size between, as well as within, individuals. This contributes to controversy about the ideal assay and whether Lp(a) levels should be expressed as mass (mg/dL) or number of particles (nmols/L). This should not, however, deter universal testing.
 

One-time cost, lifetime benefit?

Absent universal testing, it’s impossible to estimate the economic toll that Lp(a) exacts, but it’s surely an extraordinary number, particularly because the highest-risk individuals are prone to recurrent, nonfatal vascular events. The substantial price tag for my personal decade of Lp(a)-induced vascular havoc included four percutaneous coronary interventions with rapid stent restenosis, an eventual bypass surgery, and an aborted left hemispheric stroke, requiring an urgent carotid endarterectomy.

As a frame of reference, U.S. expenditures related to ASCVD are estimated to be $351 billion annually. If everyone in the United States over the age of 18 were tested for Lp(a) at a cost of $100 per person, this would be a $21 billion expenditure. This nonrecurring expense would identify the 20% – or almost 42 million individuals – at high risk for ASCVD, a number of whom would have already had vascular events. This one-time cost would be a foundational step in securing year-after-year savings from enhanced ASCVD prevention and reduction in recurrent vascular events.

Such savings would be significantly enhanced if and when targeted, effective Lp(a) treatments become available, but it seems shortsighted to make this the linchpin for universal testing. It’s noteworthy that Canadian and European guidelines already endorse one-time testing for all.

The confirmation of Lp(a)’s causal role in ASCVD remains underappreciated by medical providers across all specialties. Much of the elegant Lp(a)-related science of the past decade has yet to translate to the clinical world. What better way to rectify this than by identifying those with high Lp(a)? Since the advent of the statin era, “good” and “bad” cholesterol values are common conversational fare, in part because virtually every adult has had not one, but many lipid panels. Universal Lp(a) testing would spotlight this pervasive and important risk factor that was referred to as the “horrible” cholesterol in a recent review.
 

U.S. guidelines need updating

To foster this, U.S. guidelines, which influence every aspect of care, including testing, prevention, treatment, reimbursement, and medical legal issues, need to be simplified. The discussion of Lp(a) testing in the 2018 U.S. guidelines on cholesterol management is already obsolete. The contingencies on when testing is “reasonable” or “may be reasonable” are dated and cumbersome. In contrast, a recommendation to test everyone once, perhaps in adolescence, would be a useful, forward-looking strategy.

To date, trials of an antisense oligonucleotide and a small interfering RNA molecule targeting hepatic LPA messenger RNA have confirmed that plasma Lp(a) levels can be significantly and safely lowered. If the ongoing Lp(a) HORIZON and OCEAN(a) phase 3 trials have positive outcomes in patients with known ASCVD, this would spawn a host of clinical trials to explore the possibilities of these therapies in primary prevention as well. These will require tens of thousands of enrollees, and universal testing would expand the pool of potential participants.

The majority of at-risk individuals identified through universal testing would be candidates for primary prevention. This large, currently unidentified cohort should have all coexisting risk factors assessed and managed; lowering elevated LDL cholesterol early and aggressively is paramount. Recent data from the United Kingdom suggest that attainment of specific LDL cholesterol levels may offset the risk for vascular events in those with high Lp(a) levels.

Of note, this was the advice given to the small fraction of high-risk individuals like me, who had their Lp(a) level tested long before its ominous implications were understood. This recommendation was informed mostly by common sense. For any number of reasons, the same might be said for universal testing.

Dr. Leahy, a retired cardiologist in San Diego, has an abiding professional and personal interest in Lp(a), which has been responsible for a number of cardiovascular events in his own life over the past 2 decades. He was a participant in the phase 2 clinical trial of the Lp(a)-lowering antisense oligonucleotide being studied in the Lp(a) HORIZON trial, funded by Novartis, and is currently undergoing apheresis treatment. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] was first identified in 1963, just about the time that my 16-year-old arteries were probably developing fatty streaks. It soon became clear that Lp(a) was associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), but whether an elevated blood level was a biomarker or a causal factor proved difficult to determine. Studies of inheritance patterns confirmed that blood levels were primarily genetically determined and largely resistant to lifestyle and pharmacologic intervention. It seemed senseless to test for something that was deemed “unmodifiable,” so untreatable. That label stuck for decades.

Fortunately, a resurgent interest in molecular pathophysiology this past decade has clarified Lp(a)’s unique contribution to atherothrombotic disease and calcific aortic stenosis. While there remains much to be learned about this complex, highly atherogenic molecule and its role in cardiac disease, it seems shortsighted not to take the simple step of identifying who carries this risk. Why are we not testing everyone for an extremely common and potent risk factor for the most lethal disease on the planet?

Epidemiologic studies project a stunning number of people in the United States to be at increased risk for Lp(a)-mediated coronary and cerebrovascular events. Because the LPA gene which codes for the apo(a) component of the Lp(a) molecule is fully expressed at age 2, this is a truly lifelong risk factor for a projected 64 million individuals with blood levels (> 60 mg/dL) high enough to double their risk for ASCVD. Because risk increases linearly, this includes 16 million, like me, with levels > 116 mg/dL, who are at four times the risk for ASCVD as those with normal levels (< 30 mg/dL).

Because Lp(a) level remains relatively constant throughout life, a single blood test would help stratify the risk it confers on millions of people who, under current U.S. guidelines, would never be tested. Until Lp(a) is integrated into its algorithms, the commonly used ASCVD Risk Calculator will substantially underestimate risk in 20% of the population.

A potential barrier to universal testing is that the ideal method to measure Lp(a) has yet to be determined. Lp(a) comprises an apoB particle bonded to an apo(a) particle. Apo(a) is complex and has a number of isoforms that can result in large heterogeneity in apo(a) size between, as well as within, individuals. This contributes to controversy about the ideal assay and whether Lp(a) levels should be expressed as mass (mg/dL) or number of particles (nmols/L). This should not, however, deter universal testing.
 

One-time cost, lifetime benefit?

Absent universal testing, it’s impossible to estimate the economic toll that Lp(a) exacts, but it’s surely an extraordinary number, particularly because the highest-risk individuals are prone to recurrent, nonfatal vascular events. The substantial price tag for my personal decade of Lp(a)-induced vascular havoc included four percutaneous coronary interventions with rapid stent restenosis, an eventual bypass surgery, and an aborted left hemispheric stroke, requiring an urgent carotid endarterectomy.

As a frame of reference, U.S. expenditures related to ASCVD are estimated to be $351 billion annually. If everyone in the United States over the age of 18 were tested for Lp(a) at a cost of $100 per person, this would be a $21 billion expenditure. This nonrecurring expense would identify the 20% – or almost 42 million individuals – at high risk for ASCVD, a number of whom would have already had vascular events. This one-time cost would be a foundational step in securing year-after-year savings from enhanced ASCVD prevention and reduction in recurrent vascular events.

Such savings would be significantly enhanced if and when targeted, effective Lp(a) treatments become available, but it seems shortsighted to make this the linchpin for universal testing. It’s noteworthy that Canadian and European guidelines already endorse one-time testing for all.

The confirmation of Lp(a)’s causal role in ASCVD remains underappreciated by medical providers across all specialties. Much of the elegant Lp(a)-related science of the past decade has yet to translate to the clinical world. What better way to rectify this than by identifying those with high Lp(a)? Since the advent of the statin era, “good” and “bad” cholesterol values are common conversational fare, in part because virtually every adult has had not one, but many lipid panels. Universal Lp(a) testing would spotlight this pervasive and important risk factor that was referred to as the “horrible” cholesterol in a recent review.
 

U.S. guidelines need updating

To foster this, U.S. guidelines, which influence every aspect of care, including testing, prevention, treatment, reimbursement, and medical legal issues, need to be simplified. The discussion of Lp(a) testing in the 2018 U.S. guidelines on cholesterol management is already obsolete. The contingencies on when testing is “reasonable” or “may be reasonable” are dated and cumbersome. In contrast, a recommendation to test everyone once, perhaps in adolescence, would be a useful, forward-looking strategy.

To date, trials of an antisense oligonucleotide and a small interfering RNA molecule targeting hepatic LPA messenger RNA have confirmed that plasma Lp(a) levels can be significantly and safely lowered. If the ongoing Lp(a) HORIZON and OCEAN(a) phase 3 trials have positive outcomes in patients with known ASCVD, this would spawn a host of clinical trials to explore the possibilities of these therapies in primary prevention as well. These will require tens of thousands of enrollees, and universal testing would expand the pool of potential participants.

The majority of at-risk individuals identified through universal testing would be candidates for primary prevention. This large, currently unidentified cohort should have all coexisting risk factors assessed and managed; lowering elevated LDL cholesterol early and aggressively is paramount. Recent data from the United Kingdom suggest that attainment of specific LDL cholesterol levels may offset the risk for vascular events in those with high Lp(a) levels.

Of note, this was the advice given to the small fraction of high-risk individuals like me, who had their Lp(a) level tested long before its ominous implications were understood. This recommendation was informed mostly by common sense. For any number of reasons, the same might be said for universal testing.

Dr. Leahy, a retired cardiologist in San Diego, has an abiding professional and personal interest in Lp(a), which has been responsible for a number of cardiovascular events in his own life over the past 2 decades. He was a participant in the phase 2 clinical trial of the Lp(a)-lowering antisense oligonucleotide being studied in the Lp(a) HORIZON trial, funded by Novartis, and is currently undergoing apheresis treatment. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.