Cardiology

Women who experience preeclampsia during pregnancy are almost twice as likely to have a heart attack or stroke within 20 years of giving birth as pregnant women who did not, according to a new study published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology. The risks are especially high in the first decade after giving birth, the researchers found.
 

Preeclampsia is the onset of high blood pressure after the 20th week of pregnancy combined with signs of organ damage, such as excess protein in the urine. It can occur in up to 8% of pregnancies, and the association between preeclampsia and long-term cardiac risks is well-known. But new research suggests these risks appear much earlier in life than expected – as early as age 30 – at a time when women are often not screened for signs of heart trouble

“Targeted interventions cannot wait until women with preeclampsia become eligible for conventional screening programs in middle age,” Sara Hallum, PhD, a coauthor of the study, told this news organization.

Dr. Hallum, who was an epidemiologist at the University of Copenhagen at the time of the study, and colleagues evaluated the medical histories of more than 1.1 million women in Denmark who became pregnant once or twice between 1978 and 2017. Of this group, 3% had experienced preeclampsia. They compared rates of heart attack and stroke between the two groups over time.

While 1.2% of the entire study population had experienced a heart attack or stroke within 20 years of giving birth, 2% of the women with a history of preeclampsia had such an event. Within the first decade after delivery, women with a history of preeclampsia were four times as likely to have a heart attack and three times as likely to have a stroke as other women.

Women aged 30-39 with a history of preeclampsia were nearly five times as likely to have a heart attack and three times as likely to have a stroke as similar-aged women. And if a woman gave birth twice and had preeclampsia only during the second pregnancy, she was at especially high risk for a heart attack, the researchers found.

“Women with a history of preeclampsia should be monitored routinely for modifiable risk factors, particularly for increased blood pressure,” Dr. Hallum said.

The Danish study population is racially homogeneous, so the researchers were not able to distinguish the effects of preeclampsia by racial group. In the United States, strong evidence shows that Black women experience the effects of preeclampsia more than others.
 

A useful clue to cardiac risk

Ellen Seely, MD, an endocrinologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who specializes in preeclampsia, said physicians are less likely to ask women who have been pregnant if they had experienced preeclampsia than to ask if they smoke or have a family history of heart attacks. As a result, they may miss a looming cardiovascular event, especially in younger women who appear healthy.

“Emerging high blood pressure shouldn’t be ignored” in a seemingly healthy young woman, Dr. Seely said, particularly if that woman has divulged a history of preeclampsia. The doctor’s first step should be to verify hypertension, Dr. Seely said. If high blood pressure is evident, immediate treatment – such as encouraging more physical activity and a healthier diet – should follow. Watchful waiting in such cases is inappropriate, she added.

Although the experience of having preeclampsia is unpleasant and scary, Dr. Seely noted that in at least one way it can prove advantageous. Some women who did not experience preeclampsia will end up having a heart attack, sometimes with no prior warning that anything was amiss. At least a history of preeclampsia provides a clue that women should take care of their hearts.

“The patient carries their history with them wherever they go,” Dr. Seely said. For now, this reality often requires women to mention their pregnancy history even if a provider doesn’t ask. Someday, Dr. Seely said, asking about that history will become just as routine for providers as asking about family history.

The study was funded by the Danish Heart Foundation. Dr. Hallum and Dr. Seely have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women who experience preeclampsia during pregnancy are almost twice as likely to have a heart attack or stroke within 20 years of giving birth as pregnant women who did not, according to a new study published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology. The risks are especially high in the first decade after giving birth, the researchers found.
 

Preeclampsia is the onset of high blood pressure after the 20th week of pregnancy combined with signs of organ damage, such as excess protein in the urine. It can occur in up to 8% of pregnancies, and the association between preeclampsia and long-term cardiac risks is well-known. But new research suggests these risks appear much earlier in life than expected – as early as age 30 – at a time when women are often not screened for signs of heart trouble

“Targeted interventions cannot wait until women with preeclampsia become eligible for conventional screening programs in middle age,” Sara Hallum, PhD, a coauthor of the study, told this news organization.

Dr. Hallum, who was an epidemiologist at the University of Copenhagen at the time of the study, and colleagues evaluated the medical histories of more than 1.1 million women in Denmark who became pregnant once or twice between 1978 and 2017. Of this group, 3% had experienced preeclampsia. They compared rates of heart attack and stroke between the two groups over time.

While 1.2% of the entire study population had experienced a heart attack or stroke within 20 years of giving birth, 2% of the women with a history of preeclampsia had such an event. Within the first decade after delivery, women with a history of preeclampsia were four times as likely to have a heart attack and three times as likely to have a stroke as other women.

Women aged 30-39 with a history of preeclampsia were nearly five times as likely to have a heart attack and three times as likely to have a stroke as similar-aged women. And if a woman gave birth twice and had preeclampsia only during the second pregnancy, she was at especially high risk for a heart attack, the researchers found.

“Women with a history of preeclampsia should be monitored routinely for modifiable risk factors, particularly for increased blood pressure,” Dr. Hallum said.

The Danish study population is racially homogeneous, so the researchers were not able to distinguish the effects of preeclampsia by racial group. In the United States, strong evidence shows that Black women experience the effects of preeclampsia more than others.
 

A useful clue to cardiac risk

Ellen Seely, MD, an endocrinologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who specializes in preeclampsia, said physicians are less likely to ask women who have been pregnant if they had experienced preeclampsia than to ask if they smoke or have a family history of heart attacks. As a result, they may miss a looming cardiovascular event, especially in younger women who appear healthy.

“Emerging high blood pressure shouldn’t be ignored” in a seemingly healthy young woman, Dr. Seely said, particularly if that woman has divulged a history of preeclampsia. The doctor’s first step should be to verify hypertension, Dr. Seely said. If high blood pressure is evident, immediate treatment – such as encouraging more physical activity and a healthier diet – should follow. Watchful waiting in such cases is inappropriate, she added.

Although the experience of having preeclampsia is unpleasant and scary, Dr. Seely noted that in at least one way it can prove advantageous. Some women who did not experience preeclampsia will end up having a heart attack, sometimes with no prior warning that anything was amiss. At least a history of preeclampsia provides a clue that women should take care of their hearts.

“The patient carries their history with them wherever they go,” Dr. Seely said. For now, this reality often requires women to mention their pregnancy history even if a provider doesn’t ask. Someday, Dr. Seely said, asking about that history will become just as routine for providers as asking about family history.

The study was funded by the Danish Heart Foundation. Dr. Hallum and Dr. Seely have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women who experience preeclampsia during pregnancy are almost twice as likely to have a heart attack or stroke within 20 years of giving birth as pregnant women who did not, according to a new study published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology. The risks are especially high in the first decade after giving birth, the researchers found.
 

Preeclampsia is the onset of high blood pressure after the 20th week of pregnancy combined with signs of organ damage, such as excess protein in the urine. It can occur in up to 8% of pregnancies, and the association between preeclampsia and long-term cardiac risks is well-known. But new research suggests these risks appear much earlier in life than expected – as early as age 30 – at a time when women are often not screened for signs of heart trouble

“Targeted interventions cannot wait until women with preeclampsia become eligible for conventional screening programs in middle age,” Sara Hallum, PhD, a coauthor of the study, told this news organization.

Dr. Hallum, who was an epidemiologist at the University of Copenhagen at the time of the study, and colleagues evaluated the medical histories of more than 1.1 million women in Denmark who became pregnant once or twice between 1978 and 2017. Of this group, 3% had experienced preeclampsia. They compared rates of heart attack and stroke between the two groups over time.

While 1.2% of the entire study population had experienced a heart attack or stroke within 20 years of giving birth, 2% of the women with a history of preeclampsia had such an event. Within the first decade after delivery, women with a history of preeclampsia were four times as likely to have a heart attack and three times as likely to have a stroke as other women.

Women aged 30-39 with a history of preeclampsia were nearly five times as likely to have a heart attack and three times as likely to have a stroke as similar-aged women. And if a woman gave birth twice and had preeclampsia only during the second pregnancy, she was at especially high risk for a heart attack, the researchers found.

“Women with a history of preeclampsia should be monitored routinely for modifiable risk factors, particularly for increased blood pressure,” Dr. Hallum said.

The Danish study population is racially homogeneous, so the researchers were not able to distinguish the effects of preeclampsia by racial group. In the United States, strong evidence shows that Black women experience the effects of preeclampsia more than others.
 

A useful clue to cardiac risk

Ellen Seely, MD, an endocrinologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who specializes in preeclampsia, said physicians are less likely to ask women who have been pregnant if they had experienced preeclampsia than to ask if they smoke or have a family history of heart attacks. As a result, they may miss a looming cardiovascular event, especially in younger women who appear healthy.

“Emerging high blood pressure shouldn’t be ignored” in a seemingly healthy young woman, Dr. Seely said, particularly if that woman has divulged a history of preeclampsia. The doctor’s first step should be to verify hypertension, Dr. Seely said. If high blood pressure is evident, immediate treatment – such as encouraging more physical activity and a healthier diet – should follow. Watchful waiting in such cases is inappropriate, she added.

Although the experience of having preeclampsia is unpleasant and scary, Dr. Seely noted that in at least one way it can prove advantageous. Some women who did not experience preeclampsia will end up having a heart attack, sometimes with no prior warning that anything was amiss. At least a history of preeclampsia provides a clue that women should take care of their hearts.

“The patient carries their history with them wherever they go,” Dr. Seely said. For now, this reality often requires women to mention their pregnancy history even if a provider doesn’t ask. Someday, Dr. Seely said, asking about that history will become just as routine for providers as asking about family history.

The study was funded by the Danish Heart Foundation. Dr. Hallum and Dr. Seely have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

High levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) in older adults are associated with a higher risk of sustaining a fracture than lower HDL-C levels, a new study suggests.

Raycat/Getty Images

“Two animal studies showing that HDL-C reduces bone mineral density by reducing osteoblast number and function provide a plausible explanation for why high HDL-C may increase the risk of fractures,” Monira Hussain, MBBS, MPH, PhD, of Monash University in Melbourne, told this news organization. “So, it was not surprising when our analyses provided evidence that amongst those in the highest quintile of HDL-C (> 74 mg/dL), there was a [33%] increased risk of fractures.”

After adjustment, one standard deviation increment in HDL-C level was associated with a 14% higher risk of fracture during a 4-year follow-up.

Based on this and other studies, Dr. Hussain said, “I believe that the finding of a very high HDL-C [should] alert clinicians to a higher risk of mortality, fractures, and possibly other threats to their patient’s health.”

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.
 

Independent risk factor

For this report, the researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of data from the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) clinical trial and the ASPREE-Fracture substudy.

ASPREE was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled primary prevention trial of aspirin. Participants were 16,703 community-dwelling Australians and 2,411 individuals from the United States with a mean age of 75 and without evident cardiovascular disease, dementia, physical disability, or life-limiting chronic illness.

The ASPREE-Fracture substudy collected data on fractures reported post randomization from the Australian participants. Fractures were confirmed by imaging and adjudicated by an expert panel and included both traumatic and minimal trauma fractures.

Of the 16,262 participants who had a plasma HDL-C measurement at baseline (55% women), 1,659 (10.2%) experienced at least one fracture over a median of 4 years. This included 711 minimal trauma fractures (for example, falls from standing height) and 948 other trauma fractures, mainly falls on stairs, ladders, or stools.

Higher rates of fractures occurred in the highest quintile of HDL-C level where the mean level was 89 mg/dL. At baseline, participants in that quintile had a lower BMI, a high prevalence of current/former smoking and current alcohol use, 12 years or longer of school, more physical activity, and higher use of antiosteoporosis medication. They also had less chronic kidney disease, diabetes, prefrailty/frailty, or treatment with lipid-lowering drugs.

In a fully adjusted model, each standard deviation increment in HDL-C level was associated with a 14% higher risk of fractures (hazard ratio, 1.14). When analyzed in quintiles, compared with participants in Q1, those in Q5 had a 33% higher risk for fracture (HR, 1.33).

Prevalence rates were similar between the sexes. The increase in fracture risk appeared to be independent of traditional risk factors for fractures, including age, sex, physical activity, alcohol use, frailty, BMI, smoking status, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, use of lipid-lowering or antiosteoporosis drugs, and education, the authors note.

The results persisted in sensitivity analyses in restricted subgroups of interest and in stratified analyses – including, for example, only minimal fractures; participants not taking antiosteoporosis drugs or statins; never smokers; nondrinkers; and those engaging in minimal physical activity (walking less than 30 minutes per day).

No association was observed between non–HDL-C levels and fractures.

The authors conclude that the study “provides robust evidence that higher levels of HDL-C are associated with incident fractures in both male and female individuals, independent of conventional risk factors.”
 

Clinically useful?

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Marilyn Tan, MD, clinic chief of the Endocrine Clinic and clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, said, “I certainly would not recommend anyone do anything to actively lower their HDL levels. HDL levels are largely determined by genetics, diet, and lifestyle, with some effects from certain medications/supplements. Studies have demonstrated that moderately higher HDL levels may be protective for atherosclerosis.”

In the current study, she said, “Causation has not been proven, and importantly there is no evidence that reducing HDL levels reduces fracture risk. Also, this association between raised HDL levels and fracture risk has not been demonstrated consistently in other studies.”

Furthermore, she noted, the preclinical trials on which the authors based their hypothesis – that is, an association between HDL and a reduction in the number and function of osteoblasts – “has not been demonstrated widely in human subjects.”

“We have a large armamentarium of FDA-approved treatments for osteoporosis that have been clinically proven to reduce fracture risk very significantly, and these are the tools [in addition to lifestyle changes] we should use to reduce fracture risk,” Dr. Tan concluded.

John Wilkins, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and Anand Rohatgi, MD, MSCS, of UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, also point out some limitations of the study in a related editorial.

They note the inclusion of predominantly healthy adults with a mean age of 75, a population that could yield different findings from middle-aged cohorts with chronic illnesses, as well as a lack of clarity regarding the possible role of alcohol intake among the study participants.

Furthermore, the editorialists write, although significant associations were shown in this study, “models were not adjusted for detailed measures of exercise/activity, triglycerides, or any other lipids, including other HDL compositional measures such as HDL-P or ApoA-I levels. There was no assessment of whether HDL-C improved discrimination, reclassification, or any other validated measures of risk prediction performance.

“Taken together,” they conclude, “this study alone leaves several unanswered questions as to whether high HDL-C could be a useful biomarker to detect fracture risk.”

No commercial funding was disclosed. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

High levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) in older adults are associated with a higher risk of sustaining a fracture than lower HDL-C levels, a new study suggests.

Raycat/Getty Images

“Two animal studies showing that HDL-C reduces bone mineral density by reducing osteoblast number and function provide a plausible explanation for why high HDL-C may increase the risk of fractures,” Monira Hussain, MBBS, MPH, PhD, of Monash University in Melbourne, told this news organization. “So, it was not surprising when our analyses provided evidence that amongst those in the highest quintile of HDL-C (> 74 mg/dL), there was a [33%] increased risk of fractures.”

After adjustment, one standard deviation increment in HDL-C level was associated with a 14% higher risk of fracture during a 4-year follow-up.

Based on this and other studies, Dr. Hussain said, “I believe that the finding of a very high HDL-C [should] alert clinicians to a higher risk of mortality, fractures, and possibly other threats to their patient’s health.”

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.
 

Independent risk factor

For this report, the researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of data from the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) clinical trial and the ASPREE-Fracture substudy.

ASPREE was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled primary prevention trial of aspirin. Participants were 16,703 community-dwelling Australians and 2,411 individuals from the United States with a mean age of 75 and without evident cardiovascular disease, dementia, physical disability, or life-limiting chronic illness.

The ASPREE-Fracture substudy collected data on fractures reported post randomization from the Australian participants. Fractures were confirmed by imaging and adjudicated by an expert panel and included both traumatic and minimal trauma fractures.

Of the 16,262 participants who had a plasma HDL-C measurement at baseline (55% women), 1,659 (10.2%) experienced at least one fracture over a median of 4 years. This included 711 minimal trauma fractures (for example, falls from standing height) and 948 other trauma fractures, mainly falls on stairs, ladders, or stools.

Higher rates of fractures occurred in the highest quintile of HDL-C level where the mean level was 89 mg/dL. At baseline, participants in that quintile had a lower BMI, a high prevalence of current/former smoking and current alcohol use, 12 years or longer of school, more physical activity, and higher use of antiosteoporosis medication. They also had less chronic kidney disease, diabetes, prefrailty/frailty, or treatment with lipid-lowering drugs.

In a fully adjusted model, each standard deviation increment in HDL-C level was associated with a 14% higher risk of fractures (hazard ratio, 1.14). When analyzed in quintiles, compared with participants in Q1, those in Q5 had a 33% higher risk for fracture (HR, 1.33).

Prevalence rates were similar between the sexes. The increase in fracture risk appeared to be independent of traditional risk factors for fractures, including age, sex, physical activity, alcohol use, frailty, BMI, smoking status, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, use of lipid-lowering or antiosteoporosis drugs, and education, the authors note.

The results persisted in sensitivity analyses in restricted subgroups of interest and in stratified analyses – including, for example, only minimal fractures; participants not taking antiosteoporosis drugs or statins; never smokers; nondrinkers; and those engaging in minimal physical activity (walking less than 30 minutes per day).

No association was observed between non–HDL-C levels and fractures.

The authors conclude that the study “provides robust evidence that higher levels of HDL-C are associated with incident fractures in both male and female individuals, independent of conventional risk factors.”
 

Clinically useful?

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Marilyn Tan, MD, clinic chief of the Endocrine Clinic and clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, said, “I certainly would not recommend anyone do anything to actively lower their HDL levels. HDL levels are largely determined by genetics, diet, and lifestyle, with some effects from certain medications/supplements. Studies have demonstrated that moderately higher HDL levels may be protective for atherosclerosis.”

In the current study, she said, “Causation has not been proven, and importantly there is no evidence that reducing HDL levels reduces fracture risk. Also, this association between raised HDL levels and fracture risk has not been demonstrated consistently in other studies.”

Furthermore, she noted, the preclinical trials on which the authors based their hypothesis – that is, an association between HDL and a reduction in the number and function of osteoblasts – “has not been demonstrated widely in human subjects.”

“We have a large armamentarium of FDA-approved treatments for osteoporosis that have been clinically proven to reduce fracture risk very significantly, and these are the tools [in addition to lifestyle changes] we should use to reduce fracture risk,” Dr. Tan concluded.

John Wilkins, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and Anand Rohatgi, MD, MSCS, of UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, also point out some limitations of the study in a related editorial.

They note the inclusion of predominantly healthy adults with a mean age of 75, a population that could yield different findings from middle-aged cohorts with chronic illnesses, as well as a lack of clarity regarding the possible role of alcohol intake among the study participants.

Furthermore, the editorialists write, although significant associations were shown in this study, “models were not adjusted for detailed measures of exercise/activity, triglycerides, or any other lipids, including other HDL compositional measures such as HDL-P or ApoA-I levels. There was no assessment of whether HDL-C improved discrimination, reclassification, or any other validated measures of risk prediction performance.

“Taken together,” they conclude, “this study alone leaves several unanswered questions as to whether high HDL-C could be a useful biomarker to detect fracture risk.”

No commercial funding was disclosed. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

High levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) in older adults are associated with a higher risk of sustaining a fracture than lower HDL-C levels, a new study suggests.

Raycat/Getty Images

“Two animal studies showing that HDL-C reduces bone mineral density by reducing osteoblast number and function provide a plausible explanation for why high HDL-C may increase the risk of fractures,” Monira Hussain, MBBS, MPH, PhD, of Monash University in Melbourne, told this news organization. “So, it was not surprising when our analyses provided evidence that amongst those in the highest quintile of HDL-C (> 74 mg/dL), there was a [33%] increased risk of fractures.”

After adjustment, one standard deviation increment in HDL-C level was associated with a 14% higher risk of fracture during a 4-year follow-up.

Based on this and other studies, Dr. Hussain said, “I believe that the finding of a very high HDL-C [should] alert clinicians to a higher risk of mortality, fractures, and possibly other threats to their patient’s health.”

The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.
 

Independent risk factor

For this report, the researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of data from the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) clinical trial and the ASPREE-Fracture substudy.

ASPREE was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled primary prevention trial of aspirin. Participants were 16,703 community-dwelling Australians and 2,411 individuals from the United States with a mean age of 75 and without evident cardiovascular disease, dementia, physical disability, or life-limiting chronic illness.

The ASPREE-Fracture substudy collected data on fractures reported post randomization from the Australian participants. Fractures were confirmed by imaging and adjudicated by an expert panel and included both traumatic and minimal trauma fractures.

Of the 16,262 participants who had a plasma HDL-C measurement at baseline (55% women), 1,659 (10.2%) experienced at least one fracture over a median of 4 years. This included 711 minimal trauma fractures (for example, falls from standing height) and 948 other trauma fractures, mainly falls on stairs, ladders, or stools.

Higher rates of fractures occurred in the highest quintile of HDL-C level where the mean level was 89 mg/dL. At baseline, participants in that quintile had a lower BMI, a high prevalence of current/former smoking and current alcohol use, 12 years or longer of school, more physical activity, and higher use of antiosteoporosis medication. They also had less chronic kidney disease, diabetes, prefrailty/frailty, or treatment with lipid-lowering drugs.

In a fully adjusted model, each standard deviation increment in HDL-C level was associated with a 14% higher risk of fractures (hazard ratio, 1.14). When analyzed in quintiles, compared with participants in Q1, those in Q5 had a 33% higher risk for fracture (HR, 1.33).

Prevalence rates were similar between the sexes. The increase in fracture risk appeared to be independent of traditional risk factors for fractures, including age, sex, physical activity, alcohol use, frailty, BMI, smoking status, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, use of lipid-lowering or antiosteoporosis drugs, and education, the authors note.

The results persisted in sensitivity analyses in restricted subgroups of interest and in stratified analyses – including, for example, only minimal fractures; participants not taking antiosteoporosis drugs or statins; never smokers; nondrinkers; and those engaging in minimal physical activity (walking less than 30 minutes per day).

No association was observed between non–HDL-C levels and fractures.

The authors conclude that the study “provides robust evidence that higher levels of HDL-C are associated with incident fractures in both male and female individuals, independent of conventional risk factors.”
 

Clinically useful?

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Marilyn Tan, MD, clinic chief of the Endocrine Clinic and clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, said, “I certainly would not recommend anyone do anything to actively lower their HDL levels. HDL levels are largely determined by genetics, diet, and lifestyle, with some effects from certain medications/supplements. Studies have demonstrated that moderately higher HDL levels may be protective for atherosclerosis.”

In the current study, she said, “Causation has not been proven, and importantly there is no evidence that reducing HDL levels reduces fracture risk. Also, this association between raised HDL levels and fracture risk has not been demonstrated consistently in other studies.”

Furthermore, she noted, the preclinical trials on which the authors based their hypothesis – that is, an association between HDL and a reduction in the number and function of osteoblasts – “has not been demonstrated widely in human subjects.”

“We have a large armamentarium of FDA-approved treatments for osteoporosis that have been clinically proven to reduce fracture risk very significantly, and these are the tools [in addition to lifestyle changes] we should use to reduce fracture risk,” Dr. Tan concluded.

John Wilkins, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, and Anand Rohatgi, MD, MSCS, of UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, also point out some limitations of the study in a related editorial.

They note the inclusion of predominantly healthy adults with a mean age of 75, a population that could yield different findings from middle-aged cohorts with chronic illnesses, as well as a lack of clarity regarding the possible role of alcohol intake among the study participants.

Furthermore, the editorialists write, although significant associations were shown in this study, “models were not adjusted for detailed measures of exercise/activity, triglycerides, or any other lipids, including other HDL compositional measures such as HDL-P or ApoA-I levels. There was no assessment of whether HDL-C improved discrimination, reclassification, or any other validated measures of risk prediction performance.

“Taken together,” they conclude, “this study alone leaves several unanswered questions as to whether high HDL-C could be a useful biomarker to detect fracture risk.”

No commercial funding was disclosed. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A recent change in Medicare policy designed to increase access to left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) may have had the unintended consequence of increasing inequalities in access to heart transplant for patients with advanced heart failure.

In December 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services relaxed restrictions on centers that implant LVADs but don’t perform heart transplants. Specifically, they dropped the requirement that LVAD-only centers obtain permission from a Medicare-approved heart transplant center authorizing LVAD implantation with “bridge-to-transplant” (BTT) intent, meaning the patient is a transplant candidate.

zimmytws/gettyimages

While the relaxed requirement has the potential to increase access to LVADs for appropriate patients, a look back at 22,221 LVAD recipients found that patients who received LVADs at transplant-capable centers had a 79% higher likelihood of receiving a BTT LVAD designation.

The 2-year heart transplant rate following LVAD implant was 25.6% for patients who received an LVAD at a heart transplant center, compared with 11.9% at LVAD-only centers.

Thomas Cascino, MD, with University of Michigan Health Frankel Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor, and colleagues reported their findings in JAMA Network Open.
 

Differential assessment?

Nontransplant LVAD centers are increasing in number in the United States now that the CMS has made establishing an LVAD-only center easier.

“Although there should be enthusiasm for the potential of LVAD-only centers to increase access to LVAD, it appears that receiving an LVAD at a center that does not perform transplants results in differential assessment of transplant eligibility at the time of LVAD implant and inequities in receipt of transplant,” Dr. Cascino and colleagues said.

“Being cared for at a center that does not perform heart transplant should not result in a lesser chance to receive a heart transplant,” Dr. Cascino added in a university news release. “Our study shows that this disparity existed before the policy change, and we think it will likely grow larger now that there is less collaboration.”

The CMS policy will likely “further challenge equity in access to transplant for patients seeking care at nontransplant centers and may have the unintended consequence of contributing to increasing inequities in access to transplants, as has been feared,” the researchers wrote.

They also note that recent changes in the adult heart allocation system under the United Network for Organ Sharing have significantly reduced the likelihood of transplant after durable LVAD implant unless candidates are listed as being at higher urgency status owing to an LVAD complication or clinical deterioration.

“The reality is that durable LVADs are much less likely to be a bridge to the best therapy (that is, transplant) in the current allocation system. As a result, there is a critical need to select appropriate durable LVAD and transplant candidates at the initial evaluation,” the authors said.

“This puts the onus on the transplant community to select appropriate LVAD and transplant candidates during the initial evaluation. We need a system in which any patient can walk into the same hospital and get the right therapy for them,” Dr. Cascino added in the news release.

The research was supported in part through funding from the University of Michigan Health department of cardiac surgery and the National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Cascino has received grants from Johnson & Johnson.

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

A recent change in Medicare policy designed to increase access to left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) may have had the unintended consequence of increasing inequalities in access to heart transplant for patients with advanced heart failure.

In December 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services relaxed restrictions on centers that implant LVADs but don’t perform heart transplants. Specifically, they dropped the requirement that LVAD-only centers obtain permission from a Medicare-approved heart transplant center authorizing LVAD implantation with “bridge-to-transplant” (BTT) intent, meaning the patient is a transplant candidate.

zimmytws/gettyimages

While the relaxed requirement has the potential to increase access to LVADs for appropriate patients, a look back at 22,221 LVAD recipients found that patients who received LVADs at transplant-capable centers had a 79% higher likelihood of receiving a BTT LVAD designation.

The 2-year heart transplant rate following LVAD implant was 25.6% for patients who received an LVAD at a heart transplant center, compared with 11.9% at LVAD-only centers.

Thomas Cascino, MD, with University of Michigan Health Frankel Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor, and colleagues reported their findings in JAMA Network Open.
 

Differential assessment?

Nontransplant LVAD centers are increasing in number in the United States now that the CMS has made establishing an LVAD-only center easier.

“Although there should be enthusiasm for the potential of LVAD-only centers to increase access to LVAD, it appears that receiving an LVAD at a center that does not perform transplants results in differential assessment of transplant eligibility at the time of LVAD implant and inequities in receipt of transplant,” Dr. Cascino and colleagues said.

“Being cared for at a center that does not perform heart transplant should not result in a lesser chance to receive a heart transplant,” Dr. Cascino added in a university news release. “Our study shows that this disparity existed before the policy change, and we think it will likely grow larger now that there is less collaboration.”

The CMS policy will likely “further challenge equity in access to transplant for patients seeking care at nontransplant centers and may have the unintended consequence of contributing to increasing inequities in access to transplants, as has been feared,” the researchers wrote.

They also note that recent changes in the adult heart allocation system under the United Network for Organ Sharing have significantly reduced the likelihood of transplant after durable LVAD implant unless candidates are listed as being at higher urgency status owing to an LVAD complication or clinical deterioration.

“The reality is that durable LVADs are much less likely to be a bridge to the best therapy (that is, transplant) in the current allocation system. As a result, there is a critical need to select appropriate durable LVAD and transplant candidates at the initial evaluation,” the authors said.

“This puts the onus on the transplant community to select appropriate LVAD and transplant candidates during the initial evaluation. We need a system in which any patient can walk into the same hospital and get the right therapy for them,” Dr. Cascino added in the news release.

The research was supported in part through funding from the University of Michigan Health department of cardiac surgery and the National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Cascino has received grants from Johnson & Johnson.

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

A recent change in Medicare policy designed to increase access to left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) may have had the unintended consequence of increasing inequalities in access to heart transplant for patients with advanced heart failure.

In December 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services relaxed restrictions on centers that implant LVADs but don’t perform heart transplants. Specifically, they dropped the requirement that LVAD-only centers obtain permission from a Medicare-approved heart transplant center authorizing LVAD implantation with “bridge-to-transplant” (BTT) intent, meaning the patient is a transplant candidate.

zimmytws/gettyimages

While the relaxed requirement has the potential to increase access to LVADs for appropriate patients, a look back at 22,221 LVAD recipients found that patients who received LVADs at transplant-capable centers had a 79% higher likelihood of receiving a BTT LVAD designation.

The 2-year heart transplant rate following LVAD implant was 25.6% for patients who received an LVAD at a heart transplant center, compared with 11.9% at LVAD-only centers.

Thomas Cascino, MD, with University of Michigan Health Frankel Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor, and colleagues reported their findings in JAMA Network Open.
 

Differential assessment?

Nontransplant LVAD centers are increasing in number in the United States now that the CMS has made establishing an LVAD-only center easier.

“Although there should be enthusiasm for the potential of LVAD-only centers to increase access to LVAD, it appears that receiving an LVAD at a center that does not perform transplants results in differential assessment of transplant eligibility at the time of LVAD implant and inequities in receipt of transplant,” Dr. Cascino and colleagues said.

“Being cared for at a center that does not perform heart transplant should not result in a lesser chance to receive a heart transplant,” Dr. Cascino added in a university news release. “Our study shows that this disparity existed before the policy change, and we think it will likely grow larger now that there is less collaboration.”

The CMS policy will likely “further challenge equity in access to transplant for patients seeking care at nontransplant centers and may have the unintended consequence of contributing to increasing inequities in access to transplants, as has been feared,” the researchers wrote.

They also note that recent changes in the adult heart allocation system under the United Network for Organ Sharing have significantly reduced the likelihood of transplant after durable LVAD implant unless candidates are listed as being at higher urgency status owing to an LVAD complication or clinical deterioration.

“The reality is that durable LVADs are much less likely to be a bridge to the best therapy (that is, transplant) in the current allocation system. As a result, there is a critical need to select appropriate durable LVAD and transplant candidates at the initial evaluation,” the authors said.

“This puts the onus on the transplant community to select appropriate LVAD and transplant candidates during the initial evaluation. We need a system in which any patient can walk into the same hospital and get the right therapy for them,” Dr. Cascino added in the news release.

The research was supported in part through funding from the University of Michigan Health department of cardiac surgery and the National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Cascino has received grants from Johnson & Johnson.

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

Survival and readmission risk were similar whether patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) were discharged on furosemide or torsemide in a randomized trial.

The study, TRANSFORM-HF, helps fill a major gap in the sparse evidence base guiding diuretic therapy in patients with a history of HF hospitalization. In that setting, for example, results suggest that discharge on any appropriate loop diuretic is more important than which loop diuretic is chosen.

TRANSFORM-HF is no ordinary randomized trial. Designed as a pragmatic comparative effectiveness study, it featured a streamlined protocol and other adaptations that made it easier and cheaper to conduct but that have also complicated its interpretation, the trialists and some observers acknowledge.
 

Perceived torsemide advantages

Furosemide may be the most-prescribed loop diuretic in HF, but in practice – based on some limited evidence – clinicians often prefer torsemide for its perceived advantages that include greater bioavailability, potassium sparing, and potentially helpful pleiotropic effects.

TRANSFORM-HF, however, provides no evidence to support such a preference. The primary endpoint of all-cause mortality was about 26% over a median 17 months whether patients were assigned to an initial furosemide or torsemide-first strategy, regardless of ejection fraction. Composite rates of death or hospitalization at 12 months also weren’t significantly different, at about 49% and 47%, respectively.

The findings suggest that clinicians may safely continue to prescribe either loop diuretic at their discretion, now with the support of data from a randomized trial.

TRANSFORM-HF was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, with lead author Robert J. Mentz, MD, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C.

Reflections of standard practice

With its pragmatic design, TRANSFORM-HF entered a diverse HF population broadly representative of actual clinical practice. Patients were managed with few restrictions in a protocol that allowed, for example, loop-diuretic crossovers and other discretionary diuretic changes.

Diuretic dosing also varied significantly between the groups, and there was an unexpectedly high prevalence of diuretic withdrawal, the published report notes. Those factors, it states, may have “diminished” the trial’s ability “to distinguish the hypothesized between-group differences.”

Still, the trial “should be celebrated for dispelling a long-standing myth, based on surrogate markers and small trials, of the superiority of torsemide over furosemide,” writes Michelle M. Kittleson, MD, PhD, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, in an accompanying editorial .

Now, she continues, “when faced with a patient with heart failure and congestive symptoms, clinicians can focus their energy on what really matters: Not the relative merits of different loop diuretics, but rather the initiation and optimization of evidence and guideline-based therapies to help their patients feel better and live longer.”
 

Trial design caveats

But that pragmatic design raises cautions, the editorial notes. “Pragmatic trials are more flexible and nimbler in design and execution, but this agility comes at a cost. An overly heterogeneous patient population can impact the trial’s ability to assess efficacy of therapies while minimally intensive follow-up precludes comprehensive outcome assessment.”

The study’s 2,859 patients hospitalized with HF were assigned to open-label treatment with furosemide or torsemide at more than 60 U.S. centers. Of the 1,428 and 1,431 patients, respectively, about 37% were women and 34% were African American.

The hazard ratio for all cause mortality across the 17.4-month follow-up, torsemide versus furosemide, was 1.02 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.18). The HR for death or hospitalization for any cause at 12 months was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.83-1.02). And the rate ratio for 12-month all-cause hospitalization was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.84-1.07).

“TRANSFORM-HF joins a catalog of cautionary tales in cardiology, whereby carefully executed negative trials have refuted the misleading promise of plausible surrogate end points and preliminary data,” Dr. Kittleson writes.

“The lesson: Clinicians should have a healthy suspicion for plausible pathophysiology, surrogate end points, and nonrandomized data as the sole basis of defining superiority of an intervention.”

TRANSFORM-HF was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Mentz reports receiving grants from American Regent and Novartis; personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly, Cytokinetics, Bayer, Merck, and Pharmacosmos; and research support from Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Fast BioMedical, Gilead, Innolife, Medtronic, Relypsa, Respicardia, Roche, Sanofi, Vifor, Windtree Therapeutics, and Zoll. Disclosures for the other authors can be found with the original article. Dr. Kittleson reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Survival and readmission risk were similar whether patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) were discharged on furosemide or torsemide in a randomized trial.

The study, TRANSFORM-HF, helps fill a major gap in the sparse evidence base guiding diuretic therapy in patients with a history of HF hospitalization. In that setting, for example, results suggest that discharge on any appropriate loop diuretic is more important than which loop diuretic is chosen.

TRANSFORM-HF is no ordinary randomized trial. Designed as a pragmatic comparative effectiveness study, it featured a streamlined protocol and other adaptations that made it easier and cheaper to conduct but that have also complicated its interpretation, the trialists and some observers acknowledge.
 

Perceived torsemide advantages

Furosemide may be the most-prescribed loop diuretic in HF, but in practice – based on some limited evidence – clinicians often prefer torsemide for its perceived advantages that include greater bioavailability, potassium sparing, and potentially helpful pleiotropic effects.

TRANSFORM-HF, however, provides no evidence to support such a preference. The primary endpoint of all-cause mortality was about 26% over a median 17 months whether patients were assigned to an initial furosemide or torsemide-first strategy, regardless of ejection fraction. Composite rates of death or hospitalization at 12 months also weren’t significantly different, at about 49% and 47%, respectively.

The findings suggest that clinicians may safely continue to prescribe either loop diuretic at their discretion, now with the support of data from a randomized trial.

TRANSFORM-HF was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, with lead author Robert J. Mentz, MD, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C.

Reflections of standard practice

With its pragmatic design, TRANSFORM-HF entered a diverse HF population broadly representative of actual clinical practice. Patients were managed with few restrictions in a protocol that allowed, for example, loop-diuretic crossovers and other discretionary diuretic changes.

Diuretic dosing also varied significantly between the groups, and there was an unexpectedly high prevalence of diuretic withdrawal, the published report notes. Those factors, it states, may have “diminished” the trial’s ability “to distinguish the hypothesized between-group differences.”

Still, the trial “should be celebrated for dispelling a long-standing myth, based on surrogate markers and small trials, of the superiority of torsemide over furosemide,” writes Michelle M. Kittleson, MD, PhD, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, in an accompanying editorial .

Now, she continues, “when faced with a patient with heart failure and congestive symptoms, clinicians can focus their energy on what really matters: Not the relative merits of different loop diuretics, but rather the initiation and optimization of evidence and guideline-based therapies to help their patients feel better and live longer.”
 

Trial design caveats

But that pragmatic design raises cautions, the editorial notes. “Pragmatic trials are more flexible and nimbler in design and execution, but this agility comes at a cost. An overly heterogeneous patient population can impact the trial’s ability to assess efficacy of therapies while minimally intensive follow-up precludes comprehensive outcome assessment.”

The study’s 2,859 patients hospitalized with HF were assigned to open-label treatment with furosemide or torsemide at more than 60 U.S. centers. Of the 1,428 and 1,431 patients, respectively, about 37% were women and 34% were African American.

The hazard ratio for all cause mortality across the 17.4-month follow-up, torsemide versus furosemide, was 1.02 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.18). The HR for death or hospitalization for any cause at 12 months was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.83-1.02). And the rate ratio for 12-month all-cause hospitalization was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.84-1.07).

“TRANSFORM-HF joins a catalog of cautionary tales in cardiology, whereby carefully executed negative trials have refuted the misleading promise of plausible surrogate end points and preliminary data,” Dr. Kittleson writes.

“The lesson: Clinicians should have a healthy suspicion for plausible pathophysiology, surrogate end points, and nonrandomized data as the sole basis of defining superiority of an intervention.”

TRANSFORM-HF was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Mentz reports receiving grants from American Regent and Novartis; personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly, Cytokinetics, Bayer, Merck, and Pharmacosmos; and research support from Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Fast BioMedical, Gilead, Innolife, Medtronic, Relypsa, Respicardia, Roche, Sanofi, Vifor, Windtree Therapeutics, and Zoll. Disclosures for the other authors can be found with the original article. Dr. Kittleson reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Survival and readmission risk were similar whether patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) were discharged on furosemide or torsemide in a randomized trial.

The study, TRANSFORM-HF, helps fill a major gap in the sparse evidence base guiding diuretic therapy in patients with a history of HF hospitalization. In that setting, for example, results suggest that discharge on any appropriate loop diuretic is more important than which loop diuretic is chosen.

TRANSFORM-HF is no ordinary randomized trial. Designed as a pragmatic comparative effectiveness study, it featured a streamlined protocol and other adaptations that made it easier and cheaper to conduct but that have also complicated its interpretation, the trialists and some observers acknowledge.
 

Perceived torsemide advantages

Furosemide may be the most-prescribed loop diuretic in HF, but in practice – based on some limited evidence – clinicians often prefer torsemide for its perceived advantages that include greater bioavailability, potassium sparing, and potentially helpful pleiotropic effects.

TRANSFORM-HF, however, provides no evidence to support such a preference. The primary endpoint of all-cause mortality was about 26% over a median 17 months whether patients were assigned to an initial furosemide or torsemide-first strategy, regardless of ejection fraction. Composite rates of death or hospitalization at 12 months also weren’t significantly different, at about 49% and 47%, respectively.

The findings suggest that clinicians may safely continue to prescribe either loop diuretic at their discretion, now with the support of data from a randomized trial.

TRANSFORM-HF was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, with lead author Robert J. Mentz, MD, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, N.C.

Reflections of standard practice

With its pragmatic design, TRANSFORM-HF entered a diverse HF population broadly representative of actual clinical practice. Patients were managed with few restrictions in a protocol that allowed, for example, loop-diuretic crossovers and other discretionary diuretic changes.

Diuretic dosing also varied significantly between the groups, and there was an unexpectedly high prevalence of diuretic withdrawal, the published report notes. Those factors, it states, may have “diminished” the trial’s ability “to distinguish the hypothesized between-group differences.”

Still, the trial “should be celebrated for dispelling a long-standing myth, based on surrogate markers and small trials, of the superiority of torsemide over furosemide,” writes Michelle M. Kittleson, MD, PhD, Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, in an accompanying editorial .

Now, she continues, “when faced with a patient with heart failure and congestive symptoms, clinicians can focus their energy on what really matters: Not the relative merits of different loop diuretics, but rather the initiation and optimization of evidence and guideline-based therapies to help their patients feel better and live longer.”
 

Trial design caveats

But that pragmatic design raises cautions, the editorial notes. “Pragmatic trials are more flexible and nimbler in design and execution, but this agility comes at a cost. An overly heterogeneous patient population can impact the trial’s ability to assess efficacy of therapies while minimally intensive follow-up precludes comprehensive outcome assessment.”

The study’s 2,859 patients hospitalized with HF were assigned to open-label treatment with furosemide or torsemide at more than 60 U.S. centers. Of the 1,428 and 1,431 patients, respectively, about 37% were women and 34% were African American.

The hazard ratio for all cause mortality across the 17.4-month follow-up, torsemide versus furosemide, was 1.02 (95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.18). The HR for death or hospitalization for any cause at 12 months was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.83-1.02). And the rate ratio for 12-month all-cause hospitalization was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.84-1.07).

“TRANSFORM-HF joins a catalog of cautionary tales in cardiology, whereby carefully executed negative trials have refuted the misleading promise of plausible surrogate end points and preliminary data,” Dr. Kittleson writes.

“The lesson: Clinicians should have a healthy suspicion for plausible pathophysiology, surrogate end points, and nonrandomized data as the sole basis of defining superiority of an intervention.”

TRANSFORM-HF was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Mentz reports receiving grants from American Regent and Novartis; personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim/Eli Lilly, Cytokinetics, Bayer, Merck, and Pharmacosmos; and research support from Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Fast BioMedical, Gilead, Innolife, Medtronic, Relypsa, Respicardia, Roche, Sanofi, Vifor, Windtree Therapeutics, and Zoll. Disclosures for the other authors can be found with the original article. Dr. Kittleson reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Everybody wants a younger heart

As more people live well past 90, scientists have been taking a closer look at how they’ve been doing it. Mostly it boiled down to genetics. You either had it or you didn’t. Well, a recent study suggests that doesn’t have to be true anymore, at least for the heart.

Scientists from the United Kingdom and Italy found an antiaging gene in some centenarians that has shown possible antiaging effects in mice and in human heart cells. A single administration of the mutant antiaging gene, they found, stopped heart function decay in middle-aged mice and even reversed the biological clock by the human equivalent of 10 years in elderly mice.

©ktsimage/thinkstockphotos.com

When the researchers applied the antiaging gene to samples of human heart cells from elderly people with heart problems, the cells “resumed functioning properly, proving to be more efficient in building new blood vessels,” they said in a written statement. It all kind of sounds like something out of Dr. Frankenstein’s lab.
 

I want to believe … in better sleep

The “X-Files” theme song plays. Mulder and Scully are sitting in a diner, breakfast laid out around them. The diner is quiet, with only a few people inside.

Mulder: I’m telling you, Scully, there’s something spooky going on here.

Scully: You mean other than the fact that this town in Georgia looks suspiciously like Vancouver?

Mulder: Not one person we spoke to yesterday has gotten a full night’s sleep since the UFO sighting last month. I’m telling you, they’re here, they’re experimenting.

Scully: Do you really want me to do this to you again?

Mulder: Do what again?

Scully: There’s nothing going on here that can’t be explained by the current research. Why, in January 2023 a study was published revealing a link between poor sleep and belief in paranormal phenomena like UFOS, demons, or ghosts. Which probably explains why you’re on your third cup of coffee for the morning.

Mulder: Scully, you’ve literally been abducted by aliens. Do we have to play this game every time?

Scully: Look, it’s simple. In a sample of nearly 9,000 people, nearly two-thirds of those who reported experiencing sleep paralysis or exploding head syndrome reported believing in UFOs and aliens walking amongst humanity, despite making up just 3% of the overall sample.

Alexandra Gorn/Unsplash

Furthermore, about 60% of those reporting sleep paralysis also reported believing near-death experiences prove the soul lingers on after death, and those with stronger insomnia symptoms were more likely to believe in the devil.

Mulder: Aha!

Scully: Aha what?

Mulder: You’re a devout Christian. You believe in the devil and the soul.

Scully: Yes, but I don’t let it interfere with a good night’s sleep, Mulder. These people saw something strange, convinced themselves it was a UFO, and now they can’t sleep. It’s a vicious cycle. The study authors even said that people experiencing strange nighttime phenomena could interpret this as evidence of aliens or other paranormal beings, thus making them even more susceptible to further sleep disruption and deepening beliefs. Look who I’m talking to.

Mulder: Always with the facts, eh?

Scully: I am a doctor, after all. And if you want more research into how paranormal belief and poor sleep quality are linked, I’d be happy to dig out the literature, because the truth is out there, Mulder.

Mulder: I hate you sometimes.

It’s ChatGPT’s world. We’re just living in it

Have you heard about ChatGPT? The artificial intelligence chatbot was just launched in November and it’s already more important to the Internet than either Vladimir Putin or “Rick and Morty.”

What’s that? You’re wondering why you should care? Well, excuuuuuse us, but we thought you might want to know that ChatGPT is in the process of taking over the world. Let’s take a quick look at what it’s been up to.

“ChatGPT bot passes law school exam”

“ChatGPT passes MBA exam given by a Wharton professor”

“A freelance writer says ChatGPT wrote a $600 article in just 30 seconds”

And here’s one that might be of interest to those of the health care persuasion: “ChatGPT can pass part of the U.S. Medical Licensing Exam.” See? It’s coming for you, too.

The artificial intelligence known as ChatGPT “performed at >50% accuracy across [the three USMLE] examinations, exceeding 60% in most analyses,” a group of researchers wrote on the preprint server medRxiv, noting that 60% is usually the pass threshold for humans taking the exam in any given year.

Mohamed Hassan/PxHere

Everybody wants a younger heart

As more people live well past 90, scientists have been taking a closer look at how they’ve been doing it. Mostly it boiled down to genetics. You either had it or you didn’t. Well, a recent study suggests that doesn’t have to be true anymore, at least for the heart.

Scientists from the United Kingdom and Italy found an antiaging gene in some centenarians that has shown possible antiaging effects in mice and in human heart cells. A single administration of the mutant antiaging gene, they found, stopped heart function decay in middle-aged mice and even reversed the biological clock by the human equivalent of 10 years in elderly mice.

©ktsimage/thinkstockphotos.com

When the researchers applied the antiaging gene to samples of human heart cells from elderly people with heart problems, the cells “resumed functioning properly, proving to be more efficient in building new blood vessels,” they said in a written statement. It all kind of sounds like something out of Dr. Frankenstein’s lab.
 

I want to believe … in better sleep

The “X-Files” theme song plays. Mulder and Scully are sitting in a diner, breakfast laid out around them. The diner is quiet, with only a few people inside.

Mulder: I’m telling you, Scully, there’s something spooky going on here.

Scully: You mean other than the fact that this town in Georgia looks suspiciously like Vancouver?

Mulder: Not one person we spoke to yesterday has gotten a full night’s sleep since the UFO sighting last month. I’m telling you, they’re here, they’re experimenting.

Scully: Do you really want me to do this to you again?

Mulder: Do what again?

Scully: There’s nothing going on here that can’t be explained by the current research. Why, in January 2023 a study was published revealing a link between poor sleep and belief in paranormal phenomena like UFOS, demons, or ghosts. Which probably explains why you’re on your third cup of coffee for the morning.

Mulder: Scully, you’ve literally been abducted by aliens. Do we have to play this game every time?

Scully: Look, it’s simple. In a sample of nearly 9,000 people, nearly two-thirds of those who reported experiencing sleep paralysis or exploding head syndrome reported believing in UFOs and aliens walking amongst humanity, despite making up just 3% of the overall sample.

Alexandra Gorn/Unsplash

Furthermore, about 60% of those reporting sleep paralysis also reported believing near-death experiences prove the soul lingers on after death, and those with stronger insomnia symptoms were more likely to believe in the devil.

Mulder: Aha!

Scully: Aha what?

Mulder: You’re a devout Christian. You believe in the devil and the soul.

Scully: Yes, but I don’t let it interfere with a good night’s sleep, Mulder. These people saw something strange, convinced themselves it was a UFO, and now they can’t sleep. It’s a vicious cycle. The study authors even said that people experiencing strange nighttime phenomena could interpret this as evidence of aliens or other paranormal beings, thus making them even more susceptible to further sleep disruption and deepening beliefs. Look who I’m talking to.

Mulder: Always with the facts, eh?

Scully: I am a doctor, after all. And if you want more research into how paranormal belief and poor sleep quality are linked, I’d be happy to dig out the literature, because the truth is out there, Mulder.

Mulder: I hate you sometimes.

It’s ChatGPT’s world. We’re just living in it

Have you heard about ChatGPT? The artificial intelligence chatbot was just launched in November and it’s already more important to the Internet than either Vladimir Putin or “Rick and Morty.”

What’s that? You’re wondering why you should care? Well, excuuuuuse us, but we thought you might want to know that ChatGPT is in the process of taking over the world. Let’s take a quick look at what it’s been up to.

“ChatGPT bot passes law school exam”

“ChatGPT passes MBA exam given by a Wharton professor”

“A freelance writer says ChatGPT wrote a $600 article in just 30 seconds”

And here’s one that might be of interest to those of the health care persuasion: “ChatGPT can pass part of the U.S. Medical Licensing Exam.” See? It’s coming for you, too.

The artificial intelligence known as ChatGPT “performed at >50% accuracy across [the three USMLE] examinations, exceeding 60% in most analyses,” a group of researchers wrote on the preprint server medRxiv, noting that 60% is usually the pass threshold for humans taking the exam in any given year.

Mohamed Hassan/PxHere

Everybody wants a younger heart

As more people live well past 90, scientists have been taking a closer look at how they’ve been doing it. Mostly it boiled down to genetics. You either had it or you didn’t. Well, a recent study suggests that doesn’t have to be true anymore, at least for the heart.

Scientists from the United Kingdom and Italy found an antiaging gene in some centenarians that has shown possible antiaging effects in mice and in human heart cells. A single administration of the mutant antiaging gene, they found, stopped heart function decay in middle-aged mice and even reversed the biological clock by the human equivalent of 10 years in elderly mice.

©ktsimage/thinkstockphotos.com

When the researchers applied the antiaging gene to samples of human heart cells from elderly people with heart problems, the cells “resumed functioning properly, proving to be more efficient in building new blood vessels,” they said in a written statement. It all kind of sounds like something out of Dr. Frankenstein’s lab.
 

I want to believe … in better sleep

The “X-Files” theme song plays. Mulder and Scully are sitting in a diner, breakfast laid out around them. The diner is quiet, with only a few people inside.

Mulder: I’m telling you, Scully, there’s something spooky going on here.

Scully: You mean other than the fact that this town in Georgia looks suspiciously like Vancouver?

Mulder: Not one person we spoke to yesterday has gotten a full night’s sleep since the UFO sighting last month. I’m telling you, they’re here, they’re experimenting.

Scully: Do you really want me to do this to you again?

Mulder: Do what again?

Scully: There’s nothing going on here that can’t be explained by the current research. Why, in January 2023 a study was published revealing a link between poor sleep and belief in paranormal phenomena like UFOS, demons, or ghosts. Which probably explains why you’re on your third cup of coffee for the morning.

Mulder: Scully, you’ve literally been abducted by aliens. Do we have to play this game every time?

Scully: Look, it’s simple. In a sample of nearly 9,000 people, nearly two-thirds of those who reported experiencing sleep paralysis or exploding head syndrome reported believing in UFOs and aliens walking amongst humanity, despite making up just 3% of the overall sample.

Alexandra Gorn/Unsplash

Furthermore, about 60% of those reporting sleep paralysis also reported believing near-death experiences prove the soul lingers on after death, and those with stronger insomnia symptoms were more likely to believe in the devil.

Mulder: Aha!

Scully: Aha what?

Mulder: You’re a devout Christian. You believe in the devil and the soul.

Scully: Yes, but I don’t let it interfere with a good night’s sleep, Mulder. These people saw something strange, convinced themselves it was a UFO, and now they can’t sleep. It’s a vicious cycle. The study authors even said that people experiencing strange nighttime phenomena could interpret this as evidence of aliens or other paranormal beings, thus making them even more susceptible to further sleep disruption and deepening beliefs. Look who I’m talking to.

Mulder: Always with the facts, eh?

Scully: I am a doctor, after all. And if you want more research into how paranormal belief and poor sleep quality are linked, I’d be happy to dig out the literature, because the truth is out there, Mulder.

Mulder: I hate you sometimes.

It’s ChatGPT’s world. We’re just living in it

Have you heard about ChatGPT? The artificial intelligence chatbot was just launched in November and it’s already more important to the Internet than either Vladimir Putin or “Rick and Morty.”

What’s that? You’re wondering why you should care? Well, excuuuuuse us, but we thought you might want to know that ChatGPT is in the process of taking over the world. Let’s take a quick look at what it’s been up to.

“ChatGPT bot passes law school exam”

“ChatGPT passes MBA exam given by a Wharton professor”

“A freelance writer says ChatGPT wrote a $600 article in just 30 seconds”

And here’s one that might be of interest to those of the health care persuasion: “ChatGPT can pass part of the U.S. Medical Licensing Exam.” See? It’s coming for you, too.

The artificial intelligence known as ChatGPT “performed at >50% accuracy across [the three USMLE] examinations, exceeding 60% in most analyses,” a group of researchers wrote on the preprint server medRxiv, noting that 60% is usually the pass threshold for humans taking the exam in any given year.

Mohamed Hassan/PxHere

The risk of health harms from alcohol is low for people who consume two standard drinks or fewer per week, but it’s higher with greater consumption, according to new guidance from the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction.

“Drinking less is better,” says the guidance, which replaces Canada’s 2011 Low-Risk Drinking Guidelines (LRDGs).

Developed in consultation with an executive committee from federal, provincial, and territorial governments; national organizations; three scientific expert panels; and an internal evidence review working group, the guidance presents the following findings:

• Consuming no drinks per week has benefits, such as better health and better sleep, and it’s the only safe option during pregnancy.
• Consuming one or two standard drinks weekly will likely not have alcohol-related consequences.
• Three to six drinks raise the risk of developing breast, colon, and other cancers.
• Seven or more increase the risk of heart disease or stroke.
• Each additional drink “radically increases” the risk of these health consequences.

“Alcohol is more harmful than was previously thought and is a key component of the health of your patients,” Adam Sherk, PhD, a scientist at the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research at the University of Victoria (B.C.), and a member of the scientific expert panel that contributed to the guidance, said in an interview. “Display and discuss the new guidance with your patients with the main message that drinking less is better.”

Peter Butt, MD, a clinical associate professor at the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, and cochair of the guidance project, said in an interview: “The World Health Organization has identified over 200 ICD-coded conditions associated with alcohol use. This creates many opportunities to inquire into quantity and frequency of alcohol use, relate it to the patient’s health and well-being, and provide advice on reduction.”

“Canada’s Guidance on Alcohol and Health: Final Report” and a related infographic were published online Jan. 17.
 

Continuum of risk

The impetus for the new guidance came from the fact that “our 2011 LRDGs were no longer current, and there was emerging evidence that people drinking within those levels were coming to harm,” said Dr. Butt.

That evidence indicates that alcohol causes at least seven types of cancer, mostly of the breast or colon; is a risk factor for most types of heart disease; and is a main cause of liver disease. Evidence also indicates that avoiding drinking to the point of intoxication will reduce people’s risk of perpetrating alcohol-related violence.

Responding to the need to accurately quantify the risk, the guidance defines a “standard” drink as 12 oz of beer, cooler, or cider (5% alcohol); 5 oz of wine (12% alcohol); and 1.5 oz of spirits such as whiskey, vodka, or gin (40% alcohol).

Using different mortality risk thresholds, the project’s experts developed the following continuum of risk:

• Low for individuals who consume two standard drinks or fewer per week
• Moderate for those who consume from three to six standard drinks per week
• Increasingly high for those who consume seven standard drinks or more per week

The guidance makes the following observations:

• Consuming more than two standard drinks per drinking occasion is associated with an increased risk of harms to self and others, including injuries and violence.
• When pregnant or trying to get pregnant, no amount of alcohol is safe.
• When breastfeeding, not drinking is safest.
• Above the upper limit of the moderate risk zone, health risks increase more steeply for females than males.
• Far more injuries, violence, and deaths result from men’s alcohol use, especially for per occasion drinking, than from women’s alcohol use.
• Young people should delay alcohol use for as long as possible.
• Individuals should not start to use alcohol or increase their alcohol use for health benefits.
• Any reduction in alcohol use is beneficial.

Other national guidelines

“Countries that haven’t updated their alcohol use guidelines recently should do so, as the evidence regarding alcohol and health has advanced considerably in the past 10 years,” said Dr. Sherk. He acknowledged that “any time health guidance changes substantially, it’s reasonable to expect a period of readjustment.”

“Some will be resistant,” Dr. Butt agreed. “Some professionals will need more education than others on the health effects of alcohol. Some patients will also be more invested in drinking than others. The harm-reduction, risk-zone approach should assist in the process of engaging patients and helping them reduce over time.

“Just as we benefited from the updates done in the United Kingdom, France, and especially Australia, so also researchers elsewhere will critique our work and our approach and make their own decisions on how best to communicate with their public,” Dr. Butt said. He noted that Canada’s contributions regarding the association between alcohol and violence, as well as their sex/gender approach to the evidence, “may influence the next country’s review.”

Commenting on whether the United States should consider changing its guidance, Timothy Brennan, MD, MPH, chief of clinical services for the Addiction Institute of Mount Sinai Health System in New York, said in an interview, “A lot of people will be surprised at the recommended limits on alcohol. Most think that they can have one or two glasses of alcohol per day and not have any increased risk to their health. I think the Canadians deserve credit for putting themselves out there.”

Dr. Brennan said there will “certainly be pushback by the drinking lobby, which is very strong both in the U.S. and in Canada.” In fact, the national trade group Beer Canada was recently quoted as stating that it still supports the 2011 guidelines and that the updating process lacked full transparency and expert technical peer review.

Nevertheless, Dr. Brennan said, “it’s overwhelmingly clear that alcohol affects a ton of different parts of our body, so limiting the amount of alcohol we take in is always going to be a good thing. The Canadian graphic is great because it color-codes the risk. I recommend that clinicians put it up in their offices and begin quantifying the units of alcohol that are going into a patient’s body each day.”

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

The risk of health harms from alcohol is low for people who consume two standard drinks or fewer per week, but it’s higher with greater consumption, according to new guidance from the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction.

“Drinking less is better,” says the guidance, which replaces Canada’s 2011 Low-Risk Drinking Guidelines (LRDGs).

Developed in consultation with an executive committee from federal, provincial, and territorial governments; national organizations; three scientific expert panels; and an internal evidence review working group, the guidance presents the following findings:

• Consuming no drinks per week has benefits, such as better health and better sleep, and it’s the only safe option during pregnancy.
• Consuming one or two standard drinks weekly will likely not have alcohol-related consequences.
• Three to six drinks raise the risk of developing breast, colon, and other cancers.
• Seven or more increase the risk of heart disease or stroke.
• Each additional drink “radically increases” the risk of these health consequences.

“Alcohol is more harmful than was previously thought and is a key component of the health of your patients,” Adam Sherk, PhD, a scientist at the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research at the University of Victoria (B.C.), and a member of the scientific expert panel that contributed to the guidance, said in an interview. “Display and discuss the new guidance with your patients with the main message that drinking less is better.”

Peter Butt, MD, a clinical associate professor at the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, and cochair of the guidance project, said in an interview: “The World Health Organization has identified over 200 ICD-coded conditions associated with alcohol use. This creates many opportunities to inquire into quantity and frequency of alcohol use, relate it to the patient’s health and well-being, and provide advice on reduction.”

“Canada’s Guidance on Alcohol and Health: Final Report” and a related infographic were published online Jan. 17.
 

Continuum of risk

The impetus for the new guidance came from the fact that “our 2011 LRDGs were no longer current, and there was emerging evidence that people drinking within those levels were coming to harm,” said Dr. Butt.

That evidence indicates that alcohol causes at least seven types of cancer, mostly of the breast or colon; is a risk factor for most types of heart disease; and is a main cause of liver disease. Evidence also indicates that avoiding drinking to the point of intoxication will reduce people’s risk of perpetrating alcohol-related violence.

Responding to the need to accurately quantify the risk, the guidance defines a “standard” drink as 12 oz of beer, cooler, or cider (5% alcohol); 5 oz of wine (12% alcohol); and 1.5 oz of spirits such as whiskey, vodka, or gin (40% alcohol).

Using different mortality risk thresholds, the project’s experts developed the following continuum of risk:

• Low for individuals who consume two standard drinks or fewer per week
• Moderate for those who consume from three to six standard drinks per week
• Increasingly high for those who consume seven standard drinks or more per week

The guidance makes the following observations:

• Consuming more than two standard drinks per drinking occasion is associated with an increased risk of harms to self and others, including injuries and violence.
• When pregnant or trying to get pregnant, no amount of alcohol is safe.
• When breastfeeding, not drinking is safest.
• Above the upper limit of the moderate risk zone, health risks increase more steeply for females than males.
• Far more injuries, violence, and deaths result from men’s alcohol use, especially for per occasion drinking, than from women’s alcohol use.
• Young people should delay alcohol use for as long as possible.
• Individuals should not start to use alcohol or increase their alcohol use for health benefits.
• Any reduction in alcohol use is beneficial.

Other national guidelines

“Countries that haven’t updated their alcohol use guidelines recently should do so, as the evidence regarding alcohol and health has advanced considerably in the past 10 years,” said Dr. Sherk. He acknowledged that “any time health guidance changes substantially, it’s reasonable to expect a period of readjustment.”

“Some will be resistant,” Dr. Butt agreed. “Some professionals will need more education than others on the health effects of alcohol. Some patients will also be more invested in drinking than others. The harm-reduction, risk-zone approach should assist in the process of engaging patients and helping them reduce over time.

“Just as we benefited from the updates done in the United Kingdom, France, and especially Australia, so also researchers elsewhere will critique our work and our approach and make their own decisions on how best to communicate with their public,” Dr. Butt said. He noted that Canada’s contributions regarding the association between alcohol and violence, as well as their sex/gender approach to the evidence, “may influence the next country’s review.”

Commenting on whether the United States should consider changing its guidance, Timothy Brennan, MD, MPH, chief of clinical services for the Addiction Institute of Mount Sinai Health System in New York, said in an interview, “A lot of people will be surprised at the recommended limits on alcohol. Most think that they can have one or two glasses of alcohol per day and not have any increased risk to their health. I think the Canadians deserve credit for putting themselves out there.”

Dr. Brennan said there will “certainly be pushback by the drinking lobby, which is very strong both in the U.S. and in Canada.” In fact, the national trade group Beer Canada was recently quoted as stating that it still supports the 2011 guidelines and that the updating process lacked full transparency and expert technical peer review.

Nevertheless, Dr. Brennan said, “it’s overwhelmingly clear that alcohol affects a ton of different parts of our body, so limiting the amount of alcohol we take in is always going to be a good thing. The Canadian graphic is great because it color-codes the risk. I recommend that clinicians put it up in their offices and begin quantifying the units of alcohol that are going into a patient’s body each day.”

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

The risk of health harms from alcohol is low for people who consume two standard drinks or fewer per week, but it’s higher with greater consumption, according to new guidance from the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction.

“Drinking less is better,” says the guidance, which replaces Canada’s 2011 Low-Risk Drinking Guidelines (LRDGs).

Developed in consultation with an executive committee from federal, provincial, and territorial governments; national organizations; three scientific expert panels; and an internal evidence review working group, the guidance presents the following findings:

• Consuming no drinks per week has benefits, such as better health and better sleep, and it’s the only safe option during pregnancy.
• Consuming one or two standard drinks weekly will likely not have alcohol-related consequences.
• Three to six drinks raise the risk of developing breast, colon, and other cancers.
• Seven or more increase the risk of heart disease or stroke.
• Each additional drink “radically increases” the risk of these health consequences.

“Alcohol is more harmful than was previously thought and is a key component of the health of your patients,” Adam Sherk, PhD, a scientist at the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research at the University of Victoria (B.C.), and a member of the scientific expert panel that contributed to the guidance, said in an interview. “Display and discuss the new guidance with your patients with the main message that drinking less is better.”

Peter Butt, MD, a clinical associate professor at the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, and cochair of the guidance project, said in an interview: “The World Health Organization has identified over 200 ICD-coded conditions associated with alcohol use. This creates many opportunities to inquire into quantity and frequency of alcohol use, relate it to the patient’s health and well-being, and provide advice on reduction.”

“Canada’s Guidance on Alcohol and Health: Final Report” and a related infographic were published online Jan. 17.
 

Continuum of risk

The impetus for the new guidance came from the fact that “our 2011 LRDGs were no longer current, and there was emerging evidence that people drinking within those levels were coming to harm,” said Dr. Butt.

That evidence indicates that alcohol causes at least seven types of cancer, mostly of the breast or colon; is a risk factor for most types of heart disease; and is a main cause of liver disease. Evidence also indicates that avoiding drinking to the point of intoxication will reduce people’s risk of perpetrating alcohol-related violence.

Responding to the need to accurately quantify the risk, the guidance defines a “standard” drink as 12 oz of beer, cooler, or cider (5% alcohol); 5 oz of wine (12% alcohol); and 1.5 oz of spirits such as whiskey, vodka, or gin (40% alcohol).

Using different mortality risk thresholds, the project’s experts developed the following continuum of risk:

• Low for individuals who consume two standard drinks or fewer per week
• Moderate for those who consume from three to six standard drinks per week
• Increasingly high for those who consume seven standard drinks or more per week

The guidance makes the following observations:

• Consuming more than two standard drinks per drinking occasion is associated with an increased risk of harms to self and others, including injuries and violence.
• When pregnant or trying to get pregnant, no amount of alcohol is safe.
• When breastfeeding, not drinking is safest.
• Above the upper limit of the moderate risk zone, health risks increase more steeply for females than males.
• Far more injuries, violence, and deaths result from men’s alcohol use, especially for per occasion drinking, than from women’s alcohol use.
• Young people should delay alcohol use for as long as possible.
• Individuals should not start to use alcohol or increase their alcohol use for health benefits.
• Any reduction in alcohol use is beneficial.

Other national guidelines

“Countries that haven’t updated their alcohol use guidelines recently should do so, as the evidence regarding alcohol and health has advanced considerably in the past 10 years,” said Dr. Sherk. He acknowledged that “any time health guidance changes substantially, it’s reasonable to expect a period of readjustment.”

“Some will be resistant,” Dr. Butt agreed. “Some professionals will need more education than others on the health effects of alcohol. Some patients will also be more invested in drinking than others. The harm-reduction, risk-zone approach should assist in the process of engaging patients and helping them reduce over time.

“Just as we benefited from the updates done in the United Kingdom, France, and especially Australia, so also researchers elsewhere will critique our work and our approach and make their own decisions on how best to communicate with their public,” Dr. Butt said. He noted that Canada’s contributions regarding the association between alcohol and violence, as well as their sex/gender approach to the evidence, “may influence the next country’s review.”

Commenting on whether the United States should consider changing its guidance, Timothy Brennan, MD, MPH, chief of clinical services for the Addiction Institute of Mount Sinai Health System in New York, said in an interview, “A lot of people will be surprised at the recommended limits on alcohol. Most think that they can have one or two glasses of alcohol per day and not have any increased risk to their health. I think the Canadians deserve credit for putting themselves out there.”

Dr. Brennan said there will “certainly be pushback by the drinking lobby, which is very strong both in the U.S. and in Canada.” In fact, the national trade group Beer Canada was recently quoted as stating that it still supports the 2011 guidelines and that the updating process lacked full transparency and expert technical peer review.

Nevertheless, Dr. Brennan said, “it’s overwhelmingly clear that alcohol affects a ton of different parts of our body, so limiting the amount of alcohol we take in is always going to be a good thing. The Canadian graphic is great because it color-codes the risk. I recommend that clinicians put it up in their offices and begin quantifying the units of alcohol that are going into a patient’s body each day.”

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

A new scientific statement from the American Heart Association offers a standardized approach to rapidly evaluate patients with suspected transient ischemic attack (TIA), keeping in mind the challenges faced by rural centers with limited resources.

TIAs are “warning shots” of a future stroke and require emergency evaluation, Hardik Amin, MD, chair of the writing committee and medical stroke director, Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital, said in an AHA podcast.

A key aim of the scientific statement is to help clinicians properly risk-stratify patients with suspected TIA and determine which patients need to be admitted to the hospital and which patients might be safely discharged as long as proper and prompt follow-up has been arranged, Dr. Amin explained.

The statement, published online in the journal Stroke, addresses “how we can identify and be confident in diagnosing a TIA patient and what might suggest an alternative diagnosis,” he added.
 

Diagnostic challenge

It’s estimated that nearly one in five people who suffer a TIA will have a full-blown stroke within 3 months; close to half of these strokes will happen within 2 days.

The challenge with TIAs is that they can be tough to diagnose because many patients no longer have symptoms when they arrive at the emergency department. There is also no confirmatory test. Limited resources and access to stroke specialists in rural centers may exacerbate these challenges, the authors noted.

The statement pointed out that the F.A.S.T. acronym for stroke symptoms (Face drooping, Arm weakness, Speech difficulty, Time to call 911) can also be used to identify a TIA – even if the symptoms resolve.

The statement also provided guidance on how to tell the difference between a TIA and a TIA mimic.

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

A new scientific statement from the American Heart Association offers a standardized approach to rapidly evaluate patients with suspected transient ischemic attack (TIA), keeping in mind the challenges faced by rural centers with limited resources.

TIAs are “warning shots” of a future stroke and require emergency evaluation, Hardik Amin, MD, chair of the writing committee and medical stroke director, Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital, said in an AHA podcast.

A key aim of the scientific statement is to help clinicians properly risk-stratify patients with suspected TIA and determine which patients need to be admitted to the hospital and which patients might be safely discharged as long as proper and prompt follow-up has been arranged, Dr. Amin explained.

The statement, published online in the journal Stroke, addresses “how we can identify and be confident in diagnosing a TIA patient and what might suggest an alternative diagnosis,” he added.
 

Diagnostic challenge

It’s estimated that nearly one in five people who suffer a TIA will have a full-blown stroke within 3 months; close to half of these strokes will happen within 2 days.

The challenge with TIAs is that they can be tough to diagnose because many patients no longer have symptoms when they arrive at the emergency department. There is also no confirmatory test. Limited resources and access to stroke specialists in rural centers may exacerbate these challenges, the authors noted.

The statement pointed out that the F.A.S.T. acronym for stroke symptoms (Face drooping, Arm weakness, Speech difficulty, Time to call 911) can also be used to identify a TIA – even if the symptoms resolve.

The statement also provided guidance on how to tell the difference between a TIA and a TIA mimic.

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

A new scientific statement from the American Heart Association offers a standardized approach to rapidly evaluate patients with suspected transient ischemic attack (TIA), keeping in mind the challenges faced by rural centers with limited resources.

TIAs are “warning shots” of a future stroke and require emergency evaluation, Hardik Amin, MD, chair of the writing committee and medical stroke director, Yale New Haven (Conn.) Hospital, said in an AHA podcast.

A key aim of the scientific statement is to help clinicians properly risk-stratify patients with suspected TIA and determine which patients need to be admitted to the hospital and which patients might be safely discharged as long as proper and prompt follow-up has been arranged, Dr. Amin explained.

The statement, published online in the journal Stroke, addresses “how we can identify and be confident in diagnosing a TIA patient and what might suggest an alternative diagnosis,” he added.
 

Diagnostic challenge

It’s estimated that nearly one in five people who suffer a TIA will have a full-blown stroke within 3 months; close to half of these strokes will happen within 2 days.

The challenge with TIAs is that they can be tough to diagnose because many patients no longer have symptoms when they arrive at the emergency department. There is also no confirmatory test. Limited resources and access to stroke specialists in rural centers may exacerbate these challenges, the authors noted.

The statement pointed out that the F.A.S.T. acronym for stroke symptoms (Face drooping, Arm weakness, Speech difficulty, Time to call 911) can also be used to identify a TIA – even if the symptoms resolve.

The statement also provided guidance on how to tell the difference between a TIA and a TIA mimic.

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

This article discusses updates in geriatrics from studies published in 2022 to early 2023. The topics covered include vitamin D supplementation and incident fractures, the association of social isolation and dementia, and the release of lecanemab, the second disease-modifying therapy for mild Alzheimer dementia.

Vitamin D supplementation and incident fractures

Vitamin D supplementation is a commonly recommended intervention for bone health, but data to support its impact on reducing fracture risk has been variable.

A study in the New England Journal of Medicine by LeBoff and colleagues has garnered much attention since its publication in July 2022.¹ In the ancillary study of the Vitamin D and Omega-3-Trial (VITAL), the authors examined the impact of vitamin D supplementation versus placebo on incident fractures. The study found that vitamin D supplementation, as compared with placebo, led to no significant difference in the incidence of total, nonvertebral, and hip fractures in midlife and older adults over the 5-year period of follow-up.

The generalizability of these findings has been raised as a concern as the study does not describe adults at higher risk for fracture. The authors of the study specified in their conclusion that vitamin D supplementation does not reduce fracture risk in “generally healthy midlife and older adults who were not selected for vitamin D deficiency, low bone mass or osteoporosis.”

With a mean participant age of 67 and exclusion of participants with a history of cardiovascular disease, stroke, cirrhosis and other serious illnesses, the study does not reflect the multimorbid older adult population that geriatricians typically care for. Furthermore, efficacy of vitamin D supplementation on fracture risk may be the most impactful in those with osteoporosis and with severe vitamin D deficiency (defined by vitamin D 25[OH]D level less than 12 ng/mL).

In post hoc analyses, there was no significant difference in fracture risk in these subgroups, however the authors acknowledged that the findings may be limited by the small percentage of participants with severe vitamin D deficiency (2.4%) and osteoporosis included in the study (5%).
 

Lecanemab for mild cognitive impairment and early Alzheimer’s dementia

On Jan. 6, 2023, the Food and Drug Administration approved lecanemab, the second-ever disease-modifying treatment for Alzheimer’s dementia following the approval of aducanumab in 2021. Lecanemab is a monoclonal antibody targeting larger amyloid-beta oligomers, which has been shown in vitro to have higher affinity for amyloid-beta, compared with aducanumab. FDA approval followed shortly after the publication of the CLARITY-AD trial, which investigated the effect of lecanemab versus placebo on cognitive decline and burden of amyloid in adults with mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer’s dementia. Over an 18-month period, the study found that participants who received lecanemab, compared with placebo, had a significantly smaller decline in cognition and function, and reduction in amyloid burden on PET CT.²

The clinical significance of these findings, however, is unclear. As noted by an editorial published in the Lancet in 2022, the difference in Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) scale between the treatment and placebo groups was 0.45. On an 18-point scale, prior research has noted that a minimal clinically significance difference of 0.98 is necessary in those with mild cognitive impairment and 1.63 in mild Alzheimer dementia.³

Additionally, the CLARITY-AD trial reported that lecanemab resulted in infusion reactions in 26.4% of participants and brain edema (an amyloid-related imaging abnormality referred to as ARIA-E) in 12.6% of participants. This finding highlights concerns for safety and the need for close monitoring, as well as ongoing implications of economic feasibility and equitable access for all those who qualify for treatment.²

Social isolation and dementia risk

There is growing awareness of the impact of social isolation on health outcomes, particularly among older adults. Prior research has reported that one in four older adults are considered socially isolated and that social isolation increases risk of premature death, dementia, depression, and cardiovascular disease.⁴

A study by Huang and colleagues is the first nationally representative cohort study examining the association between social isolation and incident dementia for older adults in community dwelling settings. A cohort of 5,022 older adults participating in the National Health and Aging Trends Study was followed from 2011 to 2020. When adjusting for demographic and health factors, including race, level of education, and number of chronic health conditions, socially isolated adults had a greater risk of developing dementia, compared with adults who were not socially isolated (hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.49). Potential mechanisms to explain this association include the increased risk of cardiovascular disease and depression in older adults who are socially isolated, thereby increasing dementia risk.

Decreased cognitive activity/engagement and access to resources such as caregiving and health care may also be linked to the increased risk of dementia in socially isolated older adults.⁵

Another observational cohort study from the National Health and Aging Trends Study investigated whether access and use of technology can lower the risk of social isolation. The study found that older adults who used email or text messaging had a lower risk of social isolation than older adults who did not use technology (incidence rate ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51-0.80).⁶ These findings highlight the importance of addressing social isolation as an important modifiable health risk factor, and the need for providing equitable access to technology in vulnerable populations as health intervention.

Dr. Mengru “Ruru” Wang is a geriatrician and internist at the University of Washington, Seattle. She practices full-spectrum medicine, seeing patients in primary care, nursing homes, and acute care. Dr. Wang has no disclosures related to this piece.

References

1. LeBoff MS et al. Supplemental vitamin D and incident fractures in midlife and older adults. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(4):299-30.

2. van Dyck CH et al. Lecanemab in early Alzheimer’s disease. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(1):9-21.

3. The Lancet. Lecanemab for Alzheimer’s disease: tempering hype and hope. Lancet. 2022; 400:1899.

4. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Social Isolation and Loneliness in Older Adults: Opportunities for the Health Care System. Washington, DC: 2020, The National Academies Press.

5. Huang, AR et al. Social isolation and 9-year dementia risk in community dwelling Medicare beneficiaries in the United States. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2023 Jan 11. doi: 10.1111/jgs18140.

6. Umoh ME etal. Impact of technology on social isolation: Longitudinal analysis from the National Health Aging Trends Study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2022 Dec 15. doi 10.1111/jgs.18179.

This article discusses updates in geriatrics from studies published in 2022 to early 2023. The topics covered include vitamin D supplementation and incident fractures, the association of social isolation and dementia, and the release of lecanemab, the second disease-modifying therapy for mild Alzheimer dementia.

Vitamin D supplementation and incident fractures

Vitamin D supplementation is a commonly recommended intervention for bone health, but data to support its impact on reducing fracture risk has been variable.

A study in the New England Journal of Medicine by LeBoff and colleagues has garnered much attention since its publication in July 2022.¹ In the ancillary study of the Vitamin D and Omega-3-Trial (VITAL), the authors examined the impact of vitamin D supplementation versus placebo on incident fractures. The study found that vitamin D supplementation, as compared with placebo, led to no significant difference in the incidence of total, nonvertebral, and hip fractures in midlife and older adults over the 5-year period of follow-up.

The generalizability of these findings has been raised as a concern as the study does not describe adults at higher risk for fracture. The authors of the study specified in their conclusion that vitamin D supplementation does not reduce fracture risk in “generally healthy midlife and older adults who were not selected for vitamin D deficiency, low bone mass or osteoporosis.”

With a mean participant age of 67 and exclusion of participants with a history of cardiovascular disease, stroke, cirrhosis and other serious illnesses, the study does not reflect the multimorbid older adult population that geriatricians typically care for. Furthermore, efficacy of vitamin D supplementation on fracture risk may be the most impactful in those with osteoporosis and with severe vitamin D deficiency (defined by vitamin D 25[OH]D level less than 12 ng/mL).

In post hoc analyses, there was no significant difference in fracture risk in these subgroups, however the authors acknowledged that the findings may be limited by the small percentage of participants with severe vitamin D deficiency (2.4%) and osteoporosis included in the study (5%).
 

Lecanemab for mild cognitive impairment and early Alzheimer’s dementia

On Jan. 6, 2023, the Food and Drug Administration approved lecanemab, the second-ever disease-modifying treatment for Alzheimer’s dementia following the approval of aducanumab in 2021. Lecanemab is a monoclonal antibody targeting larger amyloid-beta oligomers, which has been shown in vitro to have higher affinity for amyloid-beta, compared with aducanumab. FDA approval followed shortly after the publication of the CLARITY-AD trial, which investigated the effect of lecanemab versus placebo on cognitive decline and burden of amyloid in adults with mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer’s dementia. Over an 18-month period, the study found that participants who received lecanemab, compared with placebo, had a significantly smaller decline in cognition and function, and reduction in amyloid burden on PET CT.²

The clinical significance of these findings, however, is unclear. As noted by an editorial published in the Lancet in 2022, the difference in Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) scale between the treatment and placebo groups was 0.45. On an 18-point scale, prior research has noted that a minimal clinically significance difference of 0.98 is necessary in those with mild cognitive impairment and 1.63 in mild Alzheimer dementia.³

Additionally, the CLARITY-AD trial reported that lecanemab resulted in infusion reactions in 26.4% of participants and brain edema (an amyloid-related imaging abnormality referred to as ARIA-E) in 12.6% of participants. This finding highlights concerns for safety and the need for close monitoring, as well as ongoing implications of economic feasibility and equitable access for all those who qualify for treatment.²

Social isolation and dementia risk

There is growing awareness of the impact of social isolation on health outcomes, particularly among older adults. Prior research has reported that one in four older adults are considered socially isolated and that social isolation increases risk of premature death, dementia, depression, and cardiovascular disease.⁴

A study by Huang and colleagues is the first nationally representative cohort study examining the association between social isolation and incident dementia for older adults in community dwelling settings. A cohort of 5,022 older adults participating in the National Health and Aging Trends Study was followed from 2011 to 2020. When adjusting for demographic and health factors, including race, level of education, and number of chronic health conditions, socially isolated adults had a greater risk of developing dementia, compared with adults who were not socially isolated (hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.49). Potential mechanisms to explain this association include the increased risk of cardiovascular disease and depression in older adults who are socially isolated, thereby increasing dementia risk.

Decreased cognitive activity/engagement and access to resources such as caregiving and health care may also be linked to the increased risk of dementia in socially isolated older adults.⁵

Another observational cohort study from the National Health and Aging Trends Study investigated whether access and use of technology can lower the risk of social isolation. The study found that older adults who used email or text messaging had a lower risk of social isolation than older adults who did not use technology (incidence rate ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51-0.80).⁶ These findings highlight the importance of addressing social isolation as an important modifiable health risk factor, and the need for providing equitable access to technology in vulnerable populations as health intervention.

Dr. Mengru “Ruru” Wang is a geriatrician and internist at the University of Washington, Seattle. She practices full-spectrum medicine, seeing patients in primary care, nursing homes, and acute care. Dr. Wang has no disclosures related to this piece.

References

1. LeBoff MS et al. Supplemental vitamin D and incident fractures in midlife and older adults. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(4):299-30.

2. van Dyck CH et al. Lecanemab in early Alzheimer’s disease. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(1):9-21.

3. The Lancet. Lecanemab for Alzheimer’s disease: tempering hype and hope. Lancet. 2022; 400:1899.

4. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Social Isolation and Loneliness in Older Adults: Opportunities for the Health Care System. Washington, DC: 2020, The National Academies Press.

5. Huang, AR et al. Social isolation and 9-year dementia risk in community dwelling Medicare beneficiaries in the United States. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2023 Jan 11. doi: 10.1111/jgs18140.

6. Umoh ME etal. Impact of technology on social isolation: Longitudinal analysis from the National Health Aging Trends Study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2022 Dec 15. doi 10.1111/jgs.18179.

This article discusses updates in geriatrics from studies published in 2022 to early 2023. The topics covered include vitamin D supplementation and incident fractures, the association of social isolation and dementia, and the release of lecanemab, the second disease-modifying therapy for mild Alzheimer dementia.

Vitamin D supplementation and incident fractures

Vitamin D supplementation is a commonly recommended intervention for bone health, but data to support its impact on reducing fracture risk has been variable.

A study in the New England Journal of Medicine by LeBoff and colleagues has garnered much attention since its publication in July 2022.¹ In the ancillary study of the Vitamin D and Omega-3-Trial (VITAL), the authors examined the impact of vitamin D supplementation versus placebo on incident fractures. The study found that vitamin D supplementation, as compared with placebo, led to no significant difference in the incidence of total, nonvertebral, and hip fractures in midlife and older adults over the 5-year period of follow-up.

The generalizability of these findings has been raised as a concern as the study does not describe adults at higher risk for fracture. The authors of the study specified in their conclusion that vitamin D supplementation does not reduce fracture risk in “generally healthy midlife and older adults who were not selected for vitamin D deficiency, low bone mass or osteoporosis.”

With a mean participant age of 67 and exclusion of participants with a history of cardiovascular disease, stroke, cirrhosis and other serious illnesses, the study does not reflect the multimorbid older adult population that geriatricians typically care for. Furthermore, efficacy of vitamin D supplementation on fracture risk may be the most impactful in those with osteoporosis and with severe vitamin D deficiency (defined by vitamin D 25[OH]D level less than 12 ng/mL).

In post hoc analyses, there was no significant difference in fracture risk in these subgroups, however the authors acknowledged that the findings may be limited by the small percentage of participants with severe vitamin D deficiency (2.4%) and osteoporosis included in the study (5%).
 

Lecanemab for mild cognitive impairment and early Alzheimer’s dementia

On Jan. 6, 2023, the Food and Drug Administration approved lecanemab, the second-ever disease-modifying treatment for Alzheimer’s dementia following the approval of aducanumab in 2021. Lecanemab is a monoclonal antibody targeting larger amyloid-beta oligomers, which has been shown in vitro to have higher affinity for amyloid-beta, compared with aducanumab. FDA approval followed shortly after the publication of the CLARITY-AD trial, which investigated the effect of lecanemab versus placebo on cognitive decline and burden of amyloid in adults with mild cognitive impairment and mild Alzheimer’s dementia. Over an 18-month period, the study found that participants who received lecanemab, compared with placebo, had a significantly smaller decline in cognition and function, and reduction in amyloid burden on PET CT.²

The clinical significance of these findings, however, is unclear. As noted by an editorial published in the Lancet in 2022, the difference in Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) scale between the treatment and placebo groups was 0.45. On an 18-point scale, prior research has noted that a minimal clinically significance difference of 0.98 is necessary in those with mild cognitive impairment and 1.63 in mild Alzheimer dementia.³

Additionally, the CLARITY-AD trial reported that lecanemab resulted in infusion reactions in 26.4% of participants and brain edema (an amyloid-related imaging abnormality referred to as ARIA-E) in 12.6% of participants. This finding highlights concerns for safety and the need for close monitoring, as well as ongoing implications of economic feasibility and equitable access for all those who qualify for treatment.²

Social isolation and dementia risk

There is growing awareness of the impact of social isolation on health outcomes, particularly among older adults. Prior research has reported that one in four older adults are considered socially isolated and that social isolation increases risk of premature death, dementia, depression, and cardiovascular disease.⁴

A study by Huang and colleagues is the first nationally representative cohort study examining the association between social isolation and incident dementia for older adults in community dwelling settings. A cohort of 5,022 older adults participating in the National Health and Aging Trends Study was followed from 2011 to 2020. When adjusting for demographic and health factors, including race, level of education, and number of chronic health conditions, socially isolated adults had a greater risk of developing dementia, compared with adults who were not socially isolated (hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.49). Potential mechanisms to explain this association include the increased risk of cardiovascular disease and depression in older adults who are socially isolated, thereby increasing dementia risk.

Decreased cognitive activity/engagement and access to resources such as caregiving and health care may also be linked to the increased risk of dementia in socially isolated older adults.⁵

Another observational cohort study from the National Health and Aging Trends Study investigated whether access and use of technology can lower the risk of social isolation. The study found that older adults who used email or text messaging had a lower risk of social isolation than older adults who did not use technology (incidence rate ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51-0.80).⁶ These findings highlight the importance of addressing social isolation as an important modifiable health risk factor, and the need for providing equitable access to technology in vulnerable populations as health intervention.

Dr. Mengru “Ruru” Wang is a geriatrician and internist at the University of Washington, Seattle. She practices full-spectrum medicine, seeing patients in primary care, nursing homes, and acute care. Dr. Wang has no disclosures related to this piece.

References

1. LeBoff MS et al. Supplemental vitamin D and incident fractures in midlife and older adults. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(4):299-30.

2. van Dyck CH et al. Lecanemab in early Alzheimer’s disease. N Engl J Med. 2023;388(1):9-21.

3. The Lancet. Lecanemab for Alzheimer’s disease: tempering hype and hope. Lancet. 2022; 400:1899.

4. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Social Isolation and Loneliness in Older Adults: Opportunities for the Health Care System. Washington, DC: 2020, The National Academies Press.

5. Huang, AR et al. Social isolation and 9-year dementia risk in community dwelling Medicare beneficiaries in the United States. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2023 Jan 11. doi: 10.1111/jgs18140.

6. Umoh ME etal. Impact of technology on social isolation: Longitudinal analysis from the National Health Aging Trends Study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2022 Dec 15. doi 10.1111/jgs.18179.

This discussion was recorded on Jan. 9, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert D. Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Today, we have Dr. Paul E. Pepe, an emergency medicine physician based in Florida and a highly recognized expert in emergency medical services (EMS), critical care, sports and event medicine, and resuscitation. Also joining us is Dr. Michael S. (“Mick”) Malloy, an emergency medicine physician based in Ireland, also an expert in prehospital care, resuscitation, and sports and event medicine. Welcome, gentlemen.

Dr. Pepe: Thanks for having us here.

Dr. Glatter: We have a serious event to discuss today. We’re going to be talking about what happened to Damar Hamlin, the Buffalo Bills safety who went down suffering a cardiac arrest in front of millions of people. Although we don’t know the exact cause of the events that transpired, the goal of our discussion is to guide our audience through a systematic approach to evaluation and management of an athlete suffering blunt force chest and neck trauma, and then suffering a cardiac arrest. We do know, obviously, that Damar was successfully resuscitated, thanks to the medical staff and trainers.

Almost 50 years ago, Chuck Hughes, a Detroit Lions receiver, went down and died with just a minute to go in the game and, unfortunately, didn’t survive.

Paul, can you tell me your impressions after viewing the replay of the events that evening? What were the most likely causes of this syncopal event and the subsequent cardiac arrest?

Dr. Pepe: We don’t know anything specifically. It’s being kept private about what the events were. It’s a little bit complicated in a sense that he basically had an extended resuscitation in the hospital. My experience has been that most people that have ventricular fibrillation, from whatever cause, will most likely be waking up on the field if you get to them. I’ve had personal experience with that.

More importantly than when it starts, when someone goes down on the field, both Dr. Malloy and I take a broader view. We don’t get tunnel vision and think, “Oh, it was a traumatic event,” or “It was cardiac event,” and we just have our minds open. There are many things that could make you stop breathing on the field. It could be a neck or a severe head injury, and then any kind of other internal injury that occurs.

When I saw in the video that Damar Hamlin stood up, that made it a less likely to be a spinal injury. He seemed to be physically functioning, and then he suddenly collapsed. That went along with something that looks like a ventricular fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia type of event and made me think right away that it was commotio cordis. I’m not a Latin scholar, but commotio is like commotion. A literal translation might be an agitation of the heart. I was thinking that he probably got hit somewhere in the middle of the chest at the right moment where the heart is resetting in that repolarization phase, like an R-on-T phenomenon, and then caused this sudden ventricular dysrhythmia.

Most people associate it to that because we have a couple of dozen cases a year of people getting hockey pucks or a baseball hitting their chest, which is very common with adolescents. On the other hand, you can’t get it from a blunt injury like this, and it was too early for it to be, say, a direct cardiac contusion, unless there was a direct injury there. It just happened so quickly.

In Europe, they’ve had a large amount of experience with this same kind of problem before, even just from a direct shoulder hit, for example. Mick Malloy is the dean of the faculty of sports and exercise medicine at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland and has vast experience, and now he is the person overseeing the procedures for this. Mick, have you had those kinds of experiences as well?

Dr. Molloy: Yes. It’s something that has occurred over recent decades and has been more recognized. I note that in professional sports, it’s a very different thing because you’ve got such huge teams and teams trained to respond very quickly. And that’s the most important thing in this scenario – having a team that is well functioning as a high-class emergency response team ready to get out on to that field very quickly after the person collapses, getting the automated external defibrillator (AED) on, and then recognizing whether there needs to be a shock given or not. The machine will tell you all that.

In our scenario, we run courses called CARES (Care of the Athlete Resuscitation and Emergencies in Sport) to make sure that our team physicians and team physiotherapists and trainers are all speaking as one when an emergency arises.

I don’t worry so much about the professional sport. It’s more with the amateur sports and the kids sports that I get a bit more concerned because there isn’t the same level of medical care there. Having everybody trained in basic life support would be very important to reduce unnecessary deaths from these types of conditions.

As Paul mentioned, there is a very specific cardiac cause in some of these circumstances, where you get hit just at the wrong time and that hit occurs at a particular electrical point in time. It causes this ventricular fibrillation, and the only real treatment there is the defibrillator as quickly as possible.

Dr. Glatter: What you’re saying ultimately is an important part about rapid defibrillation, and at first, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). People are concerned about whether they should begin CPR. We’re talking about out-of-hospital cardiac arrest that is outside of a football stadium, for example. Some people are obsessed with taking a person’s pulse, and that’s been a point of contention. If someone is unconscious and not breathing, we should start CPR. Wouldn›t you agree? They will wake up quickly if you begin chest compressions if they’re not necessary.

Dr. Pepe: I tell people, just do it. You’re right, people will wake up and feel it if they don’t need it.

Getting back to Mick’s point of having things ready to go, for example, 8 years ago, we had a professional player on the bench who suddenly collapsed right there in front of the entire audience. We immediately did CPR, and we got the AED on. We shocked him and he was ready, willing, and able to get back on the bench again. It turns out he had underlying coronary artery disease, but we got him back right away.

I did an initial study where we placed an AED in a public place at the Chicago O’Hare Airport to see if the public would use these. Most cardiac arrests occur at home, of course, but in public places, that was a good place to try it. We had almost 10 cases the first year. What was fascinating was that we had almost no survivors over the previous decade, even though there were paramedics at the airport. When we put these out there, we had nine people go down that first year, and six people who had never operated an AED or seen one before knew to get one and use it. Every one of those people survived neurologically intact, and almost every person was waking up before traditional responders got there. That’s how effective this is, but you need to know where the AED is.

Dr. Glatter: How to turn it on, where it is, and how to operate it.

Dr. Pepe: That was the point: These rescuers saved lives in the first year, and it was tremendous. Two points I make about it are that one, you need to know where it is, and two, just go turn it on. It gives you the instructions to follow through; just be in the Nike mode, because it basically won’t hurt a person. It’s rare that there’s ever been any complication of that. The machine algorithms are so good.

Dr. Glatter: Mick, I want to turn to you about the European experience. Specifically in Denmark, we know that there’s a large public health initiative to have AEDs accessible. There have been studies showing that when the public is engaged, especially with studies looking at an app when access is available, survivability doubled in the past 10 years from having access to AEDs. What’s your experience in Ireland in terms of public access to defibrillators?

Dr. Molloy: We’ve got two different streams here. There was a big push to have more AEDs at all sports venues. That was great, but some of the sporting clubs put them inside the locked door. I said that there’s no point to that because nobody can access it. You need to have an external building and you need to leave it open. If somebody needs to use it, they need to know how to get it, open it, and get away, and not get in through a locked door to get access to a defibrillator. We have AEDs now in most stadiums and even in small rural areas, where you might have only 200 people turn up for a game.

From another public access side, if you dial in – in our scenario, it’s 112, not 911 –we have Community First Responder groups. In the rural areas, you have local people who’ve been trained in basic life support and community first response who have AEDs. They’ll have periods of the day where they come home from work as a teacher, a nurse, a policeman, or a fireman, and they turn on an app on their phone and say, “I’m available for the next 5 hours.” If there’s a cardiac arrest rung in within 5 miles of their community, they will drive directly there with the AED that they have. We’ve had numerous saves from that in the country because it could take 40 minutes to get an EMS vehicle there, and obviously, time is crucial in these scenarios. Our dispatchers will talk people through CPR, and then the community responders arrive with the AED. It has been a fantastic initiative.

Dr. Pepe: In many places, people have apps on their phones where they’re locked into the system, and it will go off and tell them there is something nearby and even GPS them into it, and it’s been fantastic.

The two points I want to make to responding to what we just heard Dean Malloy say is one, we always have a designated spot to have these in various places. If I’m at City Hall, we always have them near the red elevators on every floor and down at security. In all the public high schools, we always have one right below the clock where everybody can see it. We set it up in a very standardized form that anybody and everybody will know where it is at the time an event happens.

The other point he made about having the response teams is fantastic. I live in a large high rise and there are two complexes with many people here, and many are older, so there’s going to be a higher risk for having an event. In fact, we’ve just had one recently. The concept we developed here was a community emergency response team, where we sometimes have doctors, nurses, and paramedics who live here be on call and be responsible, or you could try to find an AED. More importantly, we made sure everybody here knew where they were and where to get them. We’ve got most of the people trained, and we’re doing more training in what actions to take during these periods of time when such events happen.

Dr. Glatter: Yes, it’s critical. I wanted to point out that we’ve looked at the use of drones, especially here in the United States. There have been some pilot studies looking at their utility in the setting of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. I want to get both of your thoughts on this and the feasibility of this.

Dr. Molloy: In a rural area, it’s a fantastic idea. You’re going to get something there as the crow flies very quickly. You probably have to look at exactly in, say, a rural area like Ireland of 32,000 square kilometers, how many you›ll have to put, what kind of distances they can realistically cover, and make sure the batteries are charged. Certainly, that’s a very good initiative because with the AEDs, you can’t do anything wrong. You can’t give a shock unless a shock needs to be given. The machine directs you what to do, so somebody who has had no training can pick one of these out of the box and start to work with it quickly and confidently that they can’t do anything wrong.

It’s a great idea. It would be a little expensive potentially at the moment in getting the drones and having that volume of drones around. In the U.S., you have completely different air traffic than we have, and in cities, you have more helicopters flying around. We certainly wouldn’t have that in our cities because that could cause a challenge if you’ve got drones flying around as well. It’s about making it safe that nothing else can go wrong from a drone in somebody else’s flight path.

Dr. Pepe: In my experience, the earlier the intervention, the better the results. There is a limit here in terms of the drones if they just can’t get there soon enough. Having said that, we are so fortunate in the city of Seattle to have most citizens knowing CPR, and we’d get that person resuscitated because they were doing such a good job with the CPR up front.

That’s why you’re going to see the Buffalo Bills player survive neurologically intact – because he did get immediate treatment right then and there. In the future, we may even have some better devices that will actually even restore normal blood flow right then and there while you’re still in cardiac arrest. There are limitations in every case. But on the other hand, it’s exciting and it paid off in this case recently.

Dr. Molloy: Just a point of interest coming from this small little country over here. The first portable defibrillator was developed in Belfast, Ireland, in the back of a cardiac response car. Despite us being a tiny little country, we do have some advances ahead of the United States.
 

Dr. Pepe: That was a breakthrough. Dr. Frank Pantridge and John Geddes did this great work and that caught the imagination of everybody here. At first, they were just going out to give people oxygen and sedate them for their chest pain. It turned out that their defibrillators are what made the difference as they went out there. Absolutely, I have to acknowledge the folks in Ireland for giving us this. Many of the EMS systems got started because of the article they published in The Lancet back in 1967.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to briefly talk about screening of the athletes at the high school/college level, but also at the professional level. Obviously, there are issues, including the risk for false-positives in terms of low incidence, but there are also false negatives, as the case with Christian Eriksen, who had a cardiac arrest in 2021 and who has been through extensive testing. We can debate the validity of such testing, but I wanted to get both of your takes on the utility of screening in such a population.

Dr. Molloy: That’s a very emotive subject. False-positives are difficult because you’re now saying to somebody that they can’t compete in your sport at a decent level. The difficult part is telling somebody that this is the end of their career.

The false-negative is a little bit more difficult. I don’t know Christian Eriksen and I’m not involved in his team in any way, but that is a one-point examination, and you’re dependent on the scale of the process interpreting the ECG, which is again only a couple of seconds and that particular arrhythmia may not have shown up on that.

Also, athletes, by nature of what they’re doing, are operating at 99% of efficiency on a frequent basis. They are at the peak of their physiologic fitness, and it does make them a little bit more prone to picking up viral illnesses from time to time. They may get a small viral myopericarditis, which causes a new arrhythmia that nobody knew about. They had the screening 2 or 3 years ago, and they now developed a new problem because of what they do, which just may not show up.

I was actually surprised that the gentleman came through it very well, which is fantastic. He wasn’t allowed to play football in the country where he was employed, and he has now moved to another country and is playing football with a defibrillator inserted. I don’t know what the rules are in American football where you can play with implantable defibrillators. I’m not so sure it’s a great idea to do that.

Dr. Pepe: One thing that we should bring up is that there are athletes with underlying cardiomyopathies or hypertrophies and things like that, but that was unlikely in this case. It’s possible, but it’s unlikely, because it would have manifested itself before. In terms of screening, I’ve met some very smart medical doctors who have run those tests, and they have been very encouraged even at the high school levels to have screenings done, whether it’s electrocardiography, echocardiography, and so on. I have to reiterate what Dr Malloy just said in that it may have its downsides as well. If you can pick up real obvious cases, I think that may be of value.

Dr. Glatter: I want to conclude and get some pearls and takeaways from each of you regarding the events that transpired and what our audience can really hold onto.

Dr. Molloy: Look at Formula One in the past 50 years. In Formula One, in the beginning it was a 2-minute job to change a tire. Now, they have this down where they’re measuring in fractions of a second and criticizing each other if one guy is 2.6 seconds and the other guy is 2.9 seconds. For me, that’s phenomenal. It takes me 25 minutes to change a tire.

We’ve looked at that from a resuscitation perspective, and we now do pit crew resuscitation before our events. We’ve planned our team and know who’s going to be occupying what role. After the events at the UEFA championships, we had a new rule brought in by UEFA where they handed me a new document saying, “This is what we would like you to do for resuscitation.” It was a three-man triangle, and I said, “No, we’re not going to do that here.” And they said, “Why, you have to; it’s our rule.”

I said, “No, our rule in Ireland is we have a six-person triangle. We’re not downing our standards because of what you have internationally. You’re covering games in some very low-resource environments, I know that. We have a particular standard here that we’re sticking to. We have a six-person group. We know what we’re all doing; we come very quickly to those downed players and get involved and we’ve had good outcomes, so we’re not going to change the standards.”

That’s the thing: You need to practice these things. The players don’t go out on the weekend and do a move for the very first time without practicing it hundreds of times. We need to look at it the same way as the medical team who are looking after that group of players and the crowd because we also look after the crowd.

A particular challenge in some of our stadiums is that the upper decks are so steep, and it’s very hard to get a patient onto a trolley and do CPR as you’re bringing them down to a zone to get them flat. We’ve had to come up with some innovative techniques to try and do that and accommodate that using some of the mechanical CPR devices. That’s the result you’ll only get from having practiced these events and trying to extricate patients. We want to check response times, so you have to practice your response team activity very frequently.

Dr. Pepe: There are two points made by Mick that I want to react to. One, the pit crew approach is critical in so many ways. We do the same thing in what we call the medical first attack, where we knew who the A, B, and C person would be. When we took it out to the NBA trainers, I recommended for them to have a similar approach so that if an event does happen right in the middle of prime time, they are coordinated.

The second point is that we do mass-gathering medicine. It’s not just the sportspeople on the field or the entertainers that we’re looking after; it is the people in the stands. We will see a cardiac arrest once a month. If you think about it, you might see a cardiac arrest occur in any community on a regular basis. Now you’ve got 100,000 people in one stadium, and something is bound to go wrong over those 3 or 4 hours where they are there and may have a critical emergency. Preparation for all of that is really important as well.

The final point is that on a day-to-day basis, most cardiac arrests do occur in the home. Granted, 80% of them are nonshockable cases, but the people who are more apt to survive are going to be the ones who have an electrical event. In fact, when we looked at our data years ago, we found that, of the cases of people with ventricular fibrillation that we resuscitated, half didn’t even have heart damage. Their enzymes were normal. It was a pure electrical event, and they were more resuscitable. They may have an underlying problem, but we can fix that once we get them back.

Everybody needs to know how to do bystander CPR, and second, we must make sure we have AEDs strategically placed, as I alluded to before. We also go out to other parts of the community and give them advice. All those things must be put in place, but more importantly, just get the training and make the training simple. It’s really a “just do it” philosophy, but make it simple.

For example, when I teach a course, I can do it in 15 minutes, and people retain it because I keep reiterating things like, “Okay, there’s one thing you need to know about choking: Pop the cork.” You give them a physiologic image of what’s happening. Everybody says, “I remember you saying to just do it, pop the cork.”

With AEDs, know where it is – that’s why we should have it in standardized places. Go get it, turn it on, and then follow the instructions. Also, the most important thing is making sure you’re doing quality compressions; and there are videos that can help you with that, as well as classes that you can take that will get you through it.

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. The public still has the misconception that you need to do mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. The message has not permeated through society that you don’t need to do mouth-to-mouth. Hands-only CPR is the gold standard now.

Dr. Pepe: If people have a reversible cause like ventricular fibrillation, often they’re already gasping, which is better than a delivered breath, by the way. Most important, then, are the compressions to make sure you have oxygen going up to the brain, because you’re still theoretically loaded with oxygen in your bloodstream if you had a sudden cardiac arrest from a ventricular fibrillation.

Your points are well taken, and we found that we had better outcomes when we just gave instructions to do compressions only, and that became the standard. Mick, you’ve had some experiences with that as well.

Dr. Molloy: If we’re going to have a long-term benefit from all this, we have to start doing this in elementary school and teaching kids basic life support and some basic health messaging.

I remember trying to get this across to a teacher one day and the teacher saying, “But why would we teach young kids to resuscitate each other?” I said, “I think you forget that the only 60-year-old person in the room is you. You train them, and we train them. They’re the ones who are going to respond and keep you alive. That’s the way you should be looking at this.” That completely changed the mindset of whether we should be doing this for the kids or not.

Dr. Pepe: In fact, what we find is that that’s exactly who gets saved. I had case after case where the kids at the school had learned CPR and saved the teachers or the administrator at the high school or elementary school. It’s a fantastic point that you bring up, Dr. Malloy.

Dr. Glatter: One other brief thing we can interject here is that the team was excellent on field in that they evaluated Damar Hamlin in a primary survey sense of ABCs (i.e., airway, breathing, and circulation) for things like a tension pneumothorax. In the sense in which he was hit, there are reversible causes. Making sure he didn’t have a tension pneumothorax that caused the arrest, in my mind, was critical.

Dr. Pepe: We do the same thing on a day-to-day basis with a car wreck, because it could be that the person had ventricular fibrillation and then had the wreck. It’s not always trauma. That’s a fantastic point that you’re making. That’s exactly what I think happened, and that’s what we do.

Dr. Glatter: Well, thank you, gentlemen. This was an informative and helpful discussion for our audience. I appreciate your time and expertise.



Dr. Glatter, is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes.

Dr. Pepe is a professor of internal medicine, surgery, pediatrics, public health, and emergency medicine at University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston. He’s also a global coordinator of the U.S. Metropolitan Municipalities EMS Medical Directors (“Eagles”) Coalition.

Dr. Molloy works clinically as a consultant in emergency medicine in Wexford General Hospital, part of the Ireland East Hospital Group (IEHG). Internationally, he is a member of the Disaster Medicine Section of the European Society of Emergency Medicine (EUSEM) and has been appointed by the Irish Medical Organization (IMO) as one of two Irish delegates to serve on the European Board and Section of Emergency Medicine of the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS), having served for a number of years on its predecessor, the Multidisciplinary Joint Committee on Emergency Medicine.

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

This discussion was recorded on Jan. 9, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert D. Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Today, we have Dr. Paul E. Pepe, an emergency medicine physician based in Florida and a highly recognized expert in emergency medical services (EMS), critical care, sports and event medicine, and resuscitation. Also joining us is Dr. Michael S. (“Mick”) Malloy, an emergency medicine physician based in Ireland, also an expert in prehospital care, resuscitation, and sports and event medicine. Welcome, gentlemen.

Dr. Pepe: Thanks for having us here.

Dr. Glatter: We have a serious event to discuss today. We’re going to be talking about what happened to Damar Hamlin, the Buffalo Bills safety who went down suffering a cardiac arrest in front of millions of people. Although we don’t know the exact cause of the events that transpired, the goal of our discussion is to guide our audience through a systematic approach to evaluation and management of an athlete suffering blunt force chest and neck trauma, and then suffering a cardiac arrest. We do know, obviously, that Damar was successfully resuscitated, thanks to the medical staff and trainers.

Almost 50 years ago, Chuck Hughes, a Detroit Lions receiver, went down and died with just a minute to go in the game and, unfortunately, didn’t survive.

Paul, can you tell me your impressions after viewing the replay of the events that evening? What were the most likely causes of this syncopal event and the subsequent cardiac arrest?

Dr. Pepe: We don’t know anything specifically. It’s being kept private about what the events were. It’s a little bit complicated in a sense that he basically had an extended resuscitation in the hospital. My experience has been that most people that have ventricular fibrillation, from whatever cause, will most likely be waking up on the field if you get to them. I’ve had personal experience with that.

More importantly than when it starts, when someone goes down on the field, both Dr. Malloy and I take a broader view. We don’t get tunnel vision and think, “Oh, it was a traumatic event,” or “It was cardiac event,” and we just have our minds open. There are many things that could make you stop breathing on the field. It could be a neck or a severe head injury, and then any kind of other internal injury that occurs.

When I saw in the video that Damar Hamlin stood up, that made it a less likely to be a spinal injury. He seemed to be physically functioning, and then he suddenly collapsed. That went along with something that looks like a ventricular fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia type of event and made me think right away that it was commotio cordis. I’m not a Latin scholar, but commotio is like commotion. A literal translation might be an agitation of the heart. I was thinking that he probably got hit somewhere in the middle of the chest at the right moment where the heart is resetting in that repolarization phase, like an R-on-T phenomenon, and then caused this sudden ventricular dysrhythmia.

Most people associate it to that because we have a couple of dozen cases a year of people getting hockey pucks or a baseball hitting their chest, which is very common with adolescents. On the other hand, you can’t get it from a blunt injury like this, and it was too early for it to be, say, a direct cardiac contusion, unless there was a direct injury there. It just happened so quickly.

In Europe, they’ve had a large amount of experience with this same kind of problem before, even just from a direct shoulder hit, for example. Mick Malloy is the dean of the faculty of sports and exercise medicine at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland and has vast experience, and now he is the person overseeing the procedures for this. Mick, have you had those kinds of experiences as well?

Dr. Molloy: Yes. It’s something that has occurred over recent decades and has been more recognized. I note that in professional sports, it’s a very different thing because you’ve got such huge teams and teams trained to respond very quickly. And that’s the most important thing in this scenario – having a team that is well functioning as a high-class emergency response team ready to get out on to that field very quickly after the person collapses, getting the automated external defibrillator (AED) on, and then recognizing whether there needs to be a shock given or not. The machine will tell you all that.

In our scenario, we run courses called CARES (Care of the Athlete Resuscitation and Emergencies in Sport) to make sure that our team physicians and team physiotherapists and trainers are all speaking as one when an emergency arises.

I don’t worry so much about the professional sport. It’s more with the amateur sports and the kids sports that I get a bit more concerned because there isn’t the same level of medical care there. Having everybody trained in basic life support would be very important to reduce unnecessary deaths from these types of conditions.

As Paul mentioned, there is a very specific cardiac cause in some of these circumstances, where you get hit just at the wrong time and that hit occurs at a particular electrical point in time. It causes this ventricular fibrillation, and the only real treatment there is the defibrillator as quickly as possible.

Dr. Glatter: What you’re saying ultimately is an important part about rapid defibrillation, and at first, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). People are concerned about whether they should begin CPR. We’re talking about out-of-hospital cardiac arrest that is outside of a football stadium, for example. Some people are obsessed with taking a person’s pulse, and that’s been a point of contention. If someone is unconscious and not breathing, we should start CPR. Wouldn›t you agree? They will wake up quickly if you begin chest compressions if they’re not necessary.

Dr. Pepe: I tell people, just do it. You’re right, people will wake up and feel it if they don’t need it.

Getting back to Mick’s point of having things ready to go, for example, 8 years ago, we had a professional player on the bench who suddenly collapsed right there in front of the entire audience. We immediately did CPR, and we got the AED on. We shocked him and he was ready, willing, and able to get back on the bench again. It turns out he had underlying coronary artery disease, but we got him back right away.

I did an initial study where we placed an AED in a public place at the Chicago O’Hare Airport to see if the public would use these. Most cardiac arrests occur at home, of course, but in public places, that was a good place to try it. We had almost 10 cases the first year. What was fascinating was that we had almost no survivors over the previous decade, even though there were paramedics at the airport. When we put these out there, we had nine people go down that first year, and six people who had never operated an AED or seen one before knew to get one and use it. Every one of those people survived neurologically intact, and almost every person was waking up before traditional responders got there. That’s how effective this is, but you need to know where the AED is.

Dr. Glatter: How to turn it on, where it is, and how to operate it.

Dr. Pepe: That was the point: These rescuers saved lives in the first year, and it was tremendous. Two points I make about it are that one, you need to know where it is, and two, just go turn it on. It gives you the instructions to follow through; just be in the Nike mode, because it basically won’t hurt a person. It’s rare that there’s ever been any complication of that. The machine algorithms are so good.

Dr. Glatter: Mick, I want to turn to you about the European experience. Specifically in Denmark, we know that there’s a large public health initiative to have AEDs accessible. There have been studies showing that when the public is engaged, especially with studies looking at an app when access is available, survivability doubled in the past 10 years from having access to AEDs. What’s your experience in Ireland in terms of public access to defibrillators?

Dr. Molloy: We’ve got two different streams here. There was a big push to have more AEDs at all sports venues. That was great, but some of the sporting clubs put them inside the locked door. I said that there’s no point to that because nobody can access it. You need to have an external building and you need to leave it open. If somebody needs to use it, they need to know how to get it, open it, and get away, and not get in through a locked door to get access to a defibrillator. We have AEDs now in most stadiums and even in small rural areas, where you might have only 200 people turn up for a game.

From another public access side, if you dial in – in our scenario, it’s 112, not 911 –we have Community First Responder groups. In the rural areas, you have local people who’ve been trained in basic life support and community first response who have AEDs. They’ll have periods of the day where they come home from work as a teacher, a nurse, a policeman, or a fireman, and they turn on an app on their phone and say, “I’m available for the next 5 hours.” If there’s a cardiac arrest rung in within 5 miles of their community, they will drive directly there with the AED that they have. We’ve had numerous saves from that in the country because it could take 40 minutes to get an EMS vehicle there, and obviously, time is crucial in these scenarios. Our dispatchers will talk people through CPR, and then the community responders arrive with the AED. It has been a fantastic initiative.

Dr. Pepe: In many places, people have apps on their phones where they’re locked into the system, and it will go off and tell them there is something nearby and even GPS them into it, and it’s been fantastic.

The two points I want to make to responding to what we just heard Dean Malloy say is one, we always have a designated spot to have these in various places. If I’m at City Hall, we always have them near the red elevators on every floor and down at security. In all the public high schools, we always have one right below the clock where everybody can see it. We set it up in a very standardized form that anybody and everybody will know where it is at the time an event happens.

The other point he made about having the response teams is fantastic. I live in a large high rise and there are two complexes with many people here, and many are older, so there’s going to be a higher risk for having an event. In fact, we’ve just had one recently. The concept we developed here was a community emergency response team, where we sometimes have doctors, nurses, and paramedics who live here be on call and be responsible, or you could try to find an AED. More importantly, we made sure everybody here knew where they were and where to get them. We’ve got most of the people trained, and we’re doing more training in what actions to take during these periods of time when such events happen.

Dr. Glatter: Yes, it’s critical. I wanted to point out that we’ve looked at the use of drones, especially here in the United States. There have been some pilot studies looking at their utility in the setting of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. I want to get both of your thoughts on this and the feasibility of this.

Dr. Molloy: In a rural area, it’s a fantastic idea. You’re going to get something there as the crow flies very quickly. You probably have to look at exactly in, say, a rural area like Ireland of 32,000 square kilometers, how many you›ll have to put, what kind of distances they can realistically cover, and make sure the batteries are charged. Certainly, that’s a very good initiative because with the AEDs, you can’t do anything wrong. You can’t give a shock unless a shock needs to be given. The machine directs you what to do, so somebody who has had no training can pick one of these out of the box and start to work with it quickly and confidently that they can’t do anything wrong.

It’s a great idea. It would be a little expensive potentially at the moment in getting the drones and having that volume of drones around. In the U.S., you have completely different air traffic than we have, and in cities, you have more helicopters flying around. We certainly wouldn’t have that in our cities because that could cause a challenge if you’ve got drones flying around as well. It’s about making it safe that nothing else can go wrong from a drone in somebody else’s flight path.

Dr. Pepe: In my experience, the earlier the intervention, the better the results. There is a limit here in terms of the drones if they just can’t get there soon enough. Having said that, we are so fortunate in the city of Seattle to have most citizens knowing CPR, and we’d get that person resuscitated because they were doing such a good job with the CPR up front.

That’s why you’re going to see the Buffalo Bills player survive neurologically intact – because he did get immediate treatment right then and there. In the future, we may even have some better devices that will actually even restore normal blood flow right then and there while you’re still in cardiac arrest. There are limitations in every case. But on the other hand, it’s exciting and it paid off in this case recently.

Dr. Molloy: Just a point of interest coming from this small little country over here. The first portable defibrillator was developed in Belfast, Ireland, in the back of a cardiac response car. Despite us being a tiny little country, we do have some advances ahead of the United States.
 

Dr. Pepe: That was a breakthrough. Dr. Frank Pantridge and John Geddes did this great work and that caught the imagination of everybody here. At first, they were just going out to give people oxygen and sedate them for their chest pain. It turned out that their defibrillators are what made the difference as they went out there. Absolutely, I have to acknowledge the folks in Ireland for giving us this. Many of the EMS systems got started because of the article they published in The Lancet back in 1967.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to briefly talk about screening of the athletes at the high school/college level, but also at the professional level. Obviously, there are issues, including the risk for false-positives in terms of low incidence, but there are also false negatives, as the case with Christian Eriksen, who had a cardiac arrest in 2021 and who has been through extensive testing. We can debate the validity of such testing, but I wanted to get both of your takes on the utility of screening in such a population.

Dr. Molloy: That’s a very emotive subject. False-positives are difficult because you’re now saying to somebody that they can’t compete in your sport at a decent level. The difficult part is telling somebody that this is the end of their career.

The false-negative is a little bit more difficult. I don’t know Christian Eriksen and I’m not involved in his team in any way, but that is a one-point examination, and you’re dependent on the scale of the process interpreting the ECG, which is again only a couple of seconds and that particular arrhythmia may not have shown up on that.

Also, athletes, by nature of what they’re doing, are operating at 99% of efficiency on a frequent basis. They are at the peak of their physiologic fitness, and it does make them a little bit more prone to picking up viral illnesses from time to time. They may get a small viral myopericarditis, which causes a new arrhythmia that nobody knew about. They had the screening 2 or 3 years ago, and they now developed a new problem because of what they do, which just may not show up.

I was actually surprised that the gentleman came through it very well, which is fantastic. He wasn’t allowed to play football in the country where he was employed, and he has now moved to another country and is playing football with a defibrillator inserted. I don’t know what the rules are in American football where you can play with implantable defibrillators. I’m not so sure it’s a great idea to do that.

Dr. Pepe: One thing that we should bring up is that there are athletes with underlying cardiomyopathies or hypertrophies and things like that, but that was unlikely in this case. It’s possible, but it’s unlikely, because it would have manifested itself before. In terms of screening, I’ve met some very smart medical doctors who have run those tests, and they have been very encouraged even at the high school levels to have screenings done, whether it’s electrocardiography, echocardiography, and so on. I have to reiterate what Dr Malloy just said in that it may have its downsides as well. If you can pick up real obvious cases, I think that may be of value.

Dr. Glatter: I want to conclude and get some pearls and takeaways from each of you regarding the events that transpired and what our audience can really hold onto.

Dr. Molloy: Look at Formula One in the past 50 years. In Formula One, in the beginning it was a 2-minute job to change a tire. Now, they have this down where they’re measuring in fractions of a second and criticizing each other if one guy is 2.6 seconds and the other guy is 2.9 seconds. For me, that’s phenomenal. It takes me 25 minutes to change a tire.

We’ve looked at that from a resuscitation perspective, and we now do pit crew resuscitation before our events. We’ve planned our team and know who’s going to be occupying what role. After the events at the UEFA championships, we had a new rule brought in by UEFA where they handed me a new document saying, “This is what we would like you to do for resuscitation.” It was a three-man triangle, and I said, “No, we’re not going to do that here.” And they said, “Why, you have to; it’s our rule.”

I said, “No, our rule in Ireland is we have a six-person triangle. We’re not downing our standards because of what you have internationally. You’re covering games in some very low-resource environments, I know that. We have a particular standard here that we’re sticking to. We have a six-person group. We know what we’re all doing; we come very quickly to those downed players and get involved and we’ve had good outcomes, so we’re not going to change the standards.”

That’s the thing: You need to practice these things. The players don’t go out on the weekend and do a move for the very first time without practicing it hundreds of times. We need to look at it the same way as the medical team who are looking after that group of players and the crowd because we also look after the crowd.

A particular challenge in some of our stadiums is that the upper decks are so steep, and it’s very hard to get a patient onto a trolley and do CPR as you’re bringing them down to a zone to get them flat. We’ve had to come up with some innovative techniques to try and do that and accommodate that using some of the mechanical CPR devices. That’s the result you’ll only get from having practiced these events and trying to extricate patients. We want to check response times, so you have to practice your response team activity very frequently.

Dr. Pepe: There are two points made by Mick that I want to react to. One, the pit crew approach is critical in so many ways. We do the same thing in what we call the medical first attack, where we knew who the A, B, and C person would be. When we took it out to the NBA trainers, I recommended for them to have a similar approach so that if an event does happen right in the middle of prime time, they are coordinated.

The second point is that we do mass-gathering medicine. It’s not just the sportspeople on the field or the entertainers that we’re looking after; it is the people in the stands. We will see a cardiac arrest once a month. If you think about it, you might see a cardiac arrest occur in any community on a regular basis. Now you’ve got 100,000 people in one stadium, and something is bound to go wrong over those 3 or 4 hours where they are there and may have a critical emergency. Preparation for all of that is really important as well.

The final point is that on a day-to-day basis, most cardiac arrests do occur in the home. Granted, 80% of them are nonshockable cases, but the people who are more apt to survive are going to be the ones who have an electrical event. In fact, when we looked at our data years ago, we found that, of the cases of people with ventricular fibrillation that we resuscitated, half didn’t even have heart damage. Their enzymes were normal. It was a pure electrical event, and they were more resuscitable. They may have an underlying problem, but we can fix that once we get them back.

Everybody needs to know how to do bystander CPR, and second, we must make sure we have AEDs strategically placed, as I alluded to before. We also go out to other parts of the community and give them advice. All those things must be put in place, but more importantly, just get the training and make the training simple. It’s really a “just do it” philosophy, but make it simple.

For example, when I teach a course, I can do it in 15 minutes, and people retain it because I keep reiterating things like, “Okay, there’s one thing you need to know about choking: Pop the cork.” You give them a physiologic image of what’s happening. Everybody says, “I remember you saying to just do it, pop the cork.”

With AEDs, know where it is – that’s why we should have it in standardized places. Go get it, turn it on, and then follow the instructions. Also, the most important thing is making sure you’re doing quality compressions; and there are videos that can help you with that, as well as classes that you can take that will get you through it.

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. The public still has the misconception that you need to do mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. The message has not permeated through society that you don’t need to do mouth-to-mouth. Hands-only CPR is the gold standard now.

Dr. Pepe: If people have a reversible cause like ventricular fibrillation, often they’re already gasping, which is better than a delivered breath, by the way. Most important, then, are the compressions to make sure you have oxygen going up to the brain, because you’re still theoretically loaded with oxygen in your bloodstream if you had a sudden cardiac arrest from a ventricular fibrillation.

Your points are well taken, and we found that we had better outcomes when we just gave instructions to do compressions only, and that became the standard. Mick, you’ve had some experiences with that as well.

Dr. Molloy: If we’re going to have a long-term benefit from all this, we have to start doing this in elementary school and teaching kids basic life support and some basic health messaging.

I remember trying to get this across to a teacher one day and the teacher saying, “But why would we teach young kids to resuscitate each other?” I said, “I think you forget that the only 60-year-old person in the room is you. You train them, and we train them. They’re the ones who are going to respond and keep you alive. That’s the way you should be looking at this.” That completely changed the mindset of whether we should be doing this for the kids or not.

Dr. Pepe: In fact, what we find is that that’s exactly who gets saved. I had case after case where the kids at the school had learned CPR and saved the teachers or the administrator at the high school or elementary school. It’s a fantastic point that you bring up, Dr. Malloy.

Dr. Glatter: One other brief thing we can interject here is that the team was excellent on field in that they evaluated Damar Hamlin in a primary survey sense of ABCs (i.e., airway, breathing, and circulation) for things like a tension pneumothorax. In the sense in which he was hit, there are reversible causes. Making sure he didn’t have a tension pneumothorax that caused the arrest, in my mind, was critical.

Dr. Pepe: We do the same thing on a day-to-day basis with a car wreck, because it could be that the person had ventricular fibrillation and then had the wreck. It’s not always trauma. That’s a fantastic point that you’re making. That’s exactly what I think happened, and that’s what we do.

Dr. Glatter: Well, thank you, gentlemen. This was an informative and helpful discussion for our audience. I appreciate your time and expertise.



Dr. Glatter, is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes.

Dr. Pepe is a professor of internal medicine, surgery, pediatrics, public health, and emergency medicine at University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston. He’s also a global coordinator of the U.S. Metropolitan Municipalities EMS Medical Directors (“Eagles”) Coalition.

Dr. Molloy works clinically as a consultant in emergency medicine in Wexford General Hospital, part of the Ireland East Hospital Group (IEHG). Internationally, he is a member of the Disaster Medicine Section of the European Society of Emergency Medicine (EUSEM) and has been appointed by the Irish Medical Organization (IMO) as one of two Irish delegates to serve on the European Board and Section of Emergency Medicine of the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS), having served for a number of years on its predecessor, the Multidisciplinary Joint Committee on Emergency Medicine.

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

This discussion was recorded on Jan. 9, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert D. Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Today, we have Dr. Paul E. Pepe, an emergency medicine physician based in Florida and a highly recognized expert in emergency medical services (EMS), critical care, sports and event medicine, and resuscitation. Also joining us is Dr. Michael S. (“Mick”) Malloy, an emergency medicine physician based in Ireland, also an expert in prehospital care, resuscitation, and sports and event medicine. Welcome, gentlemen.

Dr. Pepe: Thanks for having us here.

Dr. Glatter: We have a serious event to discuss today. We’re going to be talking about what happened to Damar Hamlin, the Buffalo Bills safety who went down suffering a cardiac arrest in front of millions of people. Although we don’t know the exact cause of the events that transpired, the goal of our discussion is to guide our audience through a systematic approach to evaluation and management of an athlete suffering blunt force chest and neck trauma, and then suffering a cardiac arrest. We do know, obviously, that Damar was successfully resuscitated, thanks to the medical staff and trainers.

Almost 50 years ago, Chuck Hughes, a Detroit Lions receiver, went down and died with just a minute to go in the game and, unfortunately, didn’t survive.

Paul, can you tell me your impressions after viewing the replay of the events that evening? What were the most likely causes of this syncopal event and the subsequent cardiac arrest?

Dr. Pepe: We don’t know anything specifically. It’s being kept private about what the events were. It’s a little bit complicated in a sense that he basically had an extended resuscitation in the hospital. My experience has been that most people that have ventricular fibrillation, from whatever cause, will most likely be waking up on the field if you get to them. I’ve had personal experience with that.

More importantly than when it starts, when someone goes down on the field, both Dr. Malloy and I take a broader view. We don’t get tunnel vision and think, “Oh, it was a traumatic event,” or “It was cardiac event,” and we just have our minds open. There are many things that could make you stop breathing on the field. It could be a neck or a severe head injury, and then any kind of other internal injury that occurs.

When I saw in the video that Damar Hamlin stood up, that made it a less likely to be a spinal injury. He seemed to be physically functioning, and then he suddenly collapsed. That went along with something that looks like a ventricular fibrillation or ventricular tachycardia type of event and made me think right away that it was commotio cordis. I’m not a Latin scholar, but commotio is like commotion. A literal translation might be an agitation of the heart. I was thinking that he probably got hit somewhere in the middle of the chest at the right moment where the heart is resetting in that repolarization phase, like an R-on-T phenomenon, and then caused this sudden ventricular dysrhythmia.

Most people associate it to that because we have a couple of dozen cases a year of people getting hockey pucks or a baseball hitting their chest, which is very common with adolescents. On the other hand, you can’t get it from a blunt injury like this, and it was too early for it to be, say, a direct cardiac contusion, unless there was a direct injury there. It just happened so quickly.

In Europe, they’ve had a large amount of experience with this same kind of problem before, even just from a direct shoulder hit, for example. Mick Malloy is the dean of the faculty of sports and exercise medicine at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland and has vast experience, and now he is the person overseeing the procedures for this. Mick, have you had those kinds of experiences as well?

Dr. Molloy: Yes. It’s something that has occurred over recent decades and has been more recognized. I note that in professional sports, it’s a very different thing because you’ve got such huge teams and teams trained to respond very quickly. And that’s the most important thing in this scenario – having a team that is well functioning as a high-class emergency response team ready to get out on to that field very quickly after the person collapses, getting the automated external defibrillator (AED) on, and then recognizing whether there needs to be a shock given or not. The machine will tell you all that.

In our scenario, we run courses called CARES (Care of the Athlete Resuscitation and Emergencies in Sport) to make sure that our team physicians and team physiotherapists and trainers are all speaking as one when an emergency arises.

I don’t worry so much about the professional sport. It’s more with the amateur sports and the kids sports that I get a bit more concerned because there isn’t the same level of medical care there. Having everybody trained in basic life support would be very important to reduce unnecessary deaths from these types of conditions.

As Paul mentioned, there is a very specific cardiac cause in some of these circumstances, where you get hit just at the wrong time and that hit occurs at a particular electrical point in time. It causes this ventricular fibrillation, and the only real treatment there is the defibrillator as quickly as possible.

Dr. Glatter: What you’re saying ultimately is an important part about rapid defibrillation, and at first, cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). People are concerned about whether they should begin CPR. We’re talking about out-of-hospital cardiac arrest that is outside of a football stadium, for example. Some people are obsessed with taking a person’s pulse, and that’s been a point of contention. If someone is unconscious and not breathing, we should start CPR. Wouldn›t you agree? They will wake up quickly if you begin chest compressions if they’re not necessary.

Dr. Pepe: I tell people, just do it. You’re right, people will wake up and feel it if they don’t need it.

Getting back to Mick’s point of having things ready to go, for example, 8 years ago, we had a professional player on the bench who suddenly collapsed right there in front of the entire audience. We immediately did CPR, and we got the AED on. We shocked him and he was ready, willing, and able to get back on the bench again. It turns out he had underlying coronary artery disease, but we got him back right away.

I did an initial study where we placed an AED in a public place at the Chicago O’Hare Airport to see if the public would use these. Most cardiac arrests occur at home, of course, but in public places, that was a good place to try it. We had almost 10 cases the first year. What was fascinating was that we had almost no survivors over the previous decade, even though there were paramedics at the airport. When we put these out there, we had nine people go down that first year, and six people who had never operated an AED or seen one before knew to get one and use it. Every one of those people survived neurologically intact, and almost every person was waking up before traditional responders got there. That’s how effective this is, but you need to know where the AED is.

Dr. Glatter: How to turn it on, where it is, and how to operate it.

Dr. Pepe: That was the point: These rescuers saved lives in the first year, and it was tremendous. Two points I make about it are that one, you need to know where it is, and two, just go turn it on. It gives you the instructions to follow through; just be in the Nike mode, because it basically won’t hurt a person. It’s rare that there’s ever been any complication of that. The machine algorithms are so good.

Dr. Glatter: Mick, I want to turn to you about the European experience. Specifically in Denmark, we know that there’s a large public health initiative to have AEDs accessible. There have been studies showing that when the public is engaged, especially with studies looking at an app when access is available, survivability doubled in the past 10 years from having access to AEDs. What’s your experience in Ireland in terms of public access to defibrillators?

Dr. Molloy: We’ve got two different streams here. There was a big push to have more AEDs at all sports venues. That was great, but some of the sporting clubs put them inside the locked door. I said that there’s no point to that because nobody can access it. You need to have an external building and you need to leave it open. If somebody needs to use it, they need to know how to get it, open it, and get away, and not get in through a locked door to get access to a defibrillator. We have AEDs now in most stadiums and even in small rural areas, where you might have only 200 people turn up for a game.

From another public access side, if you dial in – in our scenario, it’s 112, not 911 –we have Community First Responder groups. In the rural areas, you have local people who’ve been trained in basic life support and community first response who have AEDs. They’ll have periods of the day where they come home from work as a teacher, a nurse, a policeman, or a fireman, and they turn on an app on their phone and say, “I’m available for the next 5 hours.” If there’s a cardiac arrest rung in within 5 miles of their community, they will drive directly there with the AED that they have. We’ve had numerous saves from that in the country because it could take 40 minutes to get an EMS vehicle there, and obviously, time is crucial in these scenarios. Our dispatchers will talk people through CPR, and then the community responders arrive with the AED. It has been a fantastic initiative.

Dr. Pepe: In many places, people have apps on their phones where they’re locked into the system, and it will go off and tell them there is something nearby and even GPS them into it, and it’s been fantastic.

The two points I want to make to responding to what we just heard Dean Malloy say is one, we always have a designated spot to have these in various places. If I’m at City Hall, we always have them near the red elevators on every floor and down at security. In all the public high schools, we always have one right below the clock where everybody can see it. We set it up in a very standardized form that anybody and everybody will know where it is at the time an event happens.

The other point he made about having the response teams is fantastic. I live in a large high rise and there are two complexes with many people here, and many are older, so there’s going to be a higher risk for having an event. In fact, we’ve just had one recently. The concept we developed here was a community emergency response team, where we sometimes have doctors, nurses, and paramedics who live here be on call and be responsible, or you could try to find an AED. More importantly, we made sure everybody here knew where they were and where to get them. We’ve got most of the people trained, and we’re doing more training in what actions to take during these periods of time when such events happen.

Dr. Glatter: Yes, it’s critical. I wanted to point out that we’ve looked at the use of drones, especially here in the United States. There have been some pilot studies looking at their utility in the setting of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. I want to get both of your thoughts on this and the feasibility of this.

Dr. Molloy: In a rural area, it’s a fantastic idea. You’re going to get something there as the crow flies very quickly. You probably have to look at exactly in, say, a rural area like Ireland of 32,000 square kilometers, how many you›ll have to put, what kind of distances they can realistically cover, and make sure the batteries are charged. Certainly, that’s a very good initiative because with the AEDs, you can’t do anything wrong. You can’t give a shock unless a shock needs to be given. The machine directs you what to do, so somebody who has had no training can pick one of these out of the box and start to work with it quickly and confidently that they can’t do anything wrong.

It’s a great idea. It would be a little expensive potentially at the moment in getting the drones and having that volume of drones around. In the U.S., you have completely different air traffic than we have, and in cities, you have more helicopters flying around. We certainly wouldn’t have that in our cities because that could cause a challenge if you’ve got drones flying around as well. It’s about making it safe that nothing else can go wrong from a drone in somebody else’s flight path.

Dr. Pepe: In my experience, the earlier the intervention, the better the results. There is a limit here in terms of the drones if they just can’t get there soon enough. Having said that, we are so fortunate in the city of Seattle to have most citizens knowing CPR, and we’d get that person resuscitated because they were doing such a good job with the CPR up front.

That’s why you’re going to see the Buffalo Bills player survive neurologically intact – because he did get immediate treatment right then and there. In the future, we may even have some better devices that will actually even restore normal blood flow right then and there while you’re still in cardiac arrest. There are limitations in every case. But on the other hand, it’s exciting and it paid off in this case recently.

Dr. Molloy: Just a point of interest coming from this small little country over here. The first portable defibrillator was developed in Belfast, Ireland, in the back of a cardiac response car. Despite us being a tiny little country, we do have some advances ahead of the United States.
 

Dr. Pepe: That was a breakthrough. Dr. Frank Pantridge and John Geddes did this great work and that caught the imagination of everybody here. At first, they were just going out to give people oxygen and sedate them for their chest pain. It turned out that their defibrillators are what made the difference as they went out there. Absolutely, I have to acknowledge the folks in Ireland for giving us this. Many of the EMS systems got started because of the article they published in The Lancet back in 1967.

Dr. Glatter: I wanted to briefly talk about screening of the athletes at the high school/college level, but also at the professional level. Obviously, there are issues, including the risk for false-positives in terms of low incidence, but there are also false negatives, as the case with Christian Eriksen, who had a cardiac arrest in 2021 and who has been through extensive testing. We can debate the validity of such testing, but I wanted to get both of your takes on the utility of screening in such a population.

Dr. Molloy: That’s a very emotive subject. False-positives are difficult because you’re now saying to somebody that they can’t compete in your sport at a decent level. The difficult part is telling somebody that this is the end of their career.

The false-negative is a little bit more difficult. I don’t know Christian Eriksen and I’m not involved in his team in any way, but that is a one-point examination, and you’re dependent on the scale of the process interpreting the ECG, which is again only a couple of seconds and that particular arrhythmia may not have shown up on that.

Also, athletes, by nature of what they’re doing, are operating at 99% of efficiency on a frequent basis. They are at the peak of their physiologic fitness, and it does make them a little bit more prone to picking up viral illnesses from time to time. They may get a small viral myopericarditis, which causes a new arrhythmia that nobody knew about. They had the screening 2 or 3 years ago, and they now developed a new problem because of what they do, which just may not show up.

I was actually surprised that the gentleman came through it very well, which is fantastic. He wasn’t allowed to play football in the country where he was employed, and he has now moved to another country and is playing football with a defibrillator inserted. I don’t know what the rules are in American football where you can play with implantable defibrillators. I’m not so sure it’s a great idea to do that.

Dr. Pepe: One thing that we should bring up is that there are athletes with underlying cardiomyopathies or hypertrophies and things like that, but that was unlikely in this case. It’s possible, but it’s unlikely, because it would have manifested itself before. In terms of screening, I’ve met some very smart medical doctors who have run those tests, and they have been very encouraged even at the high school levels to have screenings done, whether it’s electrocardiography, echocardiography, and so on. I have to reiterate what Dr Malloy just said in that it may have its downsides as well. If you can pick up real obvious cases, I think that may be of value.

Dr. Glatter: I want to conclude and get some pearls and takeaways from each of you regarding the events that transpired and what our audience can really hold onto.

Dr. Molloy: Look at Formula One in the past 50 years. In Formula One, in the beginning it was a 2-minute job to change a tire. Now, they have this down where they’re measuring in fractions of a second and criticizing each other if one guy is 2.6 seconds and the other guy is 2.9 seconds. For me, that’s phenomenal. It takes me 25 minutes to change a tire.

We’ve looked at that from a resuscitation perspective, and we now do pit crew resuscitation before our events. We’ve planned our team and know who’s going to be occupying what role. After the events at the UEFA championships, we had a new rule brought in by UEFA where they handed me a new document saying, “This is what we would like you to do for resuscitation.” It was a three-man triangle, and I said, “No, we’re not going to do that here.” And they said, “Why, you have to; it’s our rule.”

I said, “No, our rule in Ireland is we have a six-person triangle. We’re not downing our standards because of what you have internationally. You’re covering games in some very low-resource environments, I know that. We have a particular standard here that we’re sticking to. We have a six-person group. We know what we’re all doing; we come very quickly to those downed players and get involved and we’ve had good outcomes, so we’re not going to change the standards.”

That’s the thing: You need to practice these things. The players don’t go out on the weekend and do a move for the very first time without practicing it hundreds of times. We need to look at it the same way as the medical team who are looking after that group of players and the crowd because we also look after the crowd.

A particular challenge in some of our stadiums is that the upper decks are so steep, and it’s very hard to get a patient onto a trolley and do CPR as you’re bringing them down to a zone to get them flat. We’ve had to come up with some innovative techniques to try and do that and accommodate that using some of the mechanical CPR devices. That’s the result you’ll only get from having practiced these events and trying to extricate patients. We want to check response times, so you have to practice your response team activity very frequently.

Dr. Pepe: There are two points made by Mick that I want to react to. One, the pit crew approach is critical in so many ways. We do the same thing in what we call the medical first attack, where we knew who the A, B, and C person would be. When we took it out to the NBA trainers, I recommended for them to have a similar approach so that if an event does happen right in the middle of prime time, they are coordinated.

The second point is that we do mass-gathering medicine. It’s not just the sportspeople on the field or the entertainers that we’re looking after; it is the people in the stands. We will see a cardiac arrest once a month. If you think about it, you might see a cardiac arrest occur in any community on a regular basis. Now you’ve got 100,000 people in one stadium, and something is bound to go wrong over those 3 or 4 hours where they are there and may have a critical emergency. Preparation for all of that is really important as well.

The final point is that on a day-to-day basis, most cardiac arrests do occur in the home. Granted, 80% of them are nonshockable cases, but the people who are more apt to survive are going to be the ones who have an electrical event. In fact, when we looked at our data years ago, we found that, of the cases of people with ventricular fibrillation that we resuscitated, half didn’t even have heart damage. Their enzymes were normal. It was a pure electrical event, and they were more resuscitable. They may have an underlying problem, but we can fix that once we get them back.

Everybody needs to know how to do bystander CPR, and second, we must make sure we have AEDs strategically placed, as I alluded to before. We also go out to other parts of the community and give them advice. All those things must be put in place, but more importantly, just get the training and make the training simple. It’s really a “just do it” philosophy, but make it simple.

For example, when I teach a course, I can do it in 15 minutes, and people retain it because I keep reiterating things like, “Okay, there’s one thing you need to know about choking: Pop the cork.” You give them a physiologic image of what’s happening. Everybody says, “I remember you saying to just do it, pop the cork.”

With AEDs, know where it is – that’s why we should have it in standardized places. Go get it, turn it on, and then follow the instructions. Also, the most important thing is making sure you’re doing quality compressions; and there are videos that can help you with that, as well as classes that you can take that will get you through it.

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. The public still has the misconception that you need to do mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. The message has not permeated through society that you don’t need to do mouth-to-mouth. Hands-only CPR is the gold standard now.

Dr. Pepe: If people have a reversible cause like ventricular fibrillation, often they’re already gasping, which is better than a delivered breath, by the way. Most important, then, are the compressions to make sure you have oxygen going up to the brain, because you’re still theoretically loaded with oxygen in your bloodstream if you had a sudden cardiac arrest from a ventricular fibrillation.

Your points are well taken, and we found that we had better outcomes when we just gave instructions to do compressions only, and that became the standard. Mick, you’ve had some experiences with that as well.

Dr. Molloy: If we’re going to have a long-term benefit from all this, we have to start doing this in elementary school and teaching kids basic life support and some basic health messaging.

I remember trying to get this across to a teacher one day and the teacher saying, “But why would we teach young kids to resuscitate each other?” I said, “I think you forget that the only 60-year-old person in the room is you. You train them, and we train them. They’re the ones who are going to respond and keep you alive. That’s the way you should be looking at this.” That completely changed the mindset of whether we should be doing this for the kids or not.

Dr. Pepe: In fact, what we find is that that’s exactly who gets saved. I had case after case where the kids at the school had learned CPR and saved the teachers or the administrator at the high school or elementary school. It’s a fantastic point that you bring up, Dr. Malloy.

Dr. Glatter: One other brief thing we can interject here is that the team was excellent on field in that they evaluated Damar Hamlin in a primary survey sense of ABCs (i.e., airway, breathing, and circulation) for things like a tension pneumothorax. In the sense in which he was hit, there are reversible causes. Making sure he didn’t have a tension pneumothorax that caused the arrest, in my mind, was critical.

Dr. Pepe: We do the same thing on a day-to-day basis with a car wreck, because it could be that the person had ventricular fibrillation and then had the wreck. It’s not always trauma. That’s a fantastic point that you’re making. That’s exactly what I think happened, and that’s what we do.

Dr. Glatter: Well, thank you, gentlemen. This was an informative and helpful discussion for our audience. I appreciate your time and expertise.



Dr. Glatter, is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes.

Dr. Pepe is a professor of internal medicine, surgery, pediatrics, public health, and emergency medicine at University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston. He’s also a global coordinator of the U.S. Metropolitan Municipalities EMS Medical Directors (“Eagles”) Coalition.

Dr. Molloy works clinically as a consultant in emergency medicine in Wexford General Hospital, part of the Ireland East Hospital Group (IEHG). Internationally, he is a member of the Disaster Medicine Section of the European Society of Emergency Medicine (EUSEM) and has been appointed by the Irish Medical Organization (IMO) as one of two Irish delegates to serve on the European Board and Section of Emergency Medicine of the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS), having served for a number of years on its predecessor, the Multidisciplinary Joint Committee on Emergency Medicine.

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

The number of daily meals, but not the timing between first and last daily meals, was significantly associated with weight changes over a 6-year period, in a prospective study of more than 500 adults.

Some studies suggest that timing food intake – through time-restricted eating or intermittent fasting – can promote weight loss, but these strategies have yielded similar weight loss to eating throughout the day in randomized trials, and population-based studies of meal intervals and weight changes are needed, Di Zhao, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote.

hayatikayha/Getty Images

“Obesity is an epidemic,” corresponding author Wendy Bennett, MD, also of Johns Hopkins University, said in an interview. “We are interested in identifying ways to prevent weight gain over time and reduce obesity risk, since telling people to ‘just eat less’ doesn’t always work.”

In a study published in the Journal of the American Heart Association, the researchers recruited 1,017 adults who were patients at one of three health systems; of these, complete data were available for 547 individuals.

The participants downloaded an app called Daily24 to record the timing of their meals and sleep for at least 1 day. The researchers used electronic medical records to obtain information on weight and comorbidities of the participants for up to 10 years before study enrollment through 10 months after enrollment.

The mean age of the participants was 51.1 years, 78% were women, and 78% were White; the mean body mass index was 30.8 kg/m².

The mean interval from first to last meal was 11.5 hours, and this was not associated with change in weight. The mean times from waking up to the first meal and the time from the last meal to sleeping were 1.6 hours and 4.0 hours, respectively, and these were not associated with weight changes over the follow-up period, the researchers wrote. Sleep duration (mean of 7.5 hours) also was not associated with weight change over time.

However, the total daily number of large and medium-sized meals was associated with weight gain over time, while those who reported more smaller meals showed weight loss. A daily increase of one large, medium, or small meal was associated with an average annual weight change of 0.69 kg, 0.97 kg, and –0.30 kg, respectively.

 

Benefits of time-restricted eating remain unclear

“Animal studies have shown benefits for time restricted feeding, but there are still questions about whether or not it helps prevent weight gain or promotes weight loss in humans,” Dr. Bennett said in an interview.

As for the current study findings, “we were not surprised; humans are more complicated than animals, and we have complicated behaviors, especially with eating,” she said.

“We showed that windows of eating (eating for longer periods of time or less in a day) was not associated with weight change over time among patients from three health systems,” said Dr. Bennett. “The main implication is that restricting your window of eating, such as eating over less time, or having more fasting time, may not reduce weight gain over time, while eating fewer large meals is associated with less weight gain over time.”

The findings were limited by several factors including the exclusion of many younger and less educated individuals, the short follow-up period, and lack of information on weight loss intention at baseline, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inability to evaluate time-restricted eating or fasting, and the inclusion of individuals currently seeking care, which may limit generalizability.

However, the results were strengthened by the repeated measures of weight, detailed information on obesity risk factors, and real-time assessment of eating behaviors. The results do not support time-restricted eating as a long-term weight-loss strategy, and more studies are needed with a longer follow-up period, the researchers concluded.

However, there may be a role for time restricted eating as a method of total calorie control, Dr. Bennett said.

“Other studies do show that people might be able to use time-restricted eating or intermittent fasting to help them reduce their caloric intake and thus lose weight, so it can still be a helpful weight loss tool for some people who can adhere to it,” she said.

The study was supported by a grant from the American Heart Association to Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Bennett had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

The number of daily meals, but not the timing between first and last daily meals, was significantly associated with weight changes over a 6-year period, in a prospective study of more than 500 adults.

Some studies suggest that timing food intake – through time-restricted eating or intermittent fasting – can promote weight loss, but these strategies have yielded similar weight loss to eating throughout the day in randomized trials, and population-based studies of meal intervals and weight changes are needed, Di Zhao, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote.

hayatikayha/Getty Images

“Obesity is an epidemic,” corresponding author Wendy Bennett, MD, also of Johns Hopkins University, said in an interview. “We are interested in identifying ways to prevent weight gain over time and reduce obesity risk, since telling people to ‘just eat less’ doesn’t always work.”

In a study published in the Journal of the American Heart Association, the researchers recruited 1,017 adults who were patients at one of three health systems; of these, complete data were available for 547 individuals.

The participants downloaded an app called Daily24 to record the timing of their meals and sleep for at least 1 day. The researchers used electronic medical records to obtain information on weight and comorbidities of the participants for up to 10 years before study enrollment through 10 months after enrollment.

The mean age of the participants was 51.1 years, 78% were women, and 78% were White; the mean body mass index was 30.8 kg/m².

The mean interval from first to last meal was 11.5 hours, and this was not associated with change in weight. The mean times from waking up to the first meal and the time from the last meal to sleeping were 1.6 hours and 4.0 hours, respectively, and these were not associated with weight changes over the follow-up period, the researchers wrote. Sleep duration (mean of 7.5 hours) also was not associated with weight change over time.

However, the total daily number of large and medium-sized meals was associated with weight gain over time, while those who reported more smaller meals showed weight loss. A daily increase of one large, medium, or small meal was associated with an average annual weight change of 0.69 kg, 0.97 kg, and –0.30 kg, respectively.

 

Benefits of time-restricted eating remain unclear

“Animal studies have shown benefits for time restricted feeding, but there are still questions about whether or not it helps prevent weight gain or promotes weight loss in humans,” Dr. Bennett said in an interview.

As for the current study findings, “we were not surprised; humans are more complicated than animals, and we have complicated behaviors, especially with eating,” she said.

“We showed that windows of eating (eating for longer periods of time or less in a day) was not associated with weight change over time among patients from three health systems,” said Dr. Bennett. “The main implication is that restricting your window of eating, such as eating over less time, or having more fasting time, may not reduce weight gain over time, while eating fewer large meals is associated with less weight gain over time.”

The findings were limited by several factors including the exclusion of many younger and less educated individuals, the short follow-up period, and lack of information on weight loss intention at baseline, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inability to evaluate time-restricted eating or fasting, and the inclusion of individuals currently seeking care, which may limit generalizability.

However, the results were strengthened by the repeated measures of weight, detailed information on obesity risk factors, and real-time assessment of eating behaviors. The results do not support time-restricted eating as a long-term weight-loss strategy, and more studies are needed with a longer follow-up period, the researchers concluded.

However, there may be a role for time restricted eating as a method of total calorie control, Dr. Bennett said.

“Other studies do show that people might be able to use time-restricted eating or intermittent fasting to help them reduce their caloric intake and thus lose weight, so it can still be a helpful weight loss tool for some people who can adhere to it,” she said.

The study was supported by a grant from the American Heart Association to Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Bennett had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

The number of daily meals, but not the timing between first and last daily meals, was significantly associated with weight changes over a 6-year period, in a prospective study of more than 500 adults.

Some studies suggest that timing food intake – through time-restricted eating or intermittent fasting – can promote weight loss, but these strategies have yielded similar weight loss to eating throughout the day in randomized trials, and population-based studies of meal intervals and weight changes are needed, Di Zhao, PhD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote.

hayatikayha/Getty Images

“Obesity is an epidemic,” corresponding author Wendy Bennett, MD, also of Johns Hopkins University, said in an interview. “We are interested in identifying ways to prevent weight gain over time and reduce obesity risk, since telling people to ‘just eat less’ doesn’t always work.”

In a study published in the Journal of the American Heart Association, the researchers recruited 1,017 adults who were patients at one of three health systems; of these, complete data were available for 547 individuals.

The participants downloaded an app called Daily24 to record the timing of their meals and sleep for at least 1 day. The researchers used electronic medical records to obtain information on weight and comorbidities of the participants for up to 10 years before study enrollment through 10 months after enrollment.

The mean age of the participants was 51.1 years, 78% were women, and 78% were White; the mean body mass index was 30.8 kg/m².

The mean interval from first to last meal was 11.5 hours, and this was not associated with change in weight. The mean times from waking up to the first meal and the time from the last meal to sleeping were 1.6 hours and 4.0 hours, respectively, and these were not associated with weight changes over the follow-up period, the researchers wrote. Sleep duration (mean of 7.5 hours) also was not associated with weight change over time.

However, the total daily number of large and medium-sized meals was associated with weight gain over time, while those who reported more smaller meals showed weight loss. A daily increase of one large, medium, or small meal was associated with an average annual weight change of 0.69 kg, 0.97 kg, and –0.30 kg, respectively.

 

Benefits of time-restricted eating remain unclear

“Animal studies have shown benefits for time restricted feeding, but there are still questions about whether or not it helps prevent weight gain or promotes weight loss in humans,” Dr. Bennett said in an interview.

As for the current study findings, “we were not surprised; humans are more complicated than animals, and we have complicated behaviors, especially with eating,” she said.

“We showed that windows of eating (eating for longer periods of time or less in a day) was not associated with weight change over time among patients from three health systems,” said Dr. Bennett. “The main implication is that restricting your window of eating, such as eating over less time, or having more fasting time, may not reduce weight gain over time, while eating fewer large meals is associated with less weight gain over time.”

The findings were limited by several factors including the exclusion of many younger and less educated individuals, the short follow-up period, and lack of information on weight loss intention at baseline, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the inability to evaluate time-restricted eating or fasting, and the inclusion of individuals currently seeking care, which may limit generalizability.

However, the results were strengthened by the repeated measures of weight, detailed information on obesity risk factors, and real-time assessment of eating behaviors. The results do not support time-restricted eating as a long-term weight-loss strategy, and more studies are needed with a longer follow-up period, the researchers concluded.

However, there may be a role for time restricted eating as a method of total calorie control, Dr. Bennett said.

“Other studies do show that people might be able to use time-restricted eating or intermittent fasting to help them reduce their caloric intake and thus lose weight, so it can still be a helpful weight loss tool for some people who can adhere to it,” she said.

The study was supported by a grant from the American Heart Association to Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Bennett had no financial conflicts to disclose.