Imaging

A new study identifies specific brain regions involved in treatment response in bipolar disorder (BD) and borderline personality disorder (BPD), potentially paving the way for more targeted treatment.

In a meta-analysis of 34 studies that used neuroimaging to investigate changes in brain activation following psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy for BD and BPD, investigators found most brain regions showing abnormal activation in both conditions improved after treatment. In particular, changes in brain activity after psychotherapy were found primarily in the frontal areas, whereas pharmacotherapy largely altered the limbic areas.

“This study can help clinicians with clinical prediction of treatment efficacy between BD and BPD and clarify the neural mechanism of treatment for these two diseases,” senior investigator Xiaoming Li, PhD, professor, department of medical psychology, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China, told this news organization.

“It may also contribute to the identification of more accurate neuroimaging biomarkers for treatment of the two disorders and to the finding of more effective therapy,” Dr. Li said.

The study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

Blurred boundary

Dr. Li called BDs and BPDs “difficult to diagnose and differentiate,” noting that the comorbidity rate is “very high.” Underestimating the boundary between BD and BPD “increases the risk of improper or harmful drug exposure,” since mood stabilizing drugs are “considered to be the key therapeutic intervention for BD, while psychotherapy is the key treatment for BPD.”

The “blurred boundary between BD and BPD is one of the reasons it is important to study the relationship between these two diseases,” the authors said.

Previous studies comparing the relationship between BD and BPD “did not explore the similarities and differences in brain mechanisms between these two disorders after treatment,” they pointed out.

Patients with BD have a different disease course and response to therapy, compared to patient with BPD patients. “Misdiagnosis may result in the patients receiving ineffective treatment, so it is particularly important to explore the neural mechanisms of the treatment of these two diseases,” Dr. Li said.

To investigate, the researchers used activation likelihood estimation (ALE) – a technique that examines coordinates of neuroimaging data gleaned from published studies – after searching several databases from inception until June 2021.

This approach was used to “evaluate the similarities and differences in the activation of different brain regions in patients with BD and BPD after treatment with psychotherapy and drug therapy.”

Studies were required to focus on patients with a clinical diagnosis of BD or BPD; neuroimaging studies using functional MRI; coordinates of the peak activations in the stereotactic space of the Montreal Neurologic Institute or Talairach; treatment (pharmacologic or psychological) for patients with BD or BPD; and results of changes in brain activation after treatment, relative to a before-treatment condition.

Of 1,592 records, 34 studies (n = 912 subjects) met inclusion criteria and were selected and used in extracting the activation coordinates. The researchers extracted a total of 186 activity increase points and 90 activity decrease points. After combining these calculations, they found 12 increased activation clusters and 2 decreased activation clusters.

Of the studies, 23 focused on BD and 11 on BPD; 14 used psychotherapy, 18 used drug therapy, and 2 used a combination of both approaches.
 

Normalizing activation levels

Both treatments were associated with convergent activity increases and decreases in several brain regions: the anterior cingulate cortex, medial frontal gyrus, inferior frontal gyrus, cingulate gyrus, parahippocampal gyrus, and the posterior cingulate cortex.

The researchers then examined studies based on treatment method – psychotherapy or pharmacotherapy and the effect on the two disorders.

“After psychotherapy, the frontal lobe and temporal lobe were the primary brain regions in which activation changed, indicating a top-down effect of this therapy type, while after drug therapy, the limbic area was the region in which activation changed, indicating a ‘bottom-up’ effect,” said Dr. Li.

Dr. Li cited previous research pointing to functional and structural abnormalities in both disorders – especially in the default mode network (DMN) and frontolimbic network.

In particular, alterations in the amygdala and the parahippocampal gyrus are reported more frequently in BPD than in BD, whereas dysfunctional frontolimbic brain regions seem to underlie the emotional dysfunction in BPD. Several studies have also associated the impulsivity of BD with dysfunctions in the interplay of cortical-limbic circuits.

Dr. Li said the study findings suggest “that treatment may change these brain activation levels by acting on the abnormal brain circuit, such as the DMN and the frontolimbic network so as to ‘normalize’ its activity and improve symptoms.”

Specifically, brain regions with abnormally increased activation “showed decreased activation after treatment, and brain regions with abnormally decreased activation showed increased activation after treatment.”
 

Discrete, overlapping mechanisms

Commenting on the study, Roger S. McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, and head of the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, said the study “provides additional support for the underlying neurobiological signature of bipolar disorder and a commonly encountered co-occurring condition – borderline personality disorder – having both discrete yet overlapping mechanisms.”

He found it interesting that “medications have a different principal target than psychosocial interventions, which has both academic and clinical implications.

“The academic implication is that we have reasons to believe that we will be in a position to parse the neurobiology of bipolar disorder or borderline personality disorder when we take an approach that isolates specific domains of psychopathology, which is what they [the authors] appear to be doing,” said Dr. McIntyre, who wasn’t associated with this research.  

In addition, “from the clinical perspective, this provides a rationale for why we should be integrating pharmacotherapy with psychotherapy in people who have comorbid conditions like borderline personality disorder, which affects 20% of people living with bipolar disorder and 60% to 70% have borderline traits,” he added.

The research was supported by the Anhui Natural Science Foundation and Grants for Scientific Research from Anhui Medical University. Dr. Li and coauthors declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McIntyre has received research grant support from CIHR/GACD/National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Milken Institute; speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Alkermes, Neumora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sage, Biogen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Bausch Health, Axsome, Novo Nordisk, Kris, Sanofi, Eisai, Intra-Cellular, NewBridge Pharmaceuticals, Viatris, AbbVie, Atai Life Sciences. Dr. McIntyre is a CEO of Braxia Scientific Corp.

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

A new study identifies specific brain regions involved in treatment response in bipolar disorder (BD) and borderline personality disorder (BPD), potentially paving the way for more targeted treatment.

In a meta-analysis of 34 studies that used neuroimaging to investigate changes in brain activation following psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy for BD and BPD, investigators found most brain regions showing abnormal activation in both conditions improved after treatment. In particular, changes in brain activity after psychotherapy were found primarily in the frontal areas, whereas pharmacotherapy largely altered the limbic areas.

“This study can help clinicians with clinical prediction of treatment efficacy between BD and BPD and clarify the neural mechanism of treatment for these two diseases,” senior investigator Xiaoming Li, PhD, professor, department of medical psychology, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China, told this news organization.

“It may also contribute to the identification of more accurate neuroimaging biomarkers for treatment of the two disorders and to the finding of more effective therapy,” Dr. Li said.

The study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

Blurred boundary

Dr. Li called BDs and BPDs “difficult to diagnose and differentiate,” noting that the comorbidity rate is “very high.” Underestimating the boundary between BD and BPD “increases the risk of improper or harmful drug exposure,” since mood stabilizing drugs are “considered to be the key therapeutic intervention for BD, while psychotherapy is the key treatment for BPD.”

The “blurred boundary between BD and BPD is one of the reasons it is important to study the relationship between these two diseases,” the authors said.

Previous studies comparing the relationship between BD and BPD “did not explore the similarities and differences in brain mechanisms between these two disorders after treatment,” they pointed out.

Patients with BD have a different disease course and response to therapy, compared to patient with BPD patients. “Misdiagnosis may result in the patients receiving ineffective treatment, so it is particularly important to explore the neural mechanisms of the treatment of these two diseases,” Dr. Li said.

To investigate, the researchers used activation likelihood estimation (ALE) – a technique that examines coordinates of neuroimaging data gleaned from published studies – after searching several databases from inception until June 2021.

This approach was used to “evaluate the similarities and differences in the activation of different brain regions in patients with BD and BPD after treatment with psychotherapy and drug therapy.”

Studies were required to focus on patients with a clinical diagnosis of BD or BPD; neuroimaging studies using functional MRI; coordinates of the peak activations in the stereotactic space of the Montreal Neurologic Institute or Talairach; treatment (pharmacologic or psychological) for patients with BD or BPD; and results of changes in brain activation after treatment, relative to a before-treatment condition.

Of 1,592 records, 34 studies (n = 912 subjects) met inclusion criteria and were selected and used in extracting the activation coordinates. The researchers extracted a total of 186 activity increase points and 90 activity decrease points. After combining these calculations, they found 12 increased activation clusters and 2 decreased activation clusters.

Of the studies, 23 focused on BD and 11 on BPD; 14 used psychotherapy, 18 used drug therapy, and 2 used a combination of both approaches.
 

Normalizing activation levels

Both treatments were associated with convergent activity increases and decreases in several brain regions: the anterior cingulate cortex, medial frontal gyrus, inferior frontal gyrus, cingulate gyrus, parahippocampal gyrus, and the posterior cingulate cortex.

The researchers then examined studies based on treatment method – psychotherapy or pharmacotherapy and the effect on the two disorders.

“After psychotherapy, the frontal lobe and temporal lobe were the primary brain regions in which activation changed, indicating a top-down effect of this therapy type, while after drug therapy, the limbic area was the region in which activation changed, indicating a ‘bottom-up’ effect,” said Dr. Li.

Dr. Li cited previous research pointing to functional and structural abnormalities in both disorders – especially in the default mode network (DMN) and frontolimbic network.

In particular, alterations in the amygdala and the parahippocampal gyrus are reported more frequently in BPD than in BD, whereas dysfunctional frontolimbic brain regions seem to underlie the emotional dysfunction in BPD. Several studies have also associated the impulsivity of BD with dysfunctions in the interplay of cortical-limbic circuits.

Dr. Li said the study findings suggest “that treatment may change these brain activation levels by acting on the abnormal brain circuit, such as the DMN and the frontolimbic network so as to ‘normalize’ its activity and improve symptoms.”

Specifically, brain regions with abnormally increased activation “showed decreased activation after treatment, and brain regions with abnormally decreased activation showed increased activation after treatment.”
 

Discrete, overlapping mechanisms

Commenting on the study, Roger S. McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, and head of the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, said the study “provides additional support for the underlying neurobiological signature of bipolar disorder and a commonly encountered co-occurring condition – borderline personality disorder – having both discrete yet overlapping mechanisms.”

He found it interesting that “medications have a different principal target than psychosocial interventions, which has both academic and clinical implications.

“The academic implication is that we have reasons to believe that we will be in a position to parse the neurobiology of bipolar disorder or borderline personality disorder when we take an approach that isolates specific domains of psychopathology, which is what they [the authors] appear to be doing,” said Dr. McIntyre, who wasn’t associated with this research.  

In addition, “from the clinical perspective, this provides a rationale for why we should be integrating pharmacotherapy with psychotherapy in people who have comorbid conditions like borderline personality disorder, which affects 20% of people living with bipolar disorder and 60% to 70% have borderline traits,” he added.

The research was supported by the Anhui Natural Science Foundation and Grants for Scientific Research from Anhui Medical University. Dr. Li and coauthors declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McIntyre has received research grant support from CIHR/GACD/National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Milken Institute; speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Alkermes, Neumora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sage, Biogen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Bausch Health, Axsome, Novo Nordisk, Kris, Sanofi, Eisai, Intra-Cellular, NewBridge Pharmaceuticals, Viatris, AbbVie, Atai Life Sciences. Dr. McIntyre is a CEO of Braxia Scientific Corp.

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

A new study identifies specific brain regions involved in treatment response in bipolar disorder (BD) and borderline personality disorder (BPD), potentially paving the way for more targeted treatment.

In a meta-analysis of 34 studies that used neuroimaging to investigate changes in brain activation following psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy for BD and BPD, investigators found most brain regions showing abnormal activation in both conditions improved after treatment. In particular, changes in brain activity after psychotherapy were found primarily in the frontal areas, whereas pharmacotherapy largely altered the limbic areas.

“This study can help clinicians with clinical prediction of treatment efficacy between BD and BPD and clarify the neural mechanism of treatment for these two diseases,” senior investigator Xiaoming Li, PhD, professor, department of medical psychology, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China, told this news organization.

“It may also contribute to the identification of more accurate neuroimaging biomarkers for treatment of the two disorders and to the finding of more effective therapy,” Dr. Li said.

The study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

Blurred boundary

Dr. Li called BDs and BPDs “difficult to diagnose and differentiate,” noting that the comorbidity rate is “very high.” Underestimating the boundary between BD and BPD “increases the risk of improper or harmful drug exposure,” since mood stabilizing drugs are “considered to be the key therapeutic intervention for BD, while psychotherapy is the key treatment for BPD.”

The “blurred boundary between BD and BPD is one of the reasons it is important to study the relationship between these two diseases,” the authors said.

Previous studies comparing the relationship between BD and BPD “did not explore the similarities and differences in brain mechanisms between these two disorders after treatment,” they pointed out.

Patients with BD have a different disease course and response to therapy, compared to patient with BPD patients. “Misdiagnosis may result in the patients receiving ineffective treatment, so it is particularly important to explore the neural mechanisms of the treatment of these two diseases,” Dr. Li said.

To investigate, the researchers used activation likelihood estimation (ALE) – a technique that examines coordinates of neuroimaging data gleaned from published studies – after searching several databases from inception until June 2021.

This approach was used to “evaluate the similarities and differences in the activation of different brain regions in patients with BD and BPD after treatment with psychotherapy and drug therapy.”

Studies were required to focus on patients with a clinical diagnosis of BD or BPD; neuroimaging studies using functional MRI; coordinates of the peak activations in the stereotactic space of the Montreal Neurologic Institute or Talairach; treatment (pharmacologic or psychological) for patients with BD or BPD; and results of changes in brain activation after treatment, relative to a before-treatment condition.

Of 1,592 records, 34 studies (n = 912 subjects) met inclusion criteria and were selected and used in extracting the activation coordinates. The researchers extracted a total of 186 activity increase points and 90 activity decrease points. After combining these calculations, they found 12 increased activation clusters and 2 decreased activation clusters.

Of the studies, 23 focused on BD and 11 on BPD; 14 used psychotherapy, 18 used drug therapy, and 2 used a combination of both approaches.
 

Normalizing activation levels

Both treatments were associated with convergent activity increases and decreases in several brain regions: the anterior cingulate cortex, medial frontal gyrus, inferior frontal gyrus, cingulate gyrus, parahippocampal gyrus, and the posterior cingulate cortex.

The researchers then examined studies based on treatment method – psychotherapy or pharmacotherapy and the effect on the two disorders.

“After psychotherapy, the frontal lobe and temporal lobe were the primary brain regions in which activation changed, indicating a top-down effect of this therapy type, while after drug therapy, the limbic area was the region in which activation changed, indicating a ‘bottom-up’ effect,” said Dr. Li.

Dr. Li cited previous research pointing to functional and structural abnormalities in both disorders – especially in the default mode network (DMN) and frontolimbic network.

In particular, alterations in the amygdala and the parahippocampal gyrus are reported more frequently in BPD than in BD, whereas dysfunctional frontolimbic brain regions seem to underlie the emotional dysfunction in BPD. Several studies have also associated the impulsivity of BD with dysfunctions in the interplay of cortical-limbic circuits.

Dr. Li said the study findings suggest “that treatment may change these brain activation levels by acting on the abnormal brain circuit, such as the DMN and the frontolimbic network so as to ‘normalize’ its activity and improve symptoms.”

Specifically, brain regions with abnormally increased activation “showed decreased activation after treatment, and brain regions with abnormally decreased activation showed increased activation after treatment.”
 

Discrete, overlapping mechanisms

Commenting on the study, Roger S. McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, and head of the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, said the study “provides additional support for the underlying neurobiological signature of bipolar disorder and a commonly encountered co-occurring condition – borderline personality disorder – having both discrete yet overlapping mechanisms.”

He found it interesting that “medications have a different principal target than psychosocial interventions, which has both academic and clinical implications.

“The academic implication is that we have reasons to believe that we will be in a position to parse the neurobiology of bipolar disorder or borderline personality disorder when we take an approach that isolates specific domains of psychopathology, which is what they [the authors] appear to be doing,” said Dr. McIntyre, who wasn’t associated with this research.  

In addition, “from the clinical perspective, this provides a rationale for why we should be integrating pharmacotherapy with psychotherapy in people who have comorbid conditions like borderline personality disorder, which affects 20% of people living with bipolar disorder and 60% to 70% have borderline traits,” he added.

The research was supported by the Anhui Natural Science Foundation and Grants for Scientific Research from Anhui Medical University. Dr. Li and coauthors declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McIntyre has received research grant support from CIHR/GACD/National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Milken Institute; speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Alkermes, Neumora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sage, Biogen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Bausch Health, Axsome, Novo Nordisk, Kris, Sanofi, Eisai, Intra-Cellular, NewBridge Pharmaceuticals, Viatris, AbbVie, Atai Life Sciences. Dr. McIntyre is a CEO of Braxia Scientific Corp.

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

The American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) has issued guidance on all critical aspects of training for cardiology and anesthesiology trainees and postgraduate echocardiographers who plan to specialize in interventional echocardiography (IE).

The guideline outlines requirements of the training institution, the duration and core competencies of training, minimal procedural volume for competency in IE, and knowledge of specific structural health disease (SHD) procedures.

The 16-page guideline was published online  in the Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography.
 

Specific skill set

IE is the primary imaging modality used to support and guide SHD interventions, such as heart valve replacements and other cardiac catheterization procedures, the writing group notes.

They say the “emerging specialty” of IE requires a specific set of skills to support an array of transcatheter therapies, with successful outcomes highly dependent on the skill of the echocardiography team.

“IE techniques are unique since imaging is performed in real-time, it is highly dependent on 3D and non-standard views, and it has immediate and profound implications for patient management,” Stephen H. Little, MD, ASE president and co-chair of the guideline writing group, says in a news release.

“Additionally, IE requires candid, accurate, and timely communication with other members of the multidisciplinary SHD team,” Dr. Little adds.

The new ASE guideline expands on the 2019 statement on echocardiography training put forward by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and ASE, by focusing specifically on interventional echocardiographers.

It outlines core competencies common to all transcatheter therapies, as well as specific transcatheter procedures. It provides consensus recommendations for specific knowledge, experience, and skills to be learned and demonstrated within an IE training program or during postgraduate training.

A “core principle” in the guideline states that the length of IE training or achieved number of procedures performed are less important than the demonstration of procedure-specific competencies within the milestone domains of knowledge, skill, and communication.

“Transcatheter therapies for SHD continue to grow at a rapid pace, which means that the demand for skilled interventional echocardiographers has steadily increased,” Vera H. Rigolin, MD, co-chair of the guideline writing, says in the release.

“Training standards are needed to ensure that interventional echocardiographers have the necessary expertise to provide fast, accurate, and high-quality image acquisition and interpretation in real-time,” Dr. Rigolin adds.

In addition, the guidelines states that use of simulation training has a role in IE training.

Virtual and simulation training could shorten the learning curve for trainees and, when combined with remote learning, could permit societies to standardize a teaching curriculum and allow the trainee to complete training in a reasonable timeframe. Simulator training may also improve access to training and thus promote diversity and inclusivity, the writing group says.

The guideline has been endorsed by 21 ASE international partners.

Writing group co-chairs Little and Rigolin have declared no conflicts of interest. A complete list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.

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

The American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) has issued guidance on all critical aspects of training for cardiology and anesthesiology trainees and postgraduate echocardiographers who plan to specialize in interventional echocardiography (IE).

The guideline outlines requirements of the training institution, the duration and core competencies of training, minimal procedural volume for competency in IE, and knowledge of specific structural health disease (SHD) procedures.

The 16-page guideline was published online  in the Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography.
 

Specific skill set

IE is the primary imaging modality used to support and guide SHD interventions, such as heart valve replacements and other cardiac catheterization procedures, the writing group notes.

They say the “emerging specialty” of IE requires a specific set of skills to support an array of transcatheter therapies, with successful outcomes highly dependent on the skill of the echocardiography team.

“IE techniques are unique since imaging is performed in real-time, it is highly dependent on 3D and non-standard views, and it has immediate and profound implications for patient management,” Stephen H. Little, MD, ASE president and co-chair of the guideline writing group, says in a news release.

“Additionally, IE requires candid, accurate, and timely communication with other members of the multidisciplinary SHD team,” Dr. Little adds.

The new ASE guideline expands on the 2019 statement on echocardiography training put forward by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and ASE, by focusing specifically on interventional echocardiographers.

It outlines core competencies common to all transcatheter therapies, as well as specific transcatheter procedures. It provides consensus recommendations for specific knowledge, experience, and skills to be learned and demonstrated within an IE training program or during postgraduate training.

A “core principle” in the guideline states that the length of IE training or achieved number of procedures performed are less important than the demonstration of procedure-specific competencies within the milestone domains of knowledge, skill, and communication.

“Transcatheter therapies for SHD continue to grow at a rapid pace, which means that the demand for skilled interventional echocardiographers has steadily increased,” Vera H. Rigolin, MD, co-chair of the guideline writing, says in the release.

“Training standards are needed to ensure that interventional echocardiographers have the necessary expertise to provide fast, accurate, and high-quality image acquisition and interpretation in real-time,” Dr. Rigolin adds.

In addition, the guidelines states that use of simulation training has a role in IE training.

Virtual and simulation training could shorten the learning curve for trainees and, when combined with remote learning, could permit societies to standardize a teaching curriculum and allow the trainee to complete training in a reasonable timeframe. Simulator training may also improve access to training and thus promote diversity and inclusivity, the writing group says.

The guideline has been endorsed by 21 ASE international partners.

Writing group co-chairs Little and Rigolin have declared no conflicts of interest. A complete list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.

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

The American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) has issued guidance on all critical aspects of training for cardiology and anesthesiology trainees and postgraduate echocardiographers who plan to specialize in interventional echocardiography (IE).

The guideline outlines requirements of the training institution, the duration and core competencies of training, minimal procedural volume for competency in IE, and knowledge of specific structural health disease (SHD) procedures.

The 16-page guideline was published online  in the Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography.
 

Specific skill set

IE is the primary imaging modality used to support and guide SHD interventions, such as heart valve replacements and other cardiac catheterization procedures, the writing group notes.

They say the “emerging specialty” of IE requires a specific set of skills to support an array of transcatheter therapies, with successful outcomes highly dependent on the skill of the echocardiography team.

“IE techniques are unique since imaging is performed in real-time, it is highly dependent on 3D and non-standard views, and it has immediate and profound implications for patient management,” Stephen H. Little, MD, ASE president and co-chair of the guideline writing group, says in a news release.

“Additionally, IE requires candid, accurate, and timely communication with other members of the multidisciplinary SHD team,” Dr. Little adds.

The new ASE guideline expands on the 2019 statement on echocardiography training put forward by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and ASE, by focusing specifically on interventional echocardiographers.

It outlines core competencies common to all transcatheter therapies, as well as specific transcatheter procedures. It provides consensus recommendations for specific knowledge, experience, and skills to be learned and demonstrated within an IE training program or during postgraduate training.

A “core principle” in the guideline states that the length of IE training or achieved number of procedures performed are less important than the demonstration of procedure-specific competencies within the milestone domains of knowledge, skill, and communication.

“Transcatheter therapies for SHD continue to grow at a rapid pace, which means that the demand for skilled interventional echocardiographers has steadily increased,” Vera H. Rigolin, MD, co-chair of the guideline writing, says in the release.

“Training standards are needed to ensure that interventional echocardiographers have the necessary expertise to provide fast, accurate, and high-quality image acquisition and interpretation in real-time,” Dr. Rigolin adds.

In addition, the guidelines states that use of simulation training has a role in IE training.

Virtual and simulation training could shorten the learning curve for trainees and, when combined with remote learning, could permit societies to standardize a teaching curriculum and allow the trainee to complete training in a reasonable timeframe. Simulator training may also improve access to training and thus promote diversity and inclusivity, the writing group says.

The guideline has been endorsed by 21 ASE international partners.

Writing group co-chairs Little and Rigolin have declared no conflicts of interest. A complete list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.

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

A round heart, or left ventricle sphericity, predicted cardiomyopathy and atrial fibrillation (AFib) in a deep learning analysis of MRI images from close to 39,000 participants in the UK Biobank, a new study shows.

An increase of 1 standard deviation in the sphericity index (short axis length/long axis length) was associated with a 47% increased incidence of cardiomyopathy and a 20% increased incidence of AFib, independent of clinical factors and traditional MRI measures.

Furthermore, a genetic analysis suggested a shared architecture between sphericity and nonischemic cardiomyopathy, pointing to NICM as a possible causal factor for left ventricle sphericity among individuals with normal LV size and function.

“Physicians have known the heart gets rounder after heart attacks and as we get older,” David Ouyang, MD, a cardiologist in the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and a researcher in the division of artificial intelligence in medicine, said in an interview. “We wanted to see if this sphericity is prognostic of future disease even in healthy individuals.”

Although it is too early to recommend heart shape assessment in healthy asymptomatic people, he said, “physicians should be extra careful and think about treatments when they notice a patient’s heart is particularly round.”

The study was published online March 29 in the journal Med.
 

Sphericity index key

The investigators hypothesized that there is variation in LV sphericity within the spectrum of normal LV chamber size and systolic function, and that such variation might be a marker of cardiac risk with genetic influences.

To test this hypothesis, they used automated deep-learning segmentation of cardiac MRI data to estimate and analyze the sphericity index in a cohort of 38,897 individuals participating in the UK Biobank.

After adjustment for age at MRI and sex, an increased sphericity index was associated with an increased risk for cardiomyopathy (hazard ratio, 1.57), AFib (HR, 1.35), and heart failure (HR, 1.37).

No significant association was seen with cardiac arrest.

The team then stratified the cohort into quintiles and compared the top 20%, middle 60%, and bottom 20%. The relationship between the sphericity index and risk extended across the distribution; individuals with higher than median sphericity had increased disease incidence, and those with lower than median sphericity had decreased incidence.

Overall, a single standard deviation in the sphericity index was associated with increased risk of cardiomyopathy (HR, 1.47) and of AFib (HR, 1.20), independent of clinical factors and usual MRI measurements.

In a minimally adjusted model, the sphericity index was a predictor of incident cardiomyopathy, AFib, and heart failure.

Adjustment for clinical factors partially attenuated the heart failure association; additional adjustment for MRI measurements fully attenuated that association and partially attenuated the association with AFib.

However, in all adjusted models, the association with cardiomyopathy showed little attenuation.

Furthermore, the team identified four loci associated with sphericity at genomewide significance – PLN, ANGPT1, PDZRN3, and HLA DR/DQ – and Mendelian randomization supported NICM as a cause of LV sphericity.
 

Looking ahead

“While conventional imaging metrics have significant diagnostic and prognostic value, some of these measurements have been adopted out of convenience or tradition,” the authors noted. “By representing a specific multidimensional remodeling phenotype, sphericity has emerged as a distinct morphologic trait with features not adequately captured by conventional measurements.

“We expect that the search space of potential imaging measurements is vast, and we have only begun to scratch at the surface of disease associations.”

Indeed, Dr. Ouyang said his group is “trying to evaluate the sphericity in echocardiograms or heart ultrasounds, which are more common and cheaper than MRI.”

“The main caveat is translating the information directly to patient care,” Richard C. Becker, MD, director and physician-in-chief of the University of Cincinnati Heart, Lung, and Vascular Institute, said in an interview. “Near-term yield could include using the spherical calculation in routine MRI of the heart, and based on the findings, following patients more closely if there is an abnormal shape. Or performing an MRI and targeted gene testing if there is a family history of cardiomyopathy or [of] an abnormal shape of the heart.”

“Validation of the findings and large-scale evaluation of the genes identified, and how they interact with patient and environmental factors, will be very important,” he added.

Nevertheless, “the study was well done and may serve as a foundation for future research,” Dr. Becker said. “The investigators used several powerful tools, including MRI, genomics, and [artificial intelligence] to draw their conclusions. This is precisely the way that ‘big data’ should be used – in a complementary fashion.”

The study authors and Dr. Becker reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A round heart, or left ventricle sphericity, predicted cardiomyopathy and atrial fibrillation (AFib) in a deep learning analysis of MRI images from close to 39,000 participants in the UK Biobank, a new study shows.

An increase of 1 standard deviation in the sphericity index (short axis length/long axis length) was associated with a 47% increased incidence of cardiomyopathy and a 20% increased incidence of AFib, independent of clinical factors and traditional MRI measures.

Furthermore, a genetic analysis suggested a shared architecture between sphericity and nonischemic cardiomyopathy, pointing to NICM as a possible causal factor for left ventricle sphericity among individuals with normal LV size and function.

“Physicians have known the heart gets rounder after heart attacks and as we get older,” David Ouyang, MD, a cardiologist in the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and a researcher in the division of artificial intelligence in medicine, said in an interview. “We wanted to see if this sphericity is prognostic of future disease even in healthy individuals.”

Although it is too early to recommend heart shape assessment in healthy asymptomatic people, he said, “physicians should be extra careful and think about treatments when they notice a patient’s heart is particularly round.”

The study was published online March 29 in the journal Med.
 

Sphericity index key

The investigators hypothesized that there is variation in LV sphericity within the spectrum of normal LV chamber size and systolic function, and that such variation might be a marker of cardiac risk with genetic influences.

To test this hypothesis, they used automated deep-learning segmentation of cardiac MRI data to estimate and analyze the sphericity index in a cohort of 38,897 individuals participating in the UK Biobank.

After adjustment for age at MRI and sex, an increased sphericity index was associated with an increased risk for cardiomyopathy (hazard ratio, 1.57), AFib (HR, 1.35), and heart failure (HR, 1.37).

No significant association was seen with cardiac arrest.

The team then stratified the cohort into quintiles and compared the top 20%, middle 60%, and bottom 20%. The relationship between the sphericity index and risk extended across the distribution; individuals with higher than median sphericity had increased disease incidence, and those with lower than median sphericity had decreased incidence.

Overall, a single standard deviation in the sphericity index was associated with increased risk of cardiomyopathy (HR, 1.47) and of AFib (HR, 1.20), independent of clinical factors and usual MRI measurements.

In a minimally adjusted model, the sphericity index was a predictor of incident cardiomyopathy, AFib, and heart failure.

Adjustment for clinical factors partially attenuated the heart failure association; additional adjustment for MRI measurements fully attenuated that association and partially attenuated the association with AFib.

However, in all adjusted models, the association with cardiomyopathy showed little attenuation.

Furthermore, the team identified four loci associated with sphericity at genomewide significance – PLN, ANGPT1, PDZRN3, and HLA DR/DQ – and Mendelian randomization supported NICM as a cause of LV sphericity.
 

Looking ahead

“While conventional imaging metrics have significant diagnostic and prognostic value, some of these measurements have been adopted out of convenience or tradition,” the authors noted. “By representing a specific multidimensional remodeling phenotype, sphericity has emerged as a distinct morphologic trait with features not adequately captured by conventional measurements.

“We expect that the search space of potential imaging measurements is vast, and we have only begun to scratch at the surface of disease associations.”

Indeed, Dr. Ouyang said his group is “trying to evaluate the sphericity in echocardiograms or heart ultrasounds, which are more common and cheaper than MRI.”

“The main caveat is translating the information directly to patient care,” Richard C. Becker, MD, director and physician-in-chief of the University of Cincinnati Heart, Lung, and Vascular Institute, said in an interview. “Near-term yield could include using the spherical calculation in routine MRI of the heart, and based on the findings, following patients more closely if there is an abnormal shape. Or performing an MRI and targeted gene testing if there is a family history of cardiomyopathy or [of] an abnormal shape of the heart.”

“Validation of the findings and large-scale evaluation of the genes identified, and how they interact with patient and environmental factors, will be very important,” he added.

Nevertheless, “the study was well done and may serve as a foundation for future research,” Dr. Becker said. “The investigators used several powerful tools, including MRI, genomics, and [artificial intelligence] to draw their conclusions. This is precisely the way that ‘big data’ should be used – in a complementary fashion.”

The study authors and Dr. Becker reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A round heart, or left ventricle sphericity, predicted cardiomyopathy and atrial fibrillation (AFib) in a deep learning analysis of MRI images from close to 39,000 participants in the UK Biobank, a new study shows.

An increase of 1 standard deviation in the sphericity index (short axis length/long axis length) was associated with a 47% increased incidence of cardiomyopathy and a 20% increased incidence of AFib, independent of clinical factors and traditional MRI measures.

Furthermore, a genetic analysis suggested a shared architecture between sphericity and nonischemic cardiomyopathy, pointing to NICM as a possible causal factor for left ventricle sphericity among individuals with normal LV size and function.

“Physicians have known the heart gets rounder after heart attacks and as we get older,” David Ouyang, MD, a cardiologist in the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and a researcher in the division of artificial intelligence in medicine, said in an interview. “We wanted to see if this sphericity is prognostic of future disease even in healthy individuals.”

Although it is too early to recommend heart shape assessment in healthy asymptomatic people, he said, “physicians should be extra careful and think about treatments when they notice a patient’s heart is particularly round.”

The study was published online March 29 in the journal Med.
 

Sphericity index key

The investigators hypothesized that there is variation in LV sphericity within the spectrum of normal LV chamber size and systolic function, and that such variation might be a marker of cardiac risk with genetic influences.

To test this hypothesis, they used automated deep-learning segmentation of cardiac MRI data to estimate and analyze the sphericity index in a cohort of 38,897 individuals participating in the UK Biobank.

After adjustment for age at MRI and sex, an increased sphericity index was associated with an increased risk for cardiomyopathy (hazard ratio, 1.57), AFib (HR, 1.35), and heart failure (HR, 1.37).

No significant association was seen with cardiac arrest.

The team then stratified the cohort into quintiles and compared the top 20%, middle 60%, and bottom 20%. The relationship between the sphericity index and risk extended across the distribution; individuals with higher than median sphericity had increased disease incidence, and those with lower than median sphericity had decreased incidence.

Overall, a single standard deviation in the sphericity index was associated with increased risk of cardiomyopathy (HR, 1.47) and of AFib (HR, 1.20), independent of clinical factors and usual MRI measurements.

In a minimally adjusted model, the sphericity index was a predictor of incident cardiomyopathy, AFib, and heart failure.

Adjustment for clinical factors partially attenuated the heart failure association; additional adjustment for MRI measurements fully attenuated that association and partially attenuated the association with AFib.

However, in all adjusted models, the association with cardiomyopathy showed little attenuation.

Furthermore, the team identified four loci associated with sphericity at genomewide significance – PLN, ANGPT1, PDZRN3, and HLA DR/DQ – and Mendelian randomization supported NICM as a cause of LV sphericity.
 

Looking ahead

“While conventional imaging metrics have significant diagnostic and prognostic value, some of these measurements have been adopted out of convenience or tradition,” the authors noted. “By representing a specific multidimensional remodeling phenotype, sphericity has emerged as a distinct morphologic trait with features not adequately captured by conventional measurements.

“We expect that the search space of potential imaging measurements is vast, and we have only begun to scratch at the surface of disease associations.”

Indeed, Dr. Ouyang said his group is “trying to evaluate the sphericity in echocardiograms or heart ultrasounds, which are more common and cheaper than MRI.”

“The main caveat is translating the information directly to patient care,” Richard C. Becker, MD, director and physician-in-chief of the University of Cincinnati Heart, Lung, and Vascular Institute, said in an interview. “Near-term yield could include using the spherical calculation in routine MRI of the heart, and based on the findings, following patients more closely if there is an abnormal shape. Or performing an MRI and targeted gene testing if there is a family history of cardiomyopathy or [of] an abnormal shape of the heart.”

“Validation of the findings and large-scale evaluation of the genes identified, and how they interact with patient and environmental factors, will be very important,” he added.

Nevertheless, “the study was well done and may serve as a foundation for future research,” Dr. Becker said. “The investigators used several powerful tools, including MRI, genomics, and [artificial intelligence] to draw their conclusions. This is precisely the way that ‘big data’ should be used – in a complementary fashion.”

The study authors and Dr. Becker reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

About half of middle-aged adults in the community without cardiovascular (CV) symptoms have coronary atherosclerosis by CT angiography (CTA) that puts them at substantial risk for myocardial infarction (MI), suggests a prospective cohort study.

The 10% of participants who had subclinical disease considered obstructive at CTA showed a ninefold increased risk for MI over several years. Obstructive disease seemed to elevate risk more than subclinical disease that wasn’t obstructive but still considered extensive within the coronary arteries.

The findings, based on a Copenhagen General Population Study cohort, are new for CTA but consistent with research based on coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores and other ways to assess CV risk, say researchers.

Although all participants underwent CTA, such imaging isn’t used in the general population for atherosclerosis screening. But the findings may have implications for “opportunistic screening” for subclinical coronary disease at CTA conducted for other reasons, notes the study’s report, published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Identification of luminal obstructive or extensive subclinical coronary atherosclerosis” could potentially provide “clinically relevant, incremental risk assessment” in nonischemic patients who undergo cardiac CT or electrocardiogram-gated chest CT before procedures such as arrhythmia ablation or valve repair, it states.

Such patients found with subclinical coronary atherosclerosis might potentially “benefit from referral to intensified cardiovascular primary prevention therapy,” write the authors, led by Andreas Fuchs, MD, PhD, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet.

The group acknowledges the findings may not entirely apply to a non-Danish population.


 

A screening role for CTA?

Whether CTA has a role to play in adults without symptoms “is a big, open question in the field right now,” observed Ron Blankstein, MD, not associated with the current analysis, for this news organization.

Brigham and Women's Hospital

Most population studies of CV risk prediction, such as MESA, have looked at CAC scores, not CTA, and have shown that “the more plaque individuals have, the higher the risk.” The current findings are similar but novel in coming from coronary CTA in a large asymptomatic community population, said Dr. Blankstein, who is director of cardiac CT at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

“It’s possible that patients who have obstructive plaque in general tend to have a larger amount of plaque as well,” he said. So, while the study suggests that “the more plaque individuals have, the worse their overall risk,” it also shows that the risk “is enhanced even more if they have obstructive disease.”

The Danish cohort analysis “provides a unique opportunity to study the contemporary natural history of coronary artery disease in the absence of intervention,” notes an accompanying editorial.

For example, both patients and clinicians were blinded to CTA results, and CV preventive therapies weren’t common, observe Michael McDermott, MBChB, and David E. Newby, DM, PhD, of the BHF Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Edinburgh.

The analysis suggests that subclinical coronary disease that is obstructive predicts MI risk more strongly than extensive coronary disease, they note, and may be present in two-thirds of MI patients. “This contrasts with symptomatic populations, where nonobstructive disease accounts for most future myocardial infarctions, presumably from plaque rupture.”

It also points to “strong associations between nonobstructive extensive disease and adverse plaque characteristics,” write Dr. McDermott and Dr. Newby. “This underscores the major importance of plaque burden” for the prediction of coronary events.
 

Graded risk

The analysis included 9,533 persons aged 40 and older without known ischemic heart disease or symptoms with available CTA assessments.

Obstructive disease, defined as presence of a luminal stenosis of at least 50%, was seen in 10% and nonobstructive disease in 36% of the total cohort, the report states.

Disease occupying more than one-third of the coronary tree was considered extensive and less than one-third of the coronaries nonextensive, occurring in 10.5% and 35.8% of the cohort, respectively.

There were 71 MIs and 193 deaths over a median of 3.5 years. The adjusted relative risk for MI, compared with those without coronary atherosclerosis, was:

• 7.65 (95% confidence interval, 3.53-16.57) overall in patients with extensive disease.
• 8.28 (95% CI, 3.75-18.32) in those with obstructive but nonextensive disease.
• 9.19 (95% CI, 4.49-18.82) overall in those with obstructive disease.
• 12.48 (95% CI, 5.50-28.12) in those with or obstructive and extensive disease.

The adjusted RR for the composite of death or MI was also elevated in persons with extensive disease:

• 2.70 (95% CI, 1.72-4.25) in those with extensive but nonobstructive disease.
• 3.15 (95% CI, 2.05-4.83) in those with extensive and obstructive disease.

“It’s one thing to show that the more plaque, the higher the risk,” Dr. Blankstein said. But “does the information ultimately lead to better outcomes? Do patients have fewer MIs or fewer deaths?” Several ongoing randomized trials are exploring these questions.

They include DANE-HEART (Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography for Primary Prevention), projected to enroll about 6,000 participants from the Copenhagen General Population Study cohort who have at least one CV risk factor, and SCOT-HEART 2 (second Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography for the Prevention of Myocardial Infarction), enrolling a similar cohort in Scotland.

The study was supported by grants from AP Møller og Hustru Chastine Mc-Kinney Møllers Fond, the Research Council of Rigshospitalet, and Danish Heart Foundation. Dr. Fuchs reports no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors can be found here. Dr. Blankstein recently disclosed serving as a consultant to Amgen, Caristo Diagnostics, Novartis, and Silence Therapeutics. Disclosures for Dr. McDermott and Dr. Newby, who are SCOT-HEART 2 investigators, can be found here.

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

About half of middle-aged adults in the community without cardiovascular (CV) symptoms have coronary atherosclerosis by CT angiography (CTA) that puts them at substantial risk for myocardial infarction (MI), suggests a prospective cohort study.

The 10% of participants who had subclinical disease considered obstructive at CTA showed a ninefold increased risk for MI over several years. Obstructive disease seemed to elevate risk more than subclinical disease that wasn’t obstructive but still considered extensive within the coronary arteries.

The findings, based on a Copenhagen General Population Study cohort, are new for CTA but consistent with research based on coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores and other ways to assess CV risk, say researchers.

Although all participants underwent CTA, such imaging isn’t used in the general population for atherosclerosis screening. But the findings may have implications for “opportunistic screening” for subclinical coronary disease at CTA conducted for other reasons, notes the study’s report, published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Identification of luminal obstructive or extensive subclinical coronary atherosclerosis” could potentially provide “clinically relevant, incremental risk assessment” in nonischemic patients who undergo cardiac CT or electrocardiogram-gated chest CT before procedures such as arrhythmia ablation or valve repair, it states.

Such patients found with subclinical coronary atherosclerosis might potentially “benefit from referral to intensified cardiovascular primary prevention therapy,” write the authors, led by Andreas Fuchs, MD, PhD, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet.

The group acknowledges the findings may not entirely apply to a non-Danish population.


 

A screening role for CTA?

Whether CTA has a role to play in adults without symptoms “is a big, open question in the field right now,” observed Ron Blankstein, MD, not associated with the current analysis, for this news organization.

Brigham and Women's Hospital

Most population studies of CV risk prediction, such as MESA, have looked at CAC scores, not CTA, and have shown that “the more plaque individuals have, the higher the risk.” The current findings are similar but novel in coming from coronary CTA in a large asymptomatic community population, said Dr. Blankstein, who is director of cardiac CT at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

“It’s possible that patients who have obstructive plaque in general tend to have a larger amount of plaque as well,” he said. So, while the study suggests that “the more plaque individuals have, the worse their overall risk,” it also shows that the risk “is enhanced even more if they have obstructive disease.”

The Danish cohort analysis “provides a unique opportunity to study the contemporary natural history of coronary artery disease in the absence of intervention,” notes an accompanying editorial.

For example, both patients and clinicians were blinded to CTA results, and CV preventive therapies weren’t common, observe Michael McDermott, MBChB, and David E. Newby, DM, PhD, of the BHF Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Edinburgh.

The analysis suggests that subclinical coronary disease that is obstructive predicts MI risk more strongly than extensive coronary disease, they note, and may be present in two-thirds of MI patients. “This contrasts with symptomatic populations, where nonobstructive disease accounts for most future myocardial infarctions, presumably from plaque rupture.”

It also points to “strong associations between nonobstructive extensive disease and adverse plaque characteristics,” write Dr. McDermott and Dr. Newby. “This underscores the major importance of plaque burden” for the prediction of coronary events.
 

Graded risk

The analysis included 9,533 persons aged 40 and older without known ischemic heart disease or symptoms with available CTA assessments.

Obstructive disease, defined as presence of a luminal stenosis of at least 50%, was seen in 10% and nonobstructive disease in 36% of the total cohort, the report states.

Disease occupying more than one-third of the coronary tree was considered extensive and less than one-third of the coronaries nonextensive, occurring in 10.5% and 35.8% of the cohort, respectively.

There were 71 MIs and 193 deaths over a median of 3.5 years. The adjusted relative risk for MI, compared with those without coronary atherosclerosis, was:

• 7.65 (95% confidence interval, 3.53-16.57) overall in patients with extensive disease.
• 8.28 (95% CI, 3.75-18.32) in those with obstructive but nonextensive disease.
• 9.19 (95% CI, 4.49-18.82) overall in those with obstructive disease.
• 12.48 (95% CI, 5.50-28.12) in those with or obstructive and extensive disease.

The adjusted RR for the composite of death or MI was also elevated in persons with extensive disease:

• 2.70 (95% CI, 1.72-4.25) in those with extensive but nonobstructive disease.
• 3.15 (95% CI, 2.05-4.83) in those with extensive and obstructive disease.

“It’s one thing to show that the more plaque, the higher the risk,” Dr. Blankstein said. But “does the information ultimately lead to better outcomes? Do patients have fewer MIs or fewer deaths?” Several ongoing randomized trials are exploring these questions.

They include DANE-HEART (Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography for Primary Prevention), projected to enroll about 6,000 participants from the Copenhagen General Population Study cohort who have at least one CV risk factor, and SCOT-HEART 2 (second Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography for the Prevention of Myocardial Infarction), enrolling a similar cohort in Scotland.

The study was supported by grants from AP Møller og Hustru Chastine Mc-Kinney Møllers Fond, the Research Council of Rigshospitalet, and Danish Heart Foundation. Dr. Fuchs reports no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors can be found here. Dr. Blankstein recently disclosed serving as a consultant to Amgen, Caristo Diagnostics, Novartis, and Silence Therapeutics. Disclosures for Dr. McDermott and Dr. Newby, who are SCOT-HEART 2 investigators, can be found here.

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

About half of middle-aged adults in the community without cardiovascular (CV) symptoms have coronary atherosclerosis by CT angiography (CTA) that puts them at substantial risk for myocardial infarction (MI), suggests a prospective cohort study.

The 10% of participants who had subclinical disease considered obstructive at CTA showed a ninefold increased risk for MI over several years. Obstructive disease seemed to elevate risk more than subclinical disease that wasn’t obstructive but still considered extensive within the coronary arteries.

The findings, based on a Copenhagen General Population Study cohort, are new for CTA but consistent with research based on coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores and other ways to assess CV risk, say researchers.

Although all participants underwent CTA, such imaging isn’t used in the general population for atherosclerosis screening. But the findings may have implications for “opportunistic screening” for subclinical coronary disease at CTA conducted for other reasons, notes the study’s report, published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Identification of luminal obstructive or extensive subclinical coronary atherosclerosis” could potentially provide “clinically relevant, incremental risk assessment” in nonischemic patients who undergo cardiac CT or electrocardiogram-gated chest CT before procedures such as arrhythmia ablation or valve repair, it states.

Such patients found with subclinical coronary atherosclerosis might potentially “benefit from referral to intensified cardiovascular primary prevention therapy,” write the authors, led by Andreas Fuchs, MD, PhD, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet.

The group acknowledges the findings may not entirely apply to a non-Danish population.


 

A screening role for CTA?

Whether CTA has a role to play in adults without symptoms “is a big, open question in the field right now,” observed Ron Blankstein, MD, not associated with the current analysis, for this news organization.

Brigham and Women's Hospital

Most population studies of CV risk prediction, such as MESA, have looked at CAC scores, not CTA, and have shown that “the more plaque individuals have, the higher the risk.” The current findings are similar but novel in coming from coronary CTA in a large asymptomatic community population, said Dr. Blankstein, who is director of cardiac CT at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

“It’s possible that patients who have obstructive plaque in general tend to have a larger amount of plaque as well,” he said. So, while the study suggests that “the more plaque individuals have, the worse their overall risk,” it also shows that the risk “is enhanced even more if they have obstructive disease.”

The Danish cohort analysis “provides a unique opportunity to study the contemporary natural history of coronary artery disease in the absence of intervention,” notes an accompanying editorial.

For example, both patients and clinicians were blinded to CTA results, and CV preventive therapies weren’t common, observe Michael McDermott, MBChB, and David E. Newby, DM, PhD, of the BHF Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Edinburgh.

The analysis suggests that subclinical coronary disease that is obstructive predicts MI risk more strongly than extensive coronary disease, they note, and may be present in two-thirds of MI patients. “This contrasts with symptomatic populations, where nonobstructive disease accounts for most future myocardial infarctions, presumably from plaque rupture.”

It also points to “strong associations between nonobstructive extensive disease and adverse plaque characteristics,” write Dr. McDermott and Dr. Newby. “This underscores the major importance of plaque burden” for the prediction of coronary events.
 

Graded risk

The analysis included 9,533 persons aged 40 and older without known ischemic heart disease or symptoms with available CTA assessments.

Obstructive disease, defined as presence of a luminal stenosis of at least 50%, was seen in 10% and nonobstructive disease in 36% of the total cohort, the report states.

Disease occupying more than one-third of the coronary tree was considered extensive and less than one-third of the coronaries nonextensive, occurring in 10.5% and 35.8% of the cohort, respectively.

There were 71 MIs and 193 deaths over a median of 3.5 years. The adjusted relative risk for MI, compared with those without coronary atherosclerosis, was:

• 7.65 (95% confidence interval, 3.53-16.57) overall in patients with extensive disease.
• 8.28 (95% CI, 3.75-18.32) in those with obstructive but nonextensive disease.
• 9.19 (95% CI, 4.49-18.82) overall in those with obstructive disease.
• 12.48 (95% CI, 5.50-28.12) in those with or obstructive and extensive disease.

The adjusted RR for the composite of death or MI was also elevated in persons with extensive disease:

• 2.70 (95% CI, 1.72-4.25) in those with extensive but nonobstructive disease.
• 3.15 (95% CI, 2.05-4.83) in those with extensive and obstructive disease.

“It’s one thing to show that the more plaque, the higher the risk,” Dr. Blankstein said. But “does the information ultimately lead to better outcomes? Do patients have fewer MIs or fewer deaths?” Several ongoing randomized trials are exploring these questions.

They include DANE-HEART (Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography for Primary Prevention), projected to enroll about 6,000 participants from the Copenhagen General Population Study cohort who have at least one CV risk factor, and SCOT-HEART 2 (second Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography for the Prevention of Myocardial Infarction), enrolling a similar cohort in Scotland.

The study was supported by grants from AP Møller og Hustru Chastine Mc-Kinney Møllers Fond, the Research Council of Rigshospitalet, and Danish Heart Foundation. Dr. Fuchs reports no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors can be found here. Dr. Blankstein recently disclosed serving as a consultant to Amgen, Caristo Diagnostics, Novartis, and Silence Therapeutics. Disclosures for Dr. McDermott and Dr. Newby, who are SCOT-HEART 2 investigators, can be found here.

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

If a patient’s prostate-specific antigen (PSA) spikes 2 points in just 90 days, what is your first thought? This patient has a strong likelihood of aggressive prostate cancer, right? If that same patient also presents with severe, burning bone pain with no precipitating trauma to the area and rest and over-the-counter  painkillers are not helping, you’d think, “check for metastases,” right?

That patient was me in late January 2023.

As a research scientist member of the American Urological Association, I knew enough to know I had to consult my urologist ASAP.

With the above symptoms, I’ll admit I was scared. Fortunately, if that’s the right word, I was no stranger to a rapid, dramatic spike in PSA. In 2021 I was temporarily living in a new city, and I wanted to form a relationship with a good local urologist. The urologist that I was referred to gave me a thorough consultation, including a vigorous digital rectal exam (DRE) and sent me across the street for a blood draw.

To my shock, my PSA had spiked over 2 points, to 9.9 from 7.8 a few months earlier. I freaked. Had my 3-cm tumor burst out into an aggressive cancer? Research on PubMed provided an array of studies showing what could cause PSA to suddenly rise, including a DRE performed 72 hours before the blood draw.1 A week later, my PSA was back down to its normal 7.6. 

But in January 2023, I had none of those previously reported experiences that could suddenly trigger a spike in PSA, like a DRE or riding on a thin bicycle seat for a few hours before the lab visit. 
 

The COVID effect

I went back to PubMed and found a new circumstance that could cause a surge in PSA: COVID-19. A recent study² of 91 men with benign prostatic hypertrophy by researchers in Turkey found that PSA spiked from 0 to 5 points during the COVID infection period and up to 2 points higher 3 months after the infection had cleared. I had tested positive for COVID-19 in mid-December 2022, 4 weeks before my 9.9 PSA reading.

Using Google translate, I communicated with the team in Turkey and found out that the PSA spike can last up to 6 months.

That study helps explain why my PSA dropped over 1.5 points to 8.5 just 2 weeks after the 9.9 reading, with the expectation that it would return to its previous normal of 7.8 within 6 months of infection with SARS-CoV-2. To be safe, my urologist scheduled another PSA test in May, along with an updated multiparametric MRI, which may be followed by an in-bore MRI-guided biopsy of the 3-cm tumor if the mass has enlarged.
 

COVID-19 pain

What about my burning bone pain in my upper right humerus and right rotator cuff that was not precipitated by trauma or strain? A radiograph found no evidence of metastasis, thank goodness. And my research showed that several studies³ have found that COVID-19 can cause burning musculoskeletal pain, including enthesopathy, which is what I had per the radiology report. So my PSA spike and searing pain were likely consequences of the infection.

To avoid the risk for a gross misdiagnosis after a radical spike in PSA, the informed urologist should ask the patient if he has had COVID-19 in the previous 6 months. Overlooking that question could lead to the wrong diagnostic decisions about a rapid jump in PSA or unexplained bone pain.

References

1. Bossens MM et al. Eur J Cancer. 1995;31A:682-5.

2. Cinislioglu AE et al. Urology. 2022;159:16-21.

3. Ciaffi J et al. Joint Bone Spine. 2021;88:105158.

Dr. Keller is founder of the Keller Research Institute, Jacksonville, Fla. He reported serving as a research scientist for the American Urological Association, serving on the advisory board of Active Surveillance Patient’s International, and serving on the boards of numerous nonprofit organizations.

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

If a patient’s prostate-specific antigen (PSA) spikes 2 points in just 90 days, what is your first thought? This patient has a strong likelihood of aggressive prostate cancer, right? If that same patient also presents with severe, burning bone pain with no precipitating trauma to the area and rest and over-the-counter  painkillers are not helping, you’d think, “check for metastases,” right?

That patient was me in late January 2023.

As a research scientist member of the American Urological Association, I knew enough to know I had to consult my urologist ASAP.

With the above symptoms, I’ll admit I was scared. Fortunately, if that’s the right word, I was no stranger to a rapid, dramatic spike in PSA. In 2021 I was temporarily living in a new city, and I wanted to form a relationship with a good local urologist. The urologist that I was referred to gave me a thorough consultation, including a vigorous digital rectal exam (DRE) and sent me across the street for a blood draw.

To my shock, my PSA had spiked over 2 points, to 9.9 from 7.8 a few months earlier. I freaked. Had my 3-cm tumor burst out into an aggressive cancer? Research on PubMed provided an array of studies showing what could cause PSA to suddenly rise, including a DRE performed 72 hours before the blood draw.1 A week later, my PSA was back down to its normal 7.6. 

But in January 2023, I had none of those previously reported experiences that could suddenly trigger a spike in PSA, like a DRE or riding on a thin bicycle seat for a few hours before the lab visit. 
 

The COVID effect

I went back to PubMed and found a new circumstance that could cause a surge in PSA: COVID-19. A recent study² of 91 men with benign prostatic hypertrophy by researchers in Turkey found that PSA spiked from 0 to 5 points during the COVID infection period and up to 2 points higher 3 months after the infection had cleared. I had tested positive for COVID-19 in mid-December 2022, 4 weeks before my 9.9 PSA reading.

Using Google translate, I communicated with the team in Turkey and found out that the PSA spike can last up to 6 months.

That study helps explain why my PSA dropped over 1.5 points to 8.5 just 2 weeks after the 9.9 reading, with the expectation that it would return to its previous normal of 7.8 within 6 months of infection with SARS-CoV-2. To be safe, my urologist scheduled another PSA test in May, along with an updated multiparametric MRI, which may be followed by an in-bore MRI-guided biopsy of the 3-cm tumor if the mass has enlarged.
 

COVID-19 pain

What about my burning bone pain in my upper right humerus and right rotator cuff that was not precipitated by trauma or strain? A radiograph found no evidence of metastasis, thank goodness. And my research showed that several studies³ have found that COVID-19 can cause burning musculoskeletal pain, including enthesopathy, which is what I had per the radiology report. So my PSA spike and searing pain were likely consequences of the infection.

To avoid the risk for a gross misdiagnosis after a radical spike in PSA, the informed urologist should ask the patient if he has had COVID-19 in the previous 6 months. Overlooking that question could lead to the wrong diagnostic decisions about a rapid jump in PSA or unexplained bone pain.

References

1. Bossens MM et al. Eur J Cancer. 1995;31A:682-5.

2. Cinislioglu AE et al. Urology. 2022;159:16-21.

3. Ciaffi J et al. Joint Bone Spine. 2021;88:105158.

Dr. Keller is founder of the Keller Research Institute, Jacksonville, Fla. He reported serving as a research scientist for the American Urological Association, serving on the advisory board of Active Surveillance Patient’s International, and serving on the boards of numerous nonprofit organizations.

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

If a patient’s prostate-specific antigen (PSA) spikes 2 points in just 90 days, what is your first thought? This patient has a strong likelihood of aggressive prostate cancer, right? If that same patient also presents with severe, burning bone pain with no precipitating trauma to the area and rest and over-the-counter  painkillers are not helping, you’d think, “check for metastases,” right?

That patient was me in late January 2023.

As a research scientist member of the American Urological Association, I knew enough to know I had to consult my urologist ASAP.

With the above symptoms, I’ll admit I was scared. Fortunately, if that’s the right word, I was no stranger to a rapid, dramatic spike in PSA. In 2021 I was temporarily living in a new city, and I wanted to form a relationship with a good local urologist. The urologist that I was referred to gave me a thorough consultation, including a vigorous digital rectal exam (DRE) and sent me across the street for a blood draw.

To my shock, my PSA had spiked over 2 points, to 9.9 from 7.8 a few months earlier. I freaked. Had my 3-cm tumor burst out into an aggressive cancer? Research on PubMed provided an array of studies showing what could cause PSA to suddenly rise, including a DRE performed 72 hours before the blood draw.1 A week later, my PSA was back down to its normal 7.6. 

But in January 2023, I had none of those previously reported experiences that could suddenly trigger a spike in PSA, like a DRE or riding on a thin bicycle seat for a few hours before the lab visit. 
 

The COVID effect

I went back to PubMed and found a new circumstance that could cause a surge in PSA: COVID-19. A recent study² of 91 men with benign prostatic hypertrophy by researchers in Turkey found that PSA spiked from 0 to 5 points during the COVID infection period and up to 2 points higher 3 months after the infection had cleared. I had tested positive for COVID-19 in mid-December 2022, 4 weeks before my 9.9 PSA reading.

Using Google translate, I communicated with the team in Turkey and found out that the PSA spike can last up to 6 months.

That study helps explain why my PSA dropped over 1.5 points to 8.5 just 2 weeks after the 9.9 reading, with the expectation that it would return to its previous normal of 7.8 within 6 months of infection with SARS-CoV-2. To be safe, my urologist scheduled another PSA test in May, along with an updated multiparametric MRI, which may be followed by an in-bore MRI-guided biopsy of the 3-cm tumor if the mass has enlarged.
 

COVID-19 pain

What about my burning bone pain in my upper right humerus and right rotator cuff that was not precipitated by trauma or strain? A radiograph found no evidence of metastasis, thank goodness. And my research showed that several studies³ have found that COVID-19 can cause burning musculoskeletal pain, including enthesopathy, which is what I had per the radiology report. So my PSA spike and searing pain were likely consequences of the infection.

To avoid the risk for a gross misdiagnosis after a radical spike in PSA, the informed urologist should ask the patient if he has had COVID-19 in the previous 6 months. Overlooking that question could lead to the wrong diagnostic decisions about a rapid jump in PSA or unexplained bone pain.

References

1. Bossens MM et al. Eur J Cancer. 1995;31A:682-5.

2. Cinislioglu AE et al. Urology. 2022;159:16-21.

3. Ciaffi J et al. Joint Bone Spine. 2021;88:105158.

Dr. Keller is founder of the Keller Research Institute, Jacksonville, Fla. He reported serving as a research scientist for the American Urological Association, serving on the advisory board of Active Surveillance Patient’s International, and serving on the boards of numerous nonprofit organizations.

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

When Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fell recently at a dinner event in Washington, he unfortunately joined a large group of his senior citizen peers. 

This wasn’t the first tumble the 81-year-old has taken. In 2019, he fell in his home, fracturing his shoulder. This time, he got a concussion and was recently released to an in-patient rehabilitation facility. While Sen. McConnell didn’t fracture his skull, in falling and hitting his head, he became part of an emerging statistic: One that reveals falls are more dangerous for senior men than senior women. 

This new research, which appeared in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine, came as a surprise to lead researcher Scott Alter, MD, associate professor of emergency medicine at the Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. 

“We always hear about lower bone density rates among females, so we didn’t expect to see males with more skull fractures,” he said. 

Dr. Alter said that as a clinician in a southern Florida facility, his emergency department was the perfect study grounds to evaluate incoming geriatric patients due to falls. Older “patients are at higher risk of skull fractures and intercranial bleeding, and we wanted to look at any patient presenting with a head injury. Some 80% were fall related, however.” 

The statistics bear out the fact that falls of all types are common among the elderly: Some 800,000 seniors wind up in the hospital each year because of falls.

The numbers show death rates from falls are on the rise in the senior citizen age group, too, up 30% from 2007 to 2016. Falls account for 70% of accidental deaths in people 75 and older. They are the leading cause of injury-related visits to emergency departments in the country, too. 

Jennifer Stevens, MD, a gerontologist and executive director at Florida-based Abbey Delray South, is aware of the dire numbers and sees their consequences regularly. “The reasons seniors are at a high fall risk are many,” she said. “They include balance issues, declining strength, diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, side effects of their medications, and more.”

In addition, many seniors live in spaces that are not necessarily equipped for their limitations, and hazards exist all over their homes. Put together, and the risks for falls are everywhere. But there are steps seniors, their families, and even middle-aged people can take to mitigate and hopefully prevent dangerous falls.  
 

Starting early

While in many cases the journey to lessen fall risks begins after a fall, the time to begin addressing the issue is long before you hit your senior years. Mary Therese Cole, a physical therapist and certified dementia practitioner at Manual Edge Physical Therapy in Colorado Springs, Colo., says that age 50 is a good time to start paying attention and addressing physical declines. 

“This is an age where your vision might begin deteriorating,” she said. “It’s a big reason why elderly people trip and fall.” 

As our brains begin to age in our middle years, the neural pathways from brain to extremities start to decline, too. The result is that many people stop picking up their feet as well as they used to do, making them more likely to trip. 

“You’re not elderly yet, but you’re not a spring chicken, either,” Ms. Cole said. “Any issues you have now will only get worse if you’re not working on them.” 

A good starting point in middle age, then, is to work on both strength training and balance exercises. A certified personal trainer or physical therapist can help get you on a program to ward off many of these declines.

If you’ve reached your later years, however, and are experiencing physical declines, it’s smart to check in with your primary care doctor for an assessment. “He or she can get your started on regular PT to evaluate any shortcomings and then address them,” Ms. Cole said. 

She noted that when she’s working with senior patients, she’ll test their strength getting into and out of a chair, do a manual strength test to check on lower extremities, check their walking stride, and ask about conditions such as diabetes, former surgeries, and other conditions. 

From there, Ms. Cole said she can write up a plan for the patient. Likewise, Dr. Stevens uses a program called Be Active that allows her to test seniors on a variety of measurements, including flexibility, balance, hand strength, and more. 

“Then we match them with classes to address their shortcomings,” she said. “It’s critical that seniors have the ability to recover and not fall if they get knocked off balance.”

Beyond working on your physical limitations, taking a good look at your home is essential, too. “You can have an occupational therapist come to your home and do an evaluation,” Dr. Stevens said. “They can help you rearrange and reorganize for a safer environment.” 

Big, common household fall hazards include throw rugs, lack of nightlights for middle-of-the-night visits to the bathroom, a lack of grab bars in the shower/bathtub, and furniture that blocks pathways. 

For his part, Dr. Alter likes to point seniors and their doctors to the CDC’s STEADI program, which is aimed at stopping elderly accidents, deaths, and injuries. 

“It includes screening for fall risk, assessing factors you can modify or improve, and more tools,” he said. 

Dr. Alter also recommended seniors talk to their doctors about medications, particularly blood thinners. 

“At a certain point, you need to weigh the benefits of disease prevention with the risk of injury if you fall,” he said. “The bleeding risk might be too high if the patient is at a high risk of falls.”
 

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

When Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fell recently at a dinner event in Washington, he unfortunately joined a large group of his senior citizen peers. 

This wasn’t the first tumble the 81-year-old has taken. In 2019, he fell in his home, fracturing his shoulder. This time, he got a concussion and was recently released to an in-patient rehabilitation facility. While Sen. McConnell didn’t fracture his skull, in falling and hitting his head, he became part of an emerging statistic: One that reveals falls are more dangerous for senior men than senior women. 

This new research, which appeared in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine, came as a surprise to lead researcher Scott Alter, MD, associate professor of emergency medicine at the Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. 

“We always hear about lower bone density rates among females, so we didn’t expect to see males with more skull fractures,” he said. 

Dr. Alter said that as a clinician in a southern Florida facility, his emergency department was the perfect study grounds to evaluate incoming geriatric patients due to falls. Older “patients are at higher risk of skull fractures and intercranial bleeding, and we wanted to look at any patient presenting with a head injury. Some 80% were fall related, however.” 

The statistics bear out the fact that falls of all types are common among the elderly: Some 800,000 seniors wind up in the hospital each year because of falls.

The numbers show death rates from falls are on the rise in the senior citizen age group, too, up 30% from 2007 to 2016. Falls account for 70% of accidental deaths in people 75 and older. They are the leading cause of injury-related visits to emergency departments in the country, too. 

Jennifer Stevens, MD, a gerontologist and executive director at Florida-based Abbey Delray South, is aware of the dire numbers and sees their consequences regularly. “The reasons seniors are at a high fall risk are many,” she said. “They include balance issues, declining strength, diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, side effects of their medications, and more.”

In addition, many seniors live in spaces that are not necessarily equipped for their limitations, and hazards exist all over their homes. Put together, and the risks for falls are everywhere. But there are steps seniors, their families, and even middle-aged people can take to mitigate and hopefully prevent dangerous falls.  
 

Starting early

While in many cases the journey to lessen fall risks begins after a fall, the time to begin addressing the issue is long before you hit your senior years. Mary Therese Cole, a physical therapist and certified dementia practitioner at Manual Edge Physical Therapy in Colorado Springs, Colo., says that age 50 is a good time to start paying attention and addressing physical declines. 

“This is an age where your vision might begin deteriorating,” she said. “It’s a big reason why elderly people trip and fall.” 

As our brains begin to age in our middle years, the neural pathways from brain to extremities start to decline, too. The result is that many people stop picking up their feet as well as they used to do, making them more likely to trip. 

“You’re not elderly yet, but you’re not a spring chicken, either,” Ms. Cole said. “Any issues you have now will only get worse if you’re not working on them.” 

A good starting point in middle age, then, is to work on both strength training and balance exercises. A certified personal trainer or physical therapist can help get you on a program to ward off many of these declines.

If you’ve reached your later years, however, and are experiencing physical declines, it’s smart to check in with your primary care doctor for an assessment. “He or she can get your started on regular PT to evaluate any shortcomings and then address them,” Ms. Cole said. 

She noted that when she’s working with senior patients, she’ll test their strength getting into and out of a chair, do a manual strength test to check on lower extremities, check their walking stride, and ask about conditions such as diabetes, former surgeries, and other conditions. 

From there, Ms. Cole said she can write up a plan for the patient. Likewise, Dr. Stevens uses a program called Be Active that allows her to test seniors on a variety of measurements, including flexibility, balance, hand strength, and more. 

“Then we match them with classes to address their shortcomings,” she said. “It’s critical that seniors have the ability to recover and not fall if they get knocked off balance.”

Beyond working on your physical limitations, taking a good look at your home is essential, too. “You can have an occupational therapist come to your home and do an evaluation,” Dr. Stevens said. “They can help you rearrange and reorganize for a safer environment.” 

Big, common household fall hazards include throw rugs, lack of nightlights for middle-of-the-night visits to the bathroom, a lack of grab bars in the shower/bathtub, and furniture that blocks pathways. 

For his part, Dr. Alter likes to point seniors and their doctors to the CDC’s STEADI program, which is aimed at stopping elderly accidents, deaths, and injuries. 

“It includes screening for fall risk, assessing factors you can modify or improve, and more tools,” he said. 

Dr. Alter also recommended seniors talk to their doctors about medications, particularly blood thinners. 

“At a certain point, you need to weigh the benefits of disease prevention with the risk of injury if you fall,” he said. “The bleeding risk might be too high if the patient is at a high risk of falls.”
 

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

When Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fell recently at a dinner event in Washington, he unfortunately joined a large group of his senior citizen peers. 

This wasn’t the first tumble the 81-year-old has taken. In 2019, he fell in his home, fracturing his shoulder. This time, he got a concussion and was recently released to an in-patient rehabilitation facility. While Sen. McConnell didn’t fracture his skull, in falling and hitting his head, he became part of an emerging statistic: One that reveals falls are more dangerous for senior men than senior women. 

This new research, which appeared in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine, came as a surprise to lead researcher Scott Alter, MD, associate professor of emergency medicine at the Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. 

“We always hear about lower bone density rates among females, so we didn’t expect to see males with more skull fractures,” he said. 

Dr. Alter said that as a clinician in a southern Florida facility, his emergency department was the perfect study grounds to evaluate incoming geriatric patients due to falls. Older “patients are at higher risk of skull fractures and intercranial bleeding, and we wanted to look at any patient presenting with a head injury. Some 80% were fall related, however.” 

The statistics bear out the fact that falls of all types are common among the elderly: Some 800,000 seniors wind up in the hospital each year because of falls.

The numbers show death rates from falls are on the rise in the senior citizen age group, too, up 30% from 2007 to 2016. Falls account for 70% of accidental deaths in people 75 and older. They are the leading cause of injury-related visits to emergency departments in the country, too. 

Jennifer Stevens, MD, a gerontologist and executive director at Florida-based Abbey Delray South, is aware of the dire numbers and sees their consequences regularly. “The reasons seniors are at a high fall risk are many,” she said. “They include balance issues, declining strength, diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, side effects of their medications, and more.”

In addition, many seniors live in spaces that are not necessarily equipped for their limitations, and hazards exist all over their homes. Put together, and the risks for falls are everywhere. But there are steps seniors, their families, and even middle-aged people can take to mitigate and hopefully prevent dangerous falls.  
 

Starting early

While in many cases the journey to lessen fall risks begins after a fall, the time to begin addressing the issue is long before you hit your senior years. Mary Therese Cole, a physical therapist and certified dementia practitioner at Manual Edge Physical Therapy in Colorado Springs, Colo., says that age 50 is a good time to start paying attention and addressing physical declines. 

“This is an age where your vision might begin deteriorating,” she said. “It’s a big reason why elderly people trip and fall.” 

As our brains begin to age in our middle years, the neural pathways from brain to extremities start to decline, too. The result is that many people stop picking up their feet as well as they used to do, making them more likely to trip. 

“You’re not elderly yet, but you’re not a spring chicken, either,” Ms. Cole said. “Any issues you have now will only get worse if you’re not working on them.” 

A good starting point in middle age, then, is to work on both strength training and balance exercises. A certified personal trainer or physical therapist can help get you on a program to ward off many of these declines.

If you’ve reached your later years, however, and are experiencing physical declines, it’s smart to check in with your primary care doctor for an assessment. “He or she can get your started on regular PT to evaluate any shortcomings and then address them,” Ms. Cole said. 

She noted that when she’s working with senior patients, she’ll test their strength getting into and out of a chair, do a manual strength test to check on lower extremities, check their walking stride, and ask about conditions such as diabetes, former surgeries, and other conditions. 

From there, Ms. Cole said she can write up a plan for the patient. Likewise, Dr. Stevens uses a program called Be Active that allows her to test seniors on a variety of measurements, including flexibility, balance, hand strength, and more. 

“Then we match them with classes to address their shortcomings,” she said. “It’s critical that seniors have the ability to recover and not fall if they get knocked off balance.”

Beyond working on your physical limitations, taking a good look at your home is essential, too. “You can have an occupational therapist come to your home and do an evaluation,” Dr. Stevens said. “They can help you rearrange and reorganize for a safer environment.” 

Big, common household fall hazards include throw rugs, lack of nightlights for middle-of-the-night visits to the bathroom, a lack of grab bars in the shower/bathtub, and furniture that blocks pathways. 

For his part, Dr. Alter likes to point seniors and their doctors to the CDC’s STEADI program, which is aimed at stopping elderly accidents, deaths, and injuries. 

“It includes screening for fall risk, assessing factors you can modify or improve, and more tools,” he said. 

Dr. Alter also recommended seniors talk to their doctors about medications, particularly blood thinners. 

“At a certain point, you need to weigh the benefits of disease prevention with the risk of injury if you fall,” he said. “The bleeding risk might be too high if the patient is at a high risk of falls.”
 

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

When 2022 began, we started seeing some light at the end of the COVID-19 tunnel. Vaccines were widely available, and even with new variants of the virus still occasionally emerging, the rates of severe morbidity and mortality appeared to be decreasing.

Expectedly, journals appeared to start moving more toward mainstream topics and publications rather than what seemed like a major focus on COVID-19 publications. The resulting literature was fantastic. This past year brought some outstanding publications related to emergency medicine that are practice changers.

Several of those topics were discussed in a prior Emergency Medicine Viewpoint from this news organization, and many more of the research advances of 2022 will be discussed in the near future. However, in this Viewpoint, I would like to present my annual review of my three “must-read” articles of the past year.

As in past years, I am choosing reviews of the literature rather than original research articles (which, all too often, become outdated or debunked within a few years). I choose these articles in the hopes that readers will not simply settle for my brief reviews of the key points but instead will feel compelled to download and read the entire articles. These publications address common conditions and quandaries we face in the daily practice of emergency medicine and are practice-changing.
 

Myocardial dysfunction after cardiac arrest: Tips and pitfalls

The management of post–cardiac arrest patients remains a hot topic in the resuscitation literature as we continue to understand that the immediate post-arrest period is critical to patient outcome.

Ortuno and colleagues reviewed the current literature on post-arrest care and wrote an outstanding summary of how to optimally care for these patients. More specifically, they focused on post-arrest patients who demonstrate continued shock, or “post–cardiac arrest myocardial dysfunction” (PCAMD).

They propose three mechanisms for the pathogenesis of PCAMD: ischemia reperfusion phenomenon, systemic inflammatory response, and increased catecholamine release

I will skip through the details of the pathophysiology that they describe in the article, but I certainly do recommend that everyone review their descriptions.

Management of these patients begins with a good hemodynamic assessment, which includes clinical markers of perfusion (blood pressure, capillary refill), ECG, and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). If the initial assessment reveals an obvious cause of the cardiac arrest (e.g., massive pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, pericardial tamponade), then the underlying cause should be treated expeditiously.

In the absence of an obvious treatable cause of the shock, the fluid status and cardiac function should be addressed with POCUS. If the patient is hypovolemic, intravenous fluids should be administered. If the fluid status is adequate, POCUS should be used to estimate the patient’s ventricular function. If the ventricle appears to be hyperdynamic with good contractility, shock should be treated with norepinephrine. On the other hand, if the ventricle is hypodynamic, dobutamine should be substituted for norepinephrine or, more often, added to norepinephrine.

The above represents a simplified summary of the critical points, but the authors do delve into further detail and also discuss some other options for therapies, including steroids, coronary revascularization, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and so on. The review is very thoughtful, thorough, and definitely worth a full read.
 

Top myths of diagnosis and management of infectious diseases in hospital medicine

Most, if not all of us in medicine, have heard the saying that 50% of what we learn in medical school (or residency) will turn out to be wrong. I certainly believe in this concept and consequently, like many of you, I enjoy reading about myths and misconceptions that we have been taught. With that in mind, I have to say that I love this article because it seems to have been written specifically to address what I was taught!

This author group, consisting mostly of clinical PharmDs who are experts in antibiotic use, provide us with an evidence-based discussion of myths and pitfalls in how antibiotics are often used in current clinical practice. The authors review their top 10 myths involving the use of antibiotics in treating infections in the hospital setting. A few of these relate more to the inpatient setting, but here are my favorite emergency department (ED)–related myths that they address:

• “Antibiotics do no harm.” The authors address the risk-benefit of antibiotics based on assumed vs. confirmed infections, including a brief discussion of adverse drug effects.
• “Antibiotic durations of 7, 14, or 21 days are typically necessary.” The authors address appropriate duration of antibiotic use and the fact that unnecessarily long durations of use can lead to resistance. They also provide reassurance that some infections can be treated with quite short durations of antibiotics.
• “If one drug is good, two (or more!) is better.” The use of multiple antibiotics, often with overlapping bacterial coverage, is rampant in medicine and further increases the risk for adverse drug effects and resistance.
• “Oral antibiotics are not as good as intravenous antibiotics for hospitalized patients.” This is definitely a myth that I learned. I recall being taught by many senior physicians that anyone sick enough for admission should be treated with intravenous antibiotics. As it turns out, absorption and effectiveness of most oral antibiotics is just as good as intravenous antibiotics, and the oral formulations are often safer.
• “A history of a penicillin allergy means the patient can never receive a beta-lactam antibiotic.” This is a myth that was debunked quite a few years ago, but it seems that many clinicians still need a reminder.

The authors included five more myths that are worth the read. This is an article that needs to be disseminated among all hospital clinicians.
 

Guidelines for low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department

The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) recently initiated a program focused on creating evidence-based approaches to challenging chief complaints and presentations in the emergency department (ED). In 2021, they published an approach to managing patients with recurrent, low-risk chest pain in the ED. This past year, they published their second guideline, focused on the management of patients with low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the ED.

Recurrent low-risk abdominal pain is a common and vexing presentation to EDs around the world, and there is little prior published guidance. Do all of these patients need repeat imaging? How do we manage their pain? Are there nonabdominal conditions that should be considered?

Broder and colleagues did a fantastic review of the current literature and, on behalf of SAEM, have provided a rational approach to optimal management of these patients. The four major questions they addressed, with brief summaries of their recommendations, are:

• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive a repeat CT abdomen-pelvis (CTAP) after a negative CTAP within the past 12 months? This is a typical question that we all ponder when managing these patients. Unfortunately, the writing group found insufficient evidence to definitively identify populations in whom CTAP was recommended vs could be safely withheld. It is a bit disappointing that there is no definite answer to the question. On the other hand, it is reassuring to know that the world’s best evidence essentially says that it is perfectly appropriate to use your own good clinical judgment.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain with a negative CTAP receive additional imaging with abdominal ultrasound? In this case, the writing group found enough evidence, though low-level, to suggest against routine ultrasound in the absence of concern specifically for pelvic or hepatobiliary pathology. Like most tests, ultrasound is best used when there are specific concerns rather than being used in an undifferentiated fashion.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive screening for depression/anxiety? The writing group found enough evidence, though low-level again, to suggest that screening for depression and/or anxiety be performed during the ED evaluation. This could lead to successful therapy for the abdominal pain.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive nonopioid and/or nonpharmacologic analgesics? The writing group found little evidence to suggest for or against these analgesics, but they made a consensus recommendation suggesting an opioid-minimizing strategy for pain control.

Although the final recommendations of the writing group were not definitive or based on the strongest level of evidence, I find it helpful to have this guidance, nevertheless, on behalf of a major national organization. I also find it helpful to know that even with the best evidence available, optimal patient care will often boil down to physician experience and gestalt. I should also add that the overall article is chock-full of pearls and helpful information that will further inform the readers’ decisions, and so the full version is definitely worth the read.
 

In summary

There you have it – my three favorite practice-changing articles of 2022. Although I have tried to provide key points here, the full discussions of those key points in the published articles will provide a great deal more education than I can offer in this brief write-up, and so I strongly encourage everyone to read the full versions. Please be sure to include in the comments section your own pick for favorite or must-read articles from the past year.

Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

When 2022 began, we started seeing some light at the end of the COVID-19 tunnel. Vaccines were widely available, and even with new variants of the virus still occasionally emerging, the rates of severe morbidity and mortality appeared to be decreasing.

Expectedly, journals appeared to start moving more toward mainstream topics and publications rather than what seemed like a major focus on COVID-19 publications. The resulting literature was fantastic. This past year brought some outstanding publications related to emergency medicine that are practice changers.

Several of those topics were discussed in a prior Emergency Medicine Viewpoint from this news organization, and many more of the research advances of 2022 will be discussed in the near future. However, in this Viewpoint, I would like to present my annual review of my three “must-read” articles of the past year.

As in past years, I am choosing reviews of the literature rather than original research articles (which, all too often, become outdated or debunked within a few years). I choose these articles in the hopes that readers will not simply settle for my brief reviews of the key points but instead will feel compelled to download and read the entire articles. These publications address common conditions and quandaries we face in the daily practice of emergency medicine and are practice-changing.
 

Myocardial dysfunction after cardiac arrest: Tips and pitfalls

The management of post–cardiac arrest patients remains a hot topic in the resuscitation literature as we continue to understand that the immediate post-arrest period is critical to patient outcome.

Ortuno and colleagues reviewed the current literature on post-arrest care and wrote an outstanding summary of how to optimally care for these patients. More specifically, they focused on post-arrest patients who demonstrate continued shock, or “post–cardiac arrest myocardial dysfunction” (PCAMD).

They propose three mechanisms for the pathogenesis of PCAMD: ischemia reperfusion phenomenon, systemic inflammatory response, and increased catecholamine release

I will skip through the details of the pathophysiology that they describe in the article, but I certainly do recommend that everyone review their descriptions.

Management of these patients begins with a good hemodynamic assessment, which includes clinical markers of perfusion (blood pressure, capillary refill), ECG, and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). If the initial assessment reveals an obvious cause of the cardiac arrest (e.g., massive pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, pericardial tamponade), then the underlying cause should be treated expeditiously.

In the absence of an obvious treatable cause of the shock, the fluid status and cardiac function should be addressed with POCUS. If the patient is hypovolemic, intravenous fluids should be administered. If the fluid status is adequate, POCUS should be used to estimate the patient’s ventricular function. If the ventricle appears to be hyperdynamic with good contractility, shock should be treated with norepinephrine. On the other hand, if the ventricle is hypodynamic, dobutamine should be substituted for norepinephrine or, more often, added to norepinephrine.

The above represents a simplified summary of the critical points, but the authors do delve into further detail and also discuss some other options for therapies, including steroids, coronary revascularization, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and so on. The review is very thoughtful, thorough, and definitely worth a full read.
 

Top myths of diagnosis and management of infectious diseases in hospital medicine

Most, if not all of us in medicine, have heard the saying that 50% of what we learn in medical school (or residency) will turn out to be wrong. I certainly believe in this concept and consequently, like many of you, I enjoy reading about myths and misconceptions that we have been taught. With that in mind, I have to say that I love this article because it seems to have been written specifically to address what I was taught!

This author group, consisting mostly of clinical PharmDs who are experts in antibiotic use, provide us with an evidence-based discussion of myths and pitfalls in how antibiotics are often used in current clinical practice. The authors review their top 10 myths involving the use of antibiotics in treating infections in the hospital setting. A few of these relate more to the inpatient setting, but here are my favorite emergency department (ED)–related myths that they address:

• “Antibiotics do no harm.” The authors address the risk-benefit of antibiotics based on assumed vs. confirmed infections, including a brief discussion of adverse drug effects.
• “Antibiotic durations of 7, 14, or 21 days are typically necessary.” The authors address appropriate duration of antibiotic use and the fact that unnecessarily long durations of use can lead to resistance. They also provide reassurance that some infections can be treated with quite short durations of antibiotics.
• “If one drug is good, two (or more!) is better.” The use of multiple antibiotics, often with overlapping bacterial coverage, is rampant in medicine and further increases the risk for adverse drug effects and resistance.
• “Oral antibiotics are not as good as intravenous antibiotics for hospitalized patients.” This is definitely a myth that I learned. I recall being taught by many senior physicians that anyone sick enough for admission should be treated with intravenous antibiotics. As it turns out, absorption and effectiveness of most oral antibiotics is just as good as intravenous antibiotics, and the oral formulations are often safer.
• “A history of a penicillin allergy means the patient can never receive a beta-lactam antibiotic.” This is a myth that was debunked quite a few years ago, but it seems that many clinicians still need a reminder.

The authors included five more myths that are worth the read. This is an article that needs to be disseminated among all hospital clinicians.
 

Guidelines for low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department

The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) recently initiated a program focused on creating evidence-based approaches to challenging chief complaints and presentations in the emergency department (ED). In 2021, they published an approach to managing patients with recurrent, low-risk chest pain in the ED. This past year, they published their second guideline, focused on the management of patients with low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the ED.

Recurrent low-risk abdominal pain is a common and vexing presentation to EDs around the world, and there is little prior published guidance. Do all of these patients need repeat imaging? How do we manage their pain? Are there nonabdominal conditions that should be considered?

Broder and colleagues did a fantastic review of the current literature and, on behalf of SAEM, have provided a rational approach to optimal management of these patients. The four major questions they addressed, with brief summaries of their recommendations, are:

• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive a repeat CT abdomen-pelvis (CTAP) after a negative CTAP within the past 12 months? This is a typical question that we all ponder when managing these patients. Unfortunately, the writing group found insufficient evidence to definitively identify populations in whom CTAP was recommended vs could be safely withheld. It is a bit disappointing that there is no definite answer to the question. On the other hand, it is reassuring to know that the world’s best evidence essentially says that it is perfectly appropriate to use your own good clinical judgment.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain with a negative CTAP receive additional imaging with abdominal ultrasound? In this case, the writing group found enough evidence, though low-level, to suggest against routine ultrasound in the absence of concern specifically for pelvic or hepatobiliary pathology. Like most tests, ultrasound is best used when there are specific concerns rather than being used in an undifferentiated fashion.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive screening for depression/anxiety? The writing group found enough evidence, though low-level again, to suggest that screening for depression and/or anxiety be performed during the ED evaluation. This could lead to successful therapy for the abdominal pain.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive nonopioid and/or nonpharmacologic analgesics? The writing group found little evidence to suggest for or against these analgesics, but they made a consensus recommendation suggesting an opioid-minimizing strategy for pain control.

Although the final recommendations of the writing group were not definitive or based on the strongest level of evidence, I find it helpful to have this guidance, nevertheless, on behalf of a major national organization. I also find it helpful to know that even with the best evidence available, optimal patient care will often boil down to physician experience and gestalt. I should also add that the overall article is chock-full of pearls and helpful information that will further inform the readers’ decisions, and so the full version is definitely worth the read.
 

In summary

There you have it – my three favorite practice-changing articles of 2022. Although I have tried to provide key points here, the full discussions of those key points in the published articles will provide a great deal more education than I can offer in this brief write-up, and so I strongly encourage everyone to read the full versions. Please be sure to include in the comments section your own pick for favorite or must-read articles from the past year.

Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

When 2022 began, we started seeing some light at the end of the COVID-19 tunnel. Vaccines were widely available, and even with new variants of the virus still occasionally emerging, the rates of severe morbidity and mortality appeared to be decreasing.

Expectedly, journals appeared to start moving more toward mainstream topics and publications rather than what seemed like a major focus on COVID-19 publications. The resulting literature was fantastic. This past year brought some outstanding publications related to emergency medicine that are practice changers.

Several of those topics were discussed in a prior Emergency Medicine Viewpoint from this news organization, and many more of the research advances of 2022 will be discussed in the near future. However, in this Viewpoint, I would like to present my annual review of my three “must-read” articles of the past year.

As in past years, I am choosing reviews of the literature rather than original research articles (which, all too often, become outdated or debunked within a few years). I choose these articles in the hopes that readers will not simply settle for my brief reviews of the key points but instead will feel compelled to download and read the entire articles. These publications address common conditions and quandaries we face in the daily practice of emergency medicine and are practice-changing.
 

Myocardial dysfunction after cardiac arrest: Tips and pitfalls

The management of post–cardiac arrest patients remains a hot topic in the resuscitation literature as we continue to understand that the immediate post-arrest period is critical to patient outcome.

Ortuno and colleagues reviewed the current literature on post-arrest care and wrote an outstanding summary of how to optimally care for these patients. More specifically, they focused on post-arrest patients who demonstrate continued shock, or “post–cardiac arrest myocardial dysfunction” (PCAMD).

They propose three mechanisms for the pathogenesis of PCAMD: ischemia reperfusion phenomenon, systemic inflammatory response, and increased catecholamine release

I will skip through the details of the pathophysiology that they describe in the article, but I certainly do recommend that everyone review their descriptions.

Management of these patients begins with a good hemodynamic assessment, which includes clinical markers of perfusion (blood pressure, capillary refill), ECG, and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). If the initial assessment reveals an obvious cause of the cardiac arrest (e.g., massive pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, pericardial tamponade), then the underlying cause should be treated expeditiously.

In the absence of an obvious treatable cause of the shock, the fluid status and cardiac function should be addressed with POCUS. If the patient is hypovolemic, intravenous fluids should be administered. If the fluid status is adequate, POCUS should be used to estimate the patient’s ventricular function. If the ventricle appears to be hyperdynamic with good contractility, shock should be treated with norepinephrine. On the other hand, if the ventricle is hypodynamic, dobutamine should be substituted for norepinephrine or, more often, added to norepinephrine.

The above represents a simplified summary of the critical points, but the authors do delve into further detail and also discuss some other options for therapies, including steroids, coronary revascularization, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and so on. The review is very thoughtful, thorough, and definitely worth a full read.
 

Top myths of diagnosis and management of infectious diseases in hospital medicine

Most, if not all of us in medicine, have heard the saying that 50% of what we learn in medical school (or residency) will turn out to be wrong. I certainly believe in this concept and consequently, like many of you, I enjoy reading about myths and misconceptions that we have been taught. With that in mind, I have to say that I love this article because it seems to have been written specifically to address what I was taught!

This author group, consisting mostly of clinical PharmDs who are experts in antibiotic use, provide us with an evidence-based discussion of myths and pitfalls in how antibiotics are often used in current clinical practice. The authors review their top 10 myths involving the use of antibiotics in treating infections in the hospital setting. A few of these relate more to the inpatient setting, but here are my favorite emergency department (ED)–related myths that they address:

• “Antibiotics do no harm.” The authors address the risk-benefit of antibiotics based on assumed vs. confirmed infections, including a brief discussion of adverse drug effects.
• “Antibiotic durations of 7, 14, or 21 days are typically necessary.” The authors address appropriate duration of antibiotic use and the fact that unnecessarily long durations of use can lead to resistance. They also provide reassurance that some infections can be treated with quite short durations of antibiotics.
• “If one drug is good, two (or more!) is better.” The use of multiple antibiotics, often with overlapping bacterial coverage, is rampant in medicine and further increases the risk for adverse drug effects and resistance.
• “Oral antibiotics are not as good as intravenous antibiotics for hospitalized patients.” This is definitely a myth that I learned. I recall being taught by many senior physicians that anyone sick enough for admission should be treated with intravenous antibiotics. As it turns out, absorption and effectiveness of most oral antibiotics is just as good as intravenous antibiotics, and the oral formulations are often safer.
• “A history of a penicillin allergy means the patient can never receive a beta-lactam antibiotic.” This is a myth that was debunked quite a few years ago, but it seems that many clinicians still need a reminder.

The authors included five more myths that are worth the read. This is an article that needs to be disseminated among all hospital clinicians.
 

Guidelines for low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department

The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) recently initiated a program focused on creating evidence-based approaches to challenging chief complaints and presentations in the emergency department (ED). In 2021, they published an approach to managing patients with recurrent, low-risk chest pain in the ED. This past year, they published their second guideline, focused on the management of patients with low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the ED.

Recurrent low-risk abdominal pain is a common and vexing presentation to EDs around the world, and there is little prior published guidance. Do all of these patients need repeat imaging? How do we manage their pain? Are there nonabdominal conditions that should be considered?

Broder and colleagues did a fantastic review of the current literature and, on behalf of SAEM, have provided a rational approach to optimal management of these patients. The four major questions they addressed, with brief summaries of their recommendations, are:

• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive a repeat CT abdomen-pelvis (CTAP) after a negative CTAP within the past 12 months? This is a typical question that we all ponder when managing these patients. Unfortunately, the writing group found insufficient evidence to definitively identify populations in whom CTAP was recommended vs could be safely withheld. It is a bit disappointing that there is no definite answer to the question. On the other hand, it is reassuring to know that the world’s best evidence essentially says that it is perfectly appropriate to use your own good clinical judgment.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain with a negative CTAP receive additional imaging with abdominal ultrasound? In this case, the writing group found enough evidence, though low-level, to suggest against routine ultrasound in the absence of concern specifically for pelvic or hepatobiliary pathology. Like most tests, ultrasound is best used when there are specific concerns rather than being used in an undifferentiated fashion.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive screening for depression/anxiety? The writing group found enough evidence, though low-level again, to suggest that screening for depression and/or anxiety be performed during the ED evaluation. This could lead to successful therapy for the abdominal pain.
• Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive nonopioid and/or nonpharmacologic analgesics? The writing group found little evidence to suggest for or against these analgesics, but they made a consensus recommendation suggesting an opioid-minimizing strategy for pain control.

Although the final recommendations of the writing group were not definitive or based on the strongest level of evidence, I find it helpful to have this guidance, nevertheless, on behalf of a major national organization. I also find it helpful to know that even with the best evidence available, optimal patient care will often boil down to physician experience and gestalt. I should also add that the overall article is chock-full of pearls and helpful information that will further inform the readers’ decisions, and so the full version is definitely worth the read.
 

In summary

There you have it – my three favorite practice-changing articles of 2022. Although I have tried to provide key points here, the full discussions of those key points in the published articles will provide a great deal more education than I can offer in this brief write-up, and so I strongly encourage everyone to read the full versions. Please be sure to include in the comments section your own pick for favorite or must-read articles from the past year.

Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Simulation-based teaching of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) improved cardiology fellows’ knowledge, skills, and comfort with the procedure, compared with traditional training, a new study shows.

“TEE learning may be hampered by the lack of availability of teachers and equipment and by the need for esophageal intubation, which is semi-invasive,” Augustin Coisne, MD, PhD, of the Cardiovascular Research Foundation in New York, said in an interview. “In this setting, simulation emerges as a key educational tool, but we were lacking evidence supporting simulation-based educational programs.”

Fellows in the simulation group achieved higher theoretical test scores and practical test scores after the training than did those in the traditional group.

Furthermore, Dr. Coisne said, “the results of the subgroup analyses were surprising and unexpected. The effect of the simulation-based training was greater among fellows at the beginning of fellowship – i.e., 2 years or less of training – in both theoretical and practical tests and in women [versus men] for the theoretical test.”

Their results, from the randomized SIMULATOR study, were published online in JAMA Cardiology.
 

More ready, more confident

The researchers randomly assigned 324 cardiology fellows (mean age, 26.4 years; about 30% women) inexperienced in TEE from 42 French university centers to TEE training with or without simulation support. Both groups participated in traditional didactic training using e-learning with an online course that is compulsory for all cardiology fellows in France.

The simulation group also participated in two 2-hour teaching sessions using a TEE simulator.

Each fellow completed a theoretical and a practical test prior to training to assess their baseline TEE level and again 3 months after the end of the training program. A TEE simulator (U/S Mentor Simulator; 3D Systems Simbionix) was used for all tests, and 24 certified echocardiography teachers served as both trainers and raters.

The theoretical tests included 20 online video-based questions to evaluate recognition of standard TEE views, normal anatomy, and some pathological cases. Fellows had 90 seconds to choose the best answer for each question from five multiple-choice options.

For the practical tests, fellows had 3 minutes to familiarize themselves with the handling of the simulator, without specific training and before the probe introduction.

They were asked to show 10 basic views on the simulator and had a maximum of 1 minute for each view.

The coprimary outcomes were the scores in the final theoretical and practical tests. TEE duration and the fellows’ self-assessment of their proficiency were also evaluated.

At baseline, the theoretical and practical test scores were similar between the groups (33.0 for the simulator group vs. 32.5 for the traditional group, and 44.2 vs. 46.1, respectively).

After training, the fellows in the simulation group had higher theoretical and practical test scores than those in the traditional group (47.2% vs. 38.3% and 74.5% vs. 59.0%, respectively).

Score changes were consistently higher when the pretraining scores were lower, an association that was stronger in the simulation group.

Dr. Coisne noted that subgroup analyses showed that the effectiveness of the simulation training was greater when performed at the beginning of the fellowship. On the theoretical test, the point increase was 11.9 for the simulation group versus 4.25 points for the traditional training group; for the practical test, the increases were 24.0 points versus 10.1 points.

After training, it took significantly less time for the simulation group to complete a TEE than it did the traditional group (8.3 vs. 9.4 minutes).

Furthermore, simulation group fellows reported that they felt more ready (mean score, 3.0 vs. 1.7) and more confident (mean score, 3.3 vs. 2.4) about performing a TEE alone after training.

“The simulation approach is definitively scalable to every institution,” Dr. Coisne said. “However, a medico-economic analysis should be interesting because the cost of the simulator and its maintenance might be a limitation to spread simulation-based teaching. The possibility for smaller hospitals to pool their financial input to share a TEE simulator could be considered to increase its cost-effectiveness.”
 

Real-world outcomes required

Commenting on the study, S. Justin Szawlewicz, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at Deborah Heart and Lung Center in Brown Mills, N.J., pointed out that the authors indicated that the number of TEEs performed by the trainees was not collected.

“This would be useful information to determine if those who received simulator training sought out and performed more TEEs, and also to determine if cardiology trainees in France perform a similar number of TEEs as cardiology trainees in the United States.”

In addition, he said, “the 4 hours of simulator training in TEE is extra education and experience that the standard trainees didn’t get. Would 4 extra hours of standard training didactics also improve trainees’ scores?”

Noting that the fellows’ ability to perform TEE in real patients was not assessed, Dr. Szawlewicz said, “a study could be designed that evaluated TEE images from real patients to see if trainees receiving simulator training performed better, more comprehensive and efficient TEEs than standard training.”

Nevertheless, he concluded, “Four hours of simulator training appears to improve TEE knowledge and skills. This is something we would consider at our institution.”

Like Dr. Szawlewicz, Michael Spooner, MD, MBA, of Mercy One North Iowa Heart Center in Mason City, and Kathryn Bertlacher, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, noted in a related editorial, “data are not provided about change in the learner’s behavior or performance on an actual TEE after the course, nor are there data about clinical outcomes such as patient safety or completeness of subsequent TEEs.

“This limitation, which is a limitation of most of the existing TEE simulation literature, is a high bar to cross,” they concluded. “Reaching this bar will require studies such as this to provide foundational understanding.”

Twin-Medical provided the TEE simulators. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.

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

Simulation-based teaching of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) improved cardiology fellows’ knowledge, skills, and comfort with the procedure, compared with traditional training, a new study shows.

“TEE learning may be hampered by the lack of availability of teachers and equipment and by the need for esophageal intubation, which is semi-invasive,” Augustin Coisne, MD, PhD, of the Cardiovascular Research Foundation in New York, said in an interview. “In this setting, simulation emerges as a key educational tool, but we were lacking evidence supporting simulation-based educational programs.”

Fellows in the simulation group achieved higher theoretical test scores and practical test scores after the training than did those in the traditional group.

Furthermore, Dr. Coisne said, “the results of the subgroup analyses were surprising and unexpected. The effect of the simulation-based training was greater among fellows at the beginning of fellowship – i.e., 2 years or less of training – in both theoretical and practical tests and in women [versus men] for the theoretical test.”

Their results, from the randomized SIMULATOR study, were published online in JAMA Cardiology.
 

More ready, more confident

The researchers randomly assigned 324 cardiology fellows (mean age, 26.4 years; about 30% women) inexperienced in TEE from 42 French university centers to TEE training with or without simulation support. Both groups participated in traditional didactic training using e-learning with an online course that is compulsory for all cardiology fellows in France.

The simulation group also participated in two 2-hour teaching sessions using a TEE simulator.

Each fellow completed a theoretical and a practical test prior to training to assess their baseline TEE level and again 3 months after the end of the training program. A TEE simulator (U/S Mentor Simulator; 3D Systems Simbionix) was used for all tests, and 24 certified echocardiography teachers served as both trainers and raters.

The theoretical tests included 20 online video-based questions to evaluate recognition of standard TEE views, normal anatomy, and some pathological cases. Fellows had 90 seconds to choose the best answer for each question from five multiple-choice options.

For the practical tests, fellows had 3 minutes to familiarize themselves with the handling of the simulator, without specific training and before the probe introduction.

They were asked to show 10 basic views on the simulator and had a maximum of 1 minute for each view.

The coprimary outcomes were the scores in the final theoretical and practical tests. TEE duration and the fellows’ self-assessment of their proficiency were also evaluated.

At baseline, the theoretical and practical test scores were similar between the groups (33.0 for the simulator group vs. 32.5 for the traditional group, and 44.2 vs. 46.1, respectively).

After training, the fellows in the simulation group had higher theoretical and practical test scores than those in the traditional group (47.2% vs. 38.3% and 74.5% vs. 59.0%, respectively).

Score changes were consistently higher when the pretraining scores were lower, an association that was stronger in the simulation group.

Dr. Coisne noted that subgroup analyses showed that the effectiveness of the simulation training was greater when performed at the beginning of the fellowship. On the theoretical test, the point increase was 11.9 for the simulation group versus 4.25 points for the traditional training group; for the practical test, the increases were 24.0 points versus 10.1 points.

After training, it took significantly less time for the simulation group to complete a TEE than it did the traditional group (8.3 vs. 9.4 minutes).

Furthermore, simulation group fellows reported that they felt more ready (mean score, 3.0 vs. 1.7) and more confident (mean score, 3.3 vs. 2.4) about performing a TEE alone after training.

“The simulation approach is definitively scalable to every institution,” Dr. Coisne said. “However, a medico-economic analysis should be interesting because the cost of the simulator and its maintenance might be a limitation to spread simulation-based teaching. The possibility for smaller hospitals to pool their financial input to share a TEE simulator could be considered to increase its cost-effectiveness.”
 

Real-world outcomes required

Commenting on the study, S. Justin Szawlewicz, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at Deborah Heart and Lung Center in Brown Mills, N.J., pointed out that the authors indicated that the number of TEEs performed by the trainees was not collected.

“This would be useful information to determine if those who received simulator training sought out and performed more TEEs, and also to determine if cardiology trainees in France perform a similar number of TEEs as cardiology trainees in the United States.”

In addition, he said, “the 4 hours of simulator training in TEE is extra education and experience that the standard trainees didn’t get. Would 4 extra hours of standard training didactics also improve trainees’ scores?”

Noting that the fellows’ ability to perform TEE in real patients was not assessed, Dr. Szawlewicz said, “a study could be designed that evaluated TEE images from real patients to see if trainees receiving simulator training performed better, more comprehensive and efficient TEEs than standard training.”

Nevertheless, he concluded, “Four hours of simulator training appears to improve TEE knowledge and skills. This is something we would consider at our institution.”

Like Dr. Szawlewicz, Michael Spooner, MD, MBA, of Mercy One North Iowa Heart Center in Mason City, and Kathryn Bertlacher, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, noted in a related editorial, “data are not provided about change in the learner’s behavior or performance on an actual TEE after the course, nor are there data about clinical outcomes such as patient safety or completeness of subsequent TEEs.

“This limitation, which is a limitation of most of the existing TEE simulation literature, is a high bar to cross,” they concluded. “Reaching this bar will require studies such as this to provide foundational understanding.”

Twin-Medical provided the TEE simulators. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.

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

Simulation-based teaching of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) improved cardiology fellows’ knowledge, skills, and comfort with the procedure, compared with traditional training, a new study shows.

“TEE learning may be hampered by the lack of availability of teachers and equipment and by the need for esophageal intubation, which is semi-invasive,” Augustin Coisne, MD, PhD, of the Cardiovascular Research Foundation in New York, said in an interview. “In this setting, simulation emerges as a key educational tool, but we were lacking evidence supporting simulation-based educational programs.”

Fellows in the simulation group achieved higher theoretical test scores and practical test scores after the training than did those in the traditional group.

Furthermore, Dr. Coisne said, “the results of the subgroup analyses were surprising and unexpected. The effect of the simulation-based training was greater among fellows at the beginning of fellowship – i.e., 2 years or less of training – in both theoretical and practical tests and in women [versus men] for the theoretical test.”

Their results, from the randomized SIMULATOR study, were published online in JAMA Cardiology.
 

More ready, more confident

The researchers randomly assigned 324 cardiology fellows (mean age, 26.4 years; about 30% women) inexperienced in TEE from 42 French university centers to TEE training with or without simulation support. Both groups participated in traditional didactic training using e-learning with an online course that is compulsory for all cardiology fellows in France.

The simulation group also participated in two 2-hour teaching sessions using a TEE simulator.

Each fellow completed a theoretical and a practical test prior to training to assess their baseline TEE level and again 3 months after the end of the training program. A TEE simulator (U/S Mentor Simulator; 3D Systems Simbionix) was used for all tests, and 24 certified echocardiography teachers served as both trainers and raters.

The theoretical tests included 20 online video-based questions to evaluate recognition of standard TEE views, normal anatomy, and some pathological cases. Fellows had 90 seconds to choose the best answer for each question from five multiple-choice options.

For the practical tests, fellows had 3 minutes to familiarize themselves with the handling of the simulator, without specific training and before the probe introduction.

They were asked to show 10 basic views on the simulator and had a maximum of 1 minute for each view.

The coprimary outcomes were the scores in the final theoretical and practical tests. TEE duration and the fellows’ self-assessment of their proficiency were also evaluated.

At baseline, the theoretical and practical test scores were similar between the groups (33.0 for the simulator group vs. 32.5 for the traditional group, and 44.2 vs. 46.1, respectively).

After training, the fellows in the simulation group had higher theoretical and practical test scores than those in the traditional group (47.2% vs. 38.3% and 74.5% vs. 59.0%, respectively).

Score changes were consistently higher when the pretraining scores were lower, an association that was stronger in the simulation group.

Dr. Coisne noted that subgroup analyses showed that the effectiveness of the simulation training was greater when performed at the beginning of the fellowship. On the theoretical test, the point increase was 11.9 for the simulation group versus 4.25 points for the traditional training group; for the practical test, the increases were 24.0 points versus 10.1 points.

After training, it took significantly less time for the simulation group to complete a TEE than it did the traditional group (8.3 vs. 9.4 minutes).

Furthermore, simulation group fellows reported that they felt more ready (mean score, 3.0 vs. 1.7) and more confident (mean score, 3.3 vs. 2.4) about performing a TEE alone after training.

“The simulation approach is definitively scalable to every institution,” Dr. Coisne said. “However, a medico-economic analysis should be interesting because the cost of the simulator and its maintenance might be a limitation to spread simulation-based teaching. The possibility for smaller hospitals to pool their financial input to share a TEE simulator could be considered to increase its cost-effectiveness.”
 

Real-world outcomes required

Commenting on the study, S. Justin Szawlewicz, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at Deborah Heart and Lung Center in Brown Mills, N.J., pointed out that the authors indicated that the number of TEEs performed by the trainees was not collected.

“This would be useful information to determine if those who received simulator training sought out and performed more TEEs, and also to determine if cardiology trainees in France perform a similar number of TEEs as cardiology trainees in the United States.”

In addition, he said, “the 4 hours of simulator training in TEE is extra education and experience that the standard trainees didn’t get. Would 4 extra hours of standard training didactics also improve trainees’ scores?”

Noting that the fellows’ ability to perform TEE in real patients was not assessed, Dr. Szawlewicz said, “a study could be designed that evaluated TEE images from real patients to see if trainees receiving simulator training performed better, more comprehensive and efficient TEEs than standard training.”

Nevertheless, he concluded, “Four hours of simulator training appears to improve TEE knowledge and skills. This is something we would consider at our institution.”

Like Dr. Szawlewicz, Michael Spooner, MD, MBA, of Mercy One North Iowa Heart Center in Mason City, and Kathryn Bertlacher, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, noted in a related editorial, “data are not provided about change in the learner’s behavior or performance on an actual TEE after the course, nor are there data about clinical outcomes such as patient safety or completeness of subsequent TEEs.

“This limitation, which is a limitation of most of the existing TEE simulation literature, is a high bar to cross,” they concluded. “Reaching this bar will require studies such as this to provide foundational understanding.”

Twin-Medical provided the TEE simulators. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.

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

Cardiac injury caused by COVID-19 may be much less common than suggested previously, a new study has found.

The study examined cardiac MRI scans in 31 patients before and after having COVID-19 infection and found no new evidence of myocardial injury in the post-COVID scans relative to the pre-COVID scans.

“To the best of our knowledge this is the first cardiac MRI study to assess myocardial injury pre- and post-COVID-19,” the authors stated.

They say that while this study cannot rule out the possibility of rare events of COVID-19–induced myocardial injury, “the complete absence of de novo late gadolinium enhancement lesions after COVID-19 in this cohort indicates that outside special circumstances, COVID-19–induced myocardial injury may be much less common than suggested by previous studies.”

The study was published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging.

Coauthor Till F. Althoff, MD, Cardiovascular Institute, Clínic–University Hospital Barcelona, said in an interview that previous reports have found a high rate of cardiac lesions in patients undergoing imaging after having had COVID-19 infection.

“In some reports, this has been as high as 80% of patients even though they have not had severe COVID disease. These reports have been interpreted as showing the majority of patients have some COVID-induced cardiac damage, which is an alarming message,” he commented.

However, he pointed out that the patients in these reports did not undergo a cardiac MRI scan before they had COVID-19 so it wasn’t known whether these cardiac lesions were present before infection or not.

To try and gain more accurate information, the current study examined cardiac MRI scans in the same patients before and after they had COVID-19.

The researchers, from an arrhythmia unit, made use of the fact that all their patients have cardiac MRI data, so they used their large registry of patients in whom cardiac MRI had been performed, and cross referenced this to a health care database to identify those patients who had confirmed COVID-19 after they obtaining a cardiac scan at the arrhythmia unit. They then conducted another cardiac MRI scan in the 31 patients identified a median of 5 months after their COVID-19 infection.

“These 31 patients had a cardiac MRI scan pre-COVID and post COVID using exactly the same scanner with identical sequences, so the scans were absolutely comparable,” Dr. Althoff noted.

Of these 31 patients, 7 had been hospitalized at the time of acute presentation with COVID-19, of whom 2 required intensive care. Most patients (29) had been symptomatic, but none reported cardiac symptoms.

Results showed that, on the post–COVID-19 scan, late gadolinium enhancement lesions indicative of residual myocardial injury were encountered in 15 of the 31 patients (48%), which the researchers said is in line with previous reports.

However, intraindividual comparison with the pre–COVID-19 cardiac MRI scans showed all these lesions were preexisting with identical localization, pattern, and transmural distribution, and thus not COVID-19 related.

Quantitative analyses, performed independently, detected no increase in the size of individual lesions nor in the global left ventricular late gadolinium enhancement extent.

Comparison of pre- and post COVID-19 imaging sequences did not show any differences in ventricular functional or structural parameters.

“While this study only has 31 patients, the fact that we are conducting intra-individual comparisons, which rules out bias, means that we don’t need a large number of patients for reliable results,” Dr. Althoff said.

“These types of lesions are normal to see. We know that individuals without cardiac disease have these types of lesions, and they are not necessarily an indication of any specific pathology. I was kind of surprised by the interpretation of previous data, which is why we did the current study,” he added.

Dr. Althoff acknowledged that some cardiac injury may have been seen if much larger numbers of patients had been included. “But I think we can say from this data that COVID-induced cardiac damage is much less of an issue than we may have previously thought,” he added.

He also noted that most of the patients in this study had mild COVID-19, so the results cannot be extrapolated to severe COVID-19 infection.

However, Dr. Althoff pointed out that all the patients already had atrial fibrillation, so would have been at higher risk of cardiac injury from COVID-19.

“These patients had preexisting cardiac risk factors, and thus they would have been more susceptible to both a more severe course of COVID and an increased risk of myocardial damage due to COVID. The fact that we don’t find any myocardial injury due to COVID in this group is even more reassuring. The general population will be at even lower risk,” he commented.

“I think we can say that, in COVID patients who do not have any cardiac symptoms, our study suggests that the incidence of cardiac injury is very low,” Dr. Althoff said.

“Even in patients with severe COVID and myocardial involvement reflected by increased troponin levels, I wouldn’t be sure that they have any residual cardiac injury. While it has been reported that cardiac lesions have been found in such patients, pre-COVID MRI scans were not available so we don’t know if they were there before,” he added.

“We do not know the true incidence of cardiac injury after COVID, but I think we can say from this data that it is definitely not anywhere near the 40%-50% or even greater that some of the previous reports have suggested,” he stated.

Dr. Althoff suggested that, based on these data, some of the recommendations based on previous reports such the need for follow-up cardiac scans and caution about partaking in sports again after COVID-19 infection, are probably not necessary.

“Our data suggest that these concerns are unfounded, and we need to step back a bit and stop alarming patients about the risk of cardiac damage after COVID,” he said. “Yes, if patients have cardiac symptoms during or after COVID infection they should get checked out, but I do not think we need to do a cardiac risk assessment in patients without cardiac symptoms in COVID.”

This work is supported in part by grants from Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the Spanish government, Madrid, and Fundació la Marató de TV3 in Catalonia. Dr. Althoff has received research grants for investigator-initiated trials from Biosense Webster.

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

Cardiac injury caused by COVID-19 may be much less common than suggested previously, a new study has found.

The study examined cardiac MRI scans in 31 patients before and after having COVID-19 infection and found no new evidence of myocardial injury in the post-COVID scans relative to the pre-COVID scans.

“To the best of our knowledge this is the first cardiac MRI study to assess myocardial injury pre- and post-COVID-19,” the authors stated.

They say that while this study cannot rule out the possibility of rare events of COVID-19–induced myocardial injury, “the complete absence of de novo late gadolinium enhancement lesions after COVID-19 in this cohort indicates that outside special circumstances, COVID-19–induced myocardial injury may be much less common than suggested by previous studies.”

The study was published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging.

Coauthor Till F. Althoff, MD, Cardiovascular Institute, Clínic–University Hospital Barcelona, said in an interview that previous reports have found a high rate of cardiac lesions in patients undergoing imaging after having had COVID-19 infection.

“In some reports, this has been as high as 80% of patients even though they have not had severe COVID disease. These reports have been interpreted as showing the majority of patients have some COVID-induced cardiac damage, which is an alarming message,” he commented.

However, he pointed out that the patients in these reports did not undergo a cardiac MRI scan before they had COVID-19 so it wasn’t known whether these cardiac lesions were present before infection or not.

To try and gain more accurate information, the current study examined cardiac MRI scans in the same patients before and after they had COVID-19.

The researchers, from an arrhythmia unit, made use of the fact that all their patients have cardiac MRI data, so they used their large registry of patients in whom cardiac MRI had been performed, and cross referenced this to a health care database to identify those patients who had confirmed COVID-19 after they obtaining a cardiac scan at the arrhythmia unit. They then conducted another cardiac MRI scan in the 31 patients identified a median of 5 months after their COVID-19 infection.

“These 31 patients had a cardiac MRI scan pre-COVID and post COVID using exactly the same scanner with identical sequences, so the scans were absolutely comparable,” Dr. Althoff noted.

Of these 31 patients, 7 had been hospitalized at the time of acute presentation with COVID-19, of whom 2 required intensive care. Most patients (29) had been symptomatic, but none reported cardiac symptoms.

Results showed that, on the post–COVID-19 scan, late gadolinium enhancement lesions indicative of residual myocardial injury were encountered in 15 of the 31 patients (48%), which the researchers said is in line with previous reports.

However, intraindividual comparison with the pre–COVID-19 cardiac MRI scans showed all these lesions were preexisting with identical localization, pattern, and transmural distribution, and thus not COVID-19 related.

Quantitative analyses, performed independently, detected no increase in the size of individual lesions nor in the global left ventricular late gadolinium enhancement extent.

Comparison of pre- and post COVID-19 imaging sequences did not show any differences in ventricular functional or structural parameters.

“While this study only has 31 patients, the fact that we are conducting intra-individual comparisons, which rules out bias, means that we don’t need a large number of patients for reliable results,” Dr. Althoff said.

“These types of lesions are normal to see. We know that individuals without cardiac disease have these types of lesions, and they are not necessarily an indication of any specific pathology. I was kind of surprised by the interpretation of previous data, which is why we did the current study,” he added.

Dr. Althoff acknowledged that some cardiac injury may have been seen if much larger numbers of patients had been included. “But I think we can say from this data that COVID-induced cardiac damage is much less of an issue than we may have previously thought,” he added.

He also noted that most of the patients in this study had mild COVID-19, so the results cannot be extrapolated to severe COVID-19 infection.

However, Dr. Althoff pointed out that all the patients already had atrial fibrillation, so would have been at higher risk of cardiac injury from COVID-19.

“These patients had preexisting cardiac risk factors, and thus they would have been more susceptible to both a more severe course of COVID and an increased risk of myocardial damage due to COVID. The fact that we don’t find any myocardial injury due to COVID in this group is even more reassuring. The general population will be at even lower risk,” he commented.

“I think we can say that, in COVID patients who do not have any cardiac symptoms, our study suggests that the incidence of cardiac injury is very low,” Dr. Althoff said.

“Even in patients with severe COVID and myocardial involvement reflected by increased troponin levels, I wouldn’t be sure that they have any residual cardiac injury. While it has been reported that cardiac lesions have been found in such patients, pre-COVID MRI scans were not available so we don’t know if they were there before,” he added.

“We do not know the true incidence of cardiac injury after COVID, but I think we can say from this data that it is definitely not anywhere near the 40%-50% or even greater that some of the previous reports have suggested,” he stated.

Dr. Althoff suggested that, based on these data, some of the recommendations based on previous reports such the need for follow-up cardiac scans and caution about partaking in sports again after COVID-19 infection, are probably not necessary.

“Our data suggest that these concerns are unfounded, and we need to step back a bit and stop alarming patients about the risk of cardiac damage after COVID,” he said. “Yes, if patients have cardiac symptoms during or after COVID infection they should get checked out, but I do not think we need to do a cardiac risk assessment in patients without cardiac symptoms in COVID.”

This work is supported in part by grants from Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the Spanish government, Madrid, and Fundació la Marató de TV3 in Catalonia. Dr. Althoff has received research grants for investigator-initiated trials from Biosense Webster.

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

Cardiac injury caused by COVID-19 may be much less common than suggested previously, a new study has found.

The study examined cardiac MRI scans in 31 patients before and after having COVID-19 infection and found no new evidence of myocardial injury in the post-COVID scans relative to the pre-COVID scans.

“To the best of our knowledge this is the first cardiac MRI study to assess myocardial injury pre- and post-COVID-19,” the authors stated.

They say that while this study cannot rule out the possibility of rare events of COVID-19–induced myocardial injury, “the complete absence of de novo late gadolinium enhancement lesions after COVID-19 in this cohort indicates that outside special circumstances, COVID-19–induced myocardial injury may be much less common than suggested by previous studies.”

The study was published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging.

Coauthor Till F. Althoff, MD, Cardiovascular Institute, Clínic–University Hospital Barcelona, said in an interview that previous reports have found a high rate of cardiac lesions in patients undergoing imaging after having had COVID-19 infection.

“In some reports, this has been as high as 80% of patients even though they have not had severe COVID disease. These reports have been interpreted as showing the majority of patients have some COVID-induced cardiac damage, which is an alarming message,” he commented.

However, he pointed out that the patients in these reports did not undergo a cardiac MRI scan before they had COVID-19 so it wasn’t known whether these cardiac lesions were present before infection or not.

To try and gain more accurate information, the current study examined cardiac MRI scans in the same patients before and after they had COVID-19.

The researchers, from an arrhythmia unit, made use of the fact that all their patients have cardiac MRI data, so they used their large registry of patients in whom cardiac MRI had been performed, and cross referenced this to a health care database to identify those patients who had confirmed COVID-19 after they obtaining a cardiac scan at the arrhythmia unit. They then conducted another cardiac MRI scan in the 31 patients identified a median of 5 months after their COVID-19 infection.

“These 31 patients had a cardiac MRI scan pre-COVID and post COVID using exactly the same scanner with identical sequences, so the scans were absolutely comparable,” Dr. Althoff noted.

Of these 31 patients, 7 had been hospitalized at the time of acute presentation with COVID-19, of whom 2 required intensive care. Most patients (29) had been symptomatic, but none reported cardiac symptoms.

Results showed that, on the post–COVID-19 scan, late gadolinium enhancement lesions indicative of residual myocardial injury were encountered in 15 of the 31 patients (48%), which the researchers said is in line with previous reports.

However, intraindividual comparison with the pre–COVID-19 cardiac MRI scans showed all these lesions were preexisting with identical localization, pattern, and transmural distribution, and thus not COVID-19 related.

Quantitative analyses, performed independently, detected no increase in the size of individual lesions nor in the global left ventricular late gadolinium enhancement extent.

Comparison of pre- and post COVID-19 imaging sequences did not show any differences in ventricular functional or structural parameters.

“While this study only has 31 patients, the fact that we are conducting intra-individual comparisons, which rules out bias, means that we don’t need a large number of patients for reliable results,” Dr. Althoff said.

“These types of lesions are normal to see. We know that individuals without cardiac disease have these types of lesions, and they are not necessarily an indication of any specific pathology. I was kind of surprised by the interpretation of previous data, which is why we did the current study,” he added.

Dr. Althoff acknowledged that some cardiac injury may have been seen if much larger numbers of patients had been included. “But I think we can say from this data that COVID-induced cardiac damage is much less of an issue than we may have previously thought,” he added.

He also noted that most of the patients in this study had mild COVID-19, so the results cannot be extrapolated to severe COVID-19 infection.

However, Dr. Althoff pointed out that all the patients already had atrial fibrillation, so would have been at higher risk of cardiac injury from COVID-19.

“These patients had preexisting cardiac risk factors, and thus they would have been more susceptible to both a more severe course of COVID and an increased risk of myocardial damage due to COVID. The fact that we don’t find any myocardial injury due to COVID in this group is even more reassuring. The general population will be at even lower risk,” he commented.

“I think we can say that, in COVID patients who do not have any cardiac symptoms, our study suggests that the incidence of cardiac injury is very low,” Dr. Althoff said.

“Even in patients with severe COVID and myocardial involvement reflected by increased troponin levels, I wouldn’t be sure that they have any residual cardiac injury. While it has been reported that cardiac lesions have been found in such patients, pre-COVID MRI scans were not available so we don’t know if they were there before,” he added.

“We do not know the true incidence of cardiac injury after COVID, but I think we can say from this data that it is definitely not anywhere near the 40%-50% or even greater that some of the previous reports have suggested,” he stated.

Dr. Althoff suggested that, based on these data, some of the recommendations based on previous reports such the need for follow-up cardiac scans and caution about partaking in sports again after COVID-19 infection, are probably not necessary.

“Our data suggest that these concerns are unfounded, and we need to step back a bit and stop alarming patients about the risk of cardiac damage after COVID,” he said. “Yes, if patients have cardiac symptoms during or after COVID infection they should get checked out, but I do not think we need to do a cardiac risk assessment in patients without cardiac symptoms in COVID.”

This work is supported in part by grants from Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the Spanish government, Madrid, and Fundació la Marató de TV3 in Catalonia. Dr. Althoff has received research grants for investigator-initiated trials from Biosense Webster.

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

Use of a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or triple therapy with conventional, synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for rheumatoid arthritis have similar beneficial effects in reducing patients’ vascular inflammation and cardiovascular (CV) risk, according to results from a randomized, active comparator trial.

“The good news is, providers can rest assured that aggressive treatment for RA does reduce vascular inflammation and therefore cardiovascular risk,” lead author Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, told this news organization. “Part of the reason that treating people with potent disease-modifying agents is important is not only because of reductions in pain and improvements in function on the level of arthritis, but also because of the vascular impact.”

The small study, published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, randomly assigned 115 patients with active RA despite methotrexate use to one of two treatment protocols for 24 weeks: addition of a TNFi or triple therapy with the addition of sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine. Participants had 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)–PET/CT scans at baseline and 24 weeks to assess change in arterial inflammation, measured as an arterial target-to-background ratio (TBR) in the carotid arteries and aorta. The study achieved its outcomes despite a low 56.5% rate of adherence to 80% or more of randomized treatments.

Dr. Solomon said this is the first randomized trial comparing the effects of DMARDs on vascular inflammation in RA. The researchers hypothesized that TNFi would be superior to triple therapy for reducing vascular inflammation. “We found that they both reduced vascular inflammation on PET scanning to the same degree,” Dr. Solomon said.

Study results

In the TNFi group, the mean of the maximum of the TBR in the most diseased segment (MDS) of the index vessel declined from 2.72 to 2.47 for a delta of –0.24. In the triple-therapy patients, MDS declined from 2.62 to 2.43 for a delta of –0.19 (difference in deltas –0.02; 95% confidence interval, –0.19 to 0.15; P = .79).

Dr. Solomon explained the choice of FDG-PET/CT scanning to evaluate vascular inflammation in the study participants. “We know that FDG-PET/CT scanning correlates with CV risk, and we know that treatments like statins that impact CV risk reduce the inflammation as observed on FDG-PET/CT,” he said.

Although the study found no difference between the TNFi and triple therapy in terms of vascular outcomes, the conclusion is “a bit more nuanced,” Dr. Solomon said. “It tells us first that reducing inflammation with different strategies in rheumatoid arthritis can similarly impact vascular inflammation. That’s great news. These are aggressive treatment strategies, so if you can reduce vascular inflammation in a significant manner, that should result in reduced cardiovascular risk over time.” 

Although the choice of TNFi or triple therapy may not matter for reducing CV risk, Dr. Solomon said, “It matters that you choose something that’s aggressive and that you use it in people who have active disease. That’s another part of the story: People who have active disease have worse vascular inflammation, which translates into a reduction in cardiovascular risk – but it’s not differentially reduced.”

Underlying mechanisms of CVD in RA

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Lihi Eder, MD, PhD, codirector of the cardio-rheumatology program at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto, said the study findings build on what’s known about some of the underlying mechanisms of cardiovascular diseases in RA and how to optimize treatments to reduce the risk.

“Importantly,” she said, “none of these treatment strategies was superior, suggesting that both treatment options are acceptable when considering cardiovascular risk reduction, in addition to controlling RA activity.”

The strengths of the study are its randomized, controlled design “conducted by a strong team of investigators,” and that it addressed questions relevant to routine practice, said Dr. Eder, who was not involved with the study.

The study’s use of FDG-PET/CT as a surrogate outcome is a limitation, she noted. “Although it would have been very challenging to perform a similar study that will include clinical events as a study outcome.” Another limitation, she said, was the low adherence rate to randomized treatments.

“Additional studies that will compare other modes of action [for example, interleukin-6 inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies] could broaden our understanding regarding the inflammatory pathways driving CV risk in RA,” Dr. Eder added.

The study received funding from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. AbbVie and Amgen supplied drugs used in the study. Dr. Solomon disclosed receiving research support from AbbVie, Amgen, CorEvitas, and Moderna, and royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Eder reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or triple therapy with conventional, synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for rheumatoid arthritis have similar beneficial effects in reducing patients’ vascular inflammation and cardiovascular (CV) risk, according to results from a randomized, active comparator trial.

“The good news is, providers can rest assured that aggressive treatment for RA does reduce vascular inflammation and therefore cardiovascular risk,” lead author Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, told this news organization. “Part of the reason that treating people with potent disease-modifying agents is important is not only because of reductions in pain and improvements in function on the level of arthritis, but also because of the vascular impact.”

The small study, published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, randomly assigned 115 patients with active RA despite methotrexate use to one of two treatment protocols for 24 weeks: addition of a TNFi or triple therapy with the addition of sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine. Participants had 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)–PET/CT scans at baseline and 24 weeks to assess change in arterial inflammation, measured as an arterial target-to-background ratio (TBR) in the carotid arteries and aorta. The study achieved its outcomes despite a low 56.5% rate of adherence to 80% or more of randomized treatments.

Dr. Solomon said this is the first randomized trial comparing the effects of DMARDs on vascular inflammation in RA. The researchers hypothesized that TNFi would be superior to triple therapy for reducing vascular inflammation. “We found that they both reduced vascular inflammation on PET scanning to the same degree,” Dr. Solomon said.

Study results

In the TNFi group, the mean of the maximum of the TBR in the most diseased segment (MDS) of the index vessel declined from 2.72 to 2.47 for a delta of –0.24. In the triple-therapy patients, MDS declined from 2.62 to 2.43 for a delta of –0.19 (difference in deltas –0.02; 95% confidence interval, –0.19 to 0.15; P = .79).

Dr. Solomon explained the choice of FDG-PET/CT scanning to evaluate vascular inflammation in the study participants. “We know that FDG-PET/CT scanning correlates with CV risk, and we know that treatments like statins that impact CV risk reduce the inflammation as observed on FDG-PET/CT,” he said.

Although the study found no difference between the TNFi and triple therapy in terms of vascular outcomes, the conclusion is “a bit more nuanced,” Dr. Solomon said. “It tells us first that reducing inflammation with different strategies in rheumatoid arthritis can similarly impact vascular inflammation. That’s great news. These are aggressive treatment strategies, so if you can reduce vascular inflammation in a significant manner, that should result in reduced cardiovascular risk over time.” 

Although the choice of TNFi or triple therapy may not matter for reducing CV risk, Dr. Solomon said, “It matters that you choose something that’s aggressive and that you use it in people who have active disease. That’s another part of the story: People who have active disease have worse vascular inflammation, which translates into a reduction in cardiovascular risk – but it’s not differentially reduced.”

Underlying mechanisms of CVD in RA

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Lihi Eder, MD, PhD, codirector of the cardio-rheumatology program at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto, said the study findings build on what’s known about some of the underlying mechanisms of cardiovascular diseases in RA and how to optimize treatments to reduce the risk.

“Importantly,” she said, “none of these treatment strategies was superior, suggesting that both treatment options are acceptable when considering cardiovascular risk reduction, in addition to controlling RA activity.”

The strengths of the study are its randomized, controlled design “conducted by a strong team of investigators,” and that it addressed questions relevant to routine practice, said Dr. Eder, who was not involved with the study.

The study’s use of FDG-PET/CT as a surrogate outcome is a limitation, she noted. “Although it would have been very challenging to perform a similar study that will include clinical events as a study outcome.” Another limitation, she said, was the low adherence rate to randomized treatments.

“Additional studies that will compare other modes of action [for example, interleukin-6 inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies] could broaden our understanding regarding the inflammatory pathways driving CV risk in RA,” Dr. Eder added.

The study received funding from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. AbbVie and Amgen supplied drugs used in the study. Dr. Solomon disclosed receiving research support from AbbVie, Amgen, CorEvitas, and Moderna, and royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Eder reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or triple therapy with conventional, synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for rheumatoid arthritis have similar beneficial effects in reducing patients’ vascular inflammation and cardiovascular (CV) risk, according to results from a randomized, active comparator trial.

“The good news is, providers can rest assured that aggressive treatment for RA does reduce vascular inflammation and therefore cardiovascular risk,” lead author Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, told this news organization. “Part of the reason that treating people with potent disease-modifying agents is important is not only because of reductions in pain and improvements in function on the level of arthritis, but also because of the vascular impact.”

The small study, published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, randomly assigned 115 patients with active RA despite methotrexate use to one of two treatment protocols for 24 weeks: addition of a TNFi or triple therapy with the addition of sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine. Participants had 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)–PET/CT scans at baseline and 24 weeks to assess change in arterial inflammation, measured as an arterial target-to-background ratio (TBR) in the carotid arteries and aorta. The study achieved its outcomes despite a low 56.5% rate of adherence to 80% or more of randomized treatments.

Dr. Solomon said this is the first randomized trial comparing the effects of DMARDs on vascular inflammation in RA. The researchers hypothesized that TNFi would be superior to triple therapy for reducing vascular inflammation. “We found that they both reduced vascular inflammation on PET scanning to the same degree,” Dr. Solomon said.

Study results

In the TNFi group, the mean of the maximum of the TBR in the most diseased segment (MDS) of the index vessel declined from 2.72 to 2.47 for a delta of –0.24. In the triple-therapy patients, MDS declined from 2.62 to 2.43 for a delta of –0.19 (difference in deltas –0.02; 95% confidence interval, –0.19 to 0.15; P = .79).

Dr. Solomon explained the choice of FDG-PET/CT scanning to evaluate vascular inflammation in the study participants. “We know that FDG-PET/CT scanning correlates with CV risk, and we know that treatments like statins that impact CV risk reduce the inflammation as observed on FDG-PET/CT,” he said.

Although the study found no difference between the TNFi and triple therapy in terms of vascular outcomes, the conclusion is “a bit more nuanced,” Dr. Solomon said. “It tells us first that reducing inflammation with different strategies in rheumatoid arthritis can similarly impact vascular inflammation. That’s great news. These are aggressive treatment strategies, so if you can reduce vascular inflammation in a significant manner, that should result in reduced cardiovascular risk over time.” 

Although the choice of TNFi or triple therapy may not matter for reducing CV risk, Dr. Solomon said, “It matters that you choose something that’s aggressive and that you use it in people who have active disease. That’s another part of the story: People who have active disease have worse vascular inflammation, which translates into a reduction in cardiovascular risk – but it’s not differentially reduced.”

Underlying mechanisms of CVD in RA

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Lihi Eder, MD, PhD, codirector of the cardio-rheumatology program at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto, said the study findings build on what’s known about some of the underlying mechanisms of cardiovascular diseases in RA and how to optimize treatments to reduce the risk.

“Importantly,” she said, “none of these treatment strategies was superior, suggesting that both treatment options are acceptable when considering cardiovascular risk reduction, in addition to controlling RA activity.”

The strengths of the study are its randomized, controlled design “conducted by a strong team of investigators,” and that it addressed questions relevant to routine practice, said Dr. Eder, who was not involved with the study.

The study’s use of FDG-PET/CT as a surrogate outcome is a limitation, she noted. “Although it would have been very challenging to perform a similar study that will include clinical events as a study outcome.” Another limitation, she said, was the low adherence rate to randomized treatments.

“Additional studies that will compare other modes of action [for example, interleukin-6 inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies] could broaden our understanding regarding the inflammatory pathways driving CV risk in RA,” Dr. Eder added.

The study received funding from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. AbbVie and Amgen supplied drugs used in the study. Dr. Solomon disclosed receiving research support from AbbVie, Amgen, CorEvitas, and Moderna, and royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Eder reports no relevant financial relationships.

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