Daily Archives: November 20, 2024
News Release: Anticoagulation Does Not Prevent Cognitive Decline in Younger Low-Risk AFib Patients
20 Nov, 2024 | 20:17h | UTCIntroduction: A recent large-scale trial has found that anticoagulation therapy does not reduce the risk of cognitive decline, stroke, or transient ischemic attack (TIA) in adults under 65 years old with atrial fibrillation (AFib) who have no additional stroke risk factors. AFib is the most common type of irregular heart rhythm and is known to increase the risk of stroke, especially in older individuals or those with comorbidities. This study aimed to determine if blood thinners could offer neurocognitive and cerebrovascular protection in younger, low-risk AFib patients.
Highlights: The Blinded Randomized Trial of Anticoagulation to Prevent Ischemic Stroke and Neurocognitive Impairment in Atrial Fibrillation (BRAIN-AF) enrolled over 1,200 participants with an average age of 53 years, none of whom had standard indications for anticoagulation therapy. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either rivaroxaban (15 mg daily) or a placebo and were followed for an average of 3.7 years.
Key findings from the trial include:
- No Significant Difference in Primary Outcomes: There was no significant difference between the rivaroxaban and placebo groups in the combined outcome of cognitive decline (a decrease of two or more points on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment), stroke, or TIA. The annual rates were 7% for rivaroxaban and 6.4% for placebo.
- High Rate of Cognitive Decline: Approximately 1 in 5 participants experienced cognitive decline, accounting for 91% of the primary outcome events. Despite this high rate, anticoagulation did not mitigate the risk.
- Low Incidence of Stroke: The incidence of stroke was low in this population, at less than 1 in 100 participants per year.
- Early Termination of the Trial: The study was terminated early due to futility, as continuing was unlikely to demonstrate a benefit from anticoagulation in preventing cognitive decline or stroke in this group.
- Safety Profile: Major bleeding events were rare and did not differ significantly between the rivaroxaban and placebo groups.
These results confirm that younger AFib patients without additional stroke risk factors have a low incidence of stroke and that anticoagulation does not reduce the risk of cognitive decline or cerebrovascular events in this population.
Conclusion: The BRAIN-AF trial supports current clinical guidelines that do not recommend anticoagulation therapy for AFib patients under 65 years old without other stroke risk factors. The findings suggest that anticoagulation is not effective in preventing cognitive decline or stroke in this low-risk group. Clinicians should continue to focus on standard recommendations for maintaining cognitive health, such as promoting a healthy lifestyle, engaging in brain-stimulating activities, and encouraging regular physical activity, rather than prescribing anticoagulation therapy for neurocognitive protection in these patients.
Source: This study was conducted by researchers at the Montreal Heart Institute and Université de Montréal and was presented at the American Heart Association’s Scientific Sessions 2024.
- American Heart Association News Release: https://newsroom.heart.org/news/blood-thinners-didnt-reduce-cognitive-decline-in-adults-65-and-younger-with-afib
Additional commentaries:
- TCTMD: https://www.tctmd.com/news/rivaroxaban-doesnt-cut-cognitive-decline-stroke-or-tia-younger-af-patients
- American College of Cardiology: https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/clinical-trials/2024/11/15/15/17/brain-af
News Release: Edoxaban Comparable to Warfarin for Stroke Prevention After Bioprosthetic Valve Surgery
20 Nov, 2024 | 20:05h | UTCIntroduction: A recent multicenter trial from Japan, presented at the American Heart Association’s Scientific Sessions 2024, has found that edoxaban, a direct oral anticoagulant, is as effective as warfarin in preventing stroke and systemic embolism in patients following bioprosthetic heart valve replacement surgery. This addresses the ongoing need for alternative anticoagulant therapies that simplify post-surgical management and enhance patient quality of life.
Highlights: The ENBALV trial enrolled approximately 400 adults aged 41 to 84 who underwent bioprosthetic valve replacement at the aortic and/or mitral position. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either edoxaban (60 mg or 30 mg once daily) or warfarin for 12 weeks post-surgery. Unlike warfarin, edoxaban does not require regular blood tests to monitor clotting activity and has fewer interactions with food and other medications.
Key findings include:
- Efficacy: Stroke or systemic embolism occurred in 0.5% of patients receiving edoxaban compared to 1.5% in the warfarin group, indicating comparable effectiveness.
- Thrombus Formation: No intracardiac thrombus was observed in the edoxaban group, whereas it occurred in 1% of patients on warfarin.
- Bleeding Risks: Major bleeding events were higher in the edoxaban group (4.1% vs. 1% with warfarin). While no fatal bleeding or intracranial hemorrhage occurred with edoxaban, one fatal cerebral hemorrhage was reported in the warfarin group. Gastrointestinal bleeding was more common with edoxaban (2.1% vs. 0% with warfarin).
Lead author Dr. Chisato Izumi noted that edoxaban’s fixed dosing and minimal dietary interactions reduce the treatment burden, potentially improving patient adherence during the critical post-operative period.
Conclusion: The findings suggest that edoxaban is a viable alternative to warfarin for anticoagulation after bioprosthetic valve surgery, offering similar protection against stroke and blood clots with the convenience of simplified management. However, the increased incidence of bleeding events with edoxaban underscores the need for careful patient selection and further research to identify individuals at higher risk. These results may inform future clinical guidelines and improve patient care by providing more flexible anticoagulant options.
Source: This study was conducted by the National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center in Suita, Japan, and presented at the American Heart Association’s Scientific Sessions 2024. The full news release is available at: http://newsroom.heart.org/news/patients-taking-edoxoban-after-heart-valve-surgery-had-lower-risk-of-stroke-blood-clots
Additional commentaries can be found at:
- American College of Cardiology: https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/articles/2024/11/13/21/17/sun-935am-enbalv-aha-2024
- TCTMD: https://www.tctmd.com/news/enbalv-edoxaban-matches-warfarin-after-bioprosthetic-valve-surgery
News Release: Sacubitril/Valsartan May Reduce Chemotherapy-Induced Cardiotoxicity in High-Risk Cancer Patients
20 Nov, 2024 | 18:38h | UTCIntroduction: A recent study presented at the American Heart Association’s Scientific Sessions 2024 introduces sacubitril/valsartan, a widely used heart failure medication, as a potential protective agent against heart damage in high-risk cancer patients undergoing anthracycline chemotherapy. Anthracyclines, while effective for treating various cancers such as breast cancer, leukemia, and lymphoma, carry a significant risk of cardiotoxicity, leading to cardiomyopathy and heart failure. The SARAH trial aimed to evaluate whether sacubitril/valsartan could mitigate this risk and preserve cardiac function during chemotherapy.
Highlights: The SARAH trial was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving 114 high-risk cancer patients at Erasto Gaertner Hospital in Curitiba, Brazil. High risk was defined by elevated high-sensitivity troponin I levels post-anthracycline infusion, indicating early signs of cardiac injury. Participants, predominantly women with breast cancer (81%), were randomized to receive sacubitril/valsartan or a placebo over 24 weeks.
Key findings include:
- Significant Reduction in Cardiotoxicity: Sacubitril/valsartan was associated with a 77% reduction in the relative risk of cardiotoxicity compared to placebo. Cardiotoxicity was measured as a ≥15% reduction in global longitudinal strain (GLS), a sensitive marker of left ventricular function.
- Improvement in Cardiac Function: Patients in the sacubitril/valsartan group experienced an average improvement in GLS by 2.55%, whereas those in the placebo group showed an average decline of 6.65%.
- Dose Titration and Tolerance: The medication was initiated at a dose of 24/26 mg twice daily and titrated every two weeks to a target of 97/103 mg twice daily or the highest tolerated dose without side effects. It was generally well tolerated, with hypotension being more common in the treatment group (14% vs. 1.8%) but no significant differences in other adverse events.
- Independent of Other Factors: The protective effect of sacubitril/valsartan was consistent regardless of cumulative anthracycline dose, HER2 status, presence of hypertension, or patient age.
Conclusion: The findings from the SARAH trial suggest that sacubitril/valsartan may offer a promising strategy to prevent chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity in high-risk cancer patients. By preserving cardiac function during anthracycline treatment, this medication has the potential to improve patient outcomes, enhance quality of life, and reduce the long-term burden of heart failure among cancer survivors. Further research with larger, more diverse populations and extended follow-up is warranted to confirm these results and assess the impact on long-term clinical outcomes.
Source: This research was conducted by the Heart Institute at the University of São Paulo, Brazil, and presented at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions 2024.
Primary Source: American Heart Association News Release
https://newsroom.heart.org/news/a-common-heart-failure-medication-may-help-prevent-heart-damage-related-to-chemotherapy-6906417
Secondary Sources:
- American College of Cardiology Summary of the SARAH Trial
https://www.acc.org/Latest-in-Cardiology/Articles/2024/11/13/21/17/mon-915am-sarah-aha-2024 - TCTMD Article: “ARNI Lessens Anthracycline Cardiotoxicity in High-Risk Patients: SARAH”
https://www.tctmd.com/news/arni-lessens-anthracycline-cardiotoxicity-high-risk-patients-sarah
RCT: 7-Day Antibiotic Therapy Noninferior to 14-Day for Bloodstream Infections
20 Nov, 2024 | 18:19h | UTCBackground: Bloodstream infections are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Early and appropriate antibiotic therapy is essential, but the optimal duration remains uncertain. Prolonged antibiotic use can lead to adverse events, Clostridioides difficile infection, antimicrobial resistance, and increased healthcare costs.
Objective: To determine whether a 7-day course of antibiotic treatment is noninferior to a 14-day course in hospitalized patients with bloodstream infections regarding 90-day all-cause mortality.
Methods: In this multicenter, noninferiority randomized controlled trial, 3,608 hospitalized patients from 74 hospitals in seven countries were enrolled. Eligible patients had bloodstream infections but were excluded if they had severe immunosuppression, infections requiring prolonged therapy, possible contaminants, or Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. Participants were randomized to receive either 7 days (n=1,814) or 14 days (n=1,794) of adequate antibiotic therapy, with antibiotic selection at the clinicians’ discretion. The primary outcome was death from any cause by 90 days post-diagnosis, with a noninferiority margin of 4 percentage points.
Results: At 90 days, mortality was 14.5% in the 7-day group and 16.1% in the 14-day group (difference: –1.6 percentage points; 95.7% CI, –4.0 to 0.8), demonstrating noninferiority of the shorter duration. Noninferiority was confirmed in per-protocol and modified intention-to-treat analyses. Secondary outcomes, including relapse rates, adverse events, and hospital length of stay, were similar between groups. Findings were consistent across subgroups based on infection source, pathogen type, and patient characteristics.
Conclusions: A 7-day antibiotic regimen is noninferior to a 14-day regimen for treating hospitalized patients with bloodstream infections, without increasing mortality or relapse rates.
Implications for Practice: Implementing a 7-day antibiotic course could reduce antibiotic exposure, minimize adverse events, and potentially limit antimicrobial resistance development. Clinicians should consider individual patient factors, such as infection severity and comorbidities, before universally adopting shorter treatment durations.
Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include a large, diverse patient population and inclusion of critically ill patients, enhancing generalizability. Limitations involve the open-label design and nonadherence to assigned durations in some cases (23.1% in the 7-day group continued antibiotics longer). Exclusion of S. aureus bacteremia limits applicability to that subgroup. The study may not have been powered to detect differences in rare adverse outcomes like C. difficile infection or antimicrobial resistance emergence.
Future Research: Further studies should explore the efficacy of even shorter antibiotic durations, individualized treatment strategies based on patient response, and the long-term impact on antimicrobial resistance and healthcare costs.
RCT: Colchicine Does Not Reduce Cardiovascular Events After Myocardial Infarction
20 Nov, 2024 | 18:12h | UTCBackground: Inflammation is a key contributor to atherosclerosis and adverse cardiovascular events. Previous trials have suggested that anti-inflammatory agents like colchicine may reduce cardiovascular risks in patients with coronary artery disease.
Objective: To evaluate whether colchicine reduces the incidence of major cardiovascular events when initiated soon after a myocardial infarction.
Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial with a 2-by-2 factorial design, 7,062 patients who experienced a myocardial infarction were assigned to receive colchicine (0.5 mg daily) or placebo, and spironolactone or placebo. The colchicine results are reported here. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, recurrent myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned ischemia-driven coronary revascularization. Median follow-up was 3 years.
Results: A primary outcome event occurred in 9.1% of patients in the colchicine group and 9.3% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.16; P=0.93). Individual components of the primary outcome were similar between groups. Colchicine significantly reduced C-reactive protein levels at 3 months (adjusted mean difference of –1.28 mg/L; 95% CI, –1.81 to –0.75). Diarrhea was more frequent with colchicine (10.2% vs. 6.6%; P<0.001), but serious infections did not differ significantly.
Conclusions: Among patients post-myocardial infarction, colchicine did not reduce the incidence of major cardiovascular events over a median of 3 years compared to placebo.
Implications for Practice: These findings suggest that initiating colchicine after myocardial infarction may not provide additional cardiovascular benefits. Clinicians should weigh the lack of efficacy and potential gastrointestinal side effects when considering colchicine for secondary prevention in this population.
Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include a large sample size and extended follow-up. Limitations involve a higher-than-expected discontinuation rate and underrepresentation of women and diverse populations. The predominance of STEMI patients may limit applicability to NSTEMI cases.
Future Research: Further studies are needed to identify if specific subgroups might benefit from colchicine or if different dosing strategies could be more effective in reducing cardiovascular events post-myocardial infarction.
RCT: Routine Spironolactone Post-MI Does Not Reduce Cardiovascular Events
20 Nov, 2024 | 18:03h | UTCBackground: Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), such as spironolactone, have demonstrated mortality benefits in patients with heart failure following myocardial infarction (MI). However, the efficacy of routine spironolactone use in all patients post-MI, regardless of heart failure status, remains uncertain.
Objective: To evaluate whether routine administration of spironolactone reduces cardiovascular events in patients after MI who have undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
Methods: In a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with a 2-by-2 factorial design, 7,062 patients with MI undergoing PCI were randomized to receive spironolactone (25 mg daily) or placebo, and colchicine or placebo. The two primary outcomes were: (1) a composite of death from cardiovascular causes or new or worsening heart failure, assessed as the total number of events; and (2) a composite of the first occurrence of MI, stroke, new or worsening heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. Median follow-up was 3 years.
Results: No significant differences were observed between the spironolactone and placebo groups in the primary outcomes. For the first primary outcome, there were 183 events (1.7 per 100 patient-years) in the spironolactone group versus 220 events (2.1 per 100 patient-years) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] adjusted for competing risk, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69–1.21; P=0.51). For the second primary outcome, events occurred in 280 patients (7.9%) in the spironolactone group and 294 patients (8.3%) in the placebo group (HR adjusted for competing risk, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.81–1.13; P=0.60). Serious adverse events were similar between groups.
Conclusions: Routine use of spironolactone after MI did not reduce cardiovascular mortality or new or worsening heart failure compared to placebo.
Implications for Practice: These findings suggest that routine prescription of spironolactone for all patients after MI may not be beneficial and should be reconsidered. Clinicians should carefully evaluate the indication for MRAs post-MI, particularly in patients without heart failure, and remain cautious about routine use without clear evidence of benefit.
Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths of the study include its large sample size, multicenter international design, and long follow-up period, enhancing the generalizability of the findings. However, limitations include lower-than-expected event rates, potentially reducing statistical power to detect significant differences. The high rate of discontinuation of the trial regimen and underrepresentation of women and certain racial and ethnic groups may also limit the applicability of the results. Additionally, the possibility of a type II error due to reduced power cannot be excluded.
Future Research: Further studies are warranted to identify specific subgroups of patients who may benefit from spironolactone post-MI and to explore alternative therapies that effectively reduce cardiovascular events after MI.
RCT: Left Atrial Appendage Closure May Reduce Bleeding Without Increasing Stroke Risk After AF Ablation
20 Nov, 2024 | 16:28h | UTCBackground: Catheter ablation is an effective treatment for symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF), but patients at high risk for stroke require ongoing oral anticoagulation (OAC) due to the potential for asymptomatic AF recurrence. Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is a mechanical alternative to OAC, but its efficacy and safety post-AF ablation are not well established.
Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of LAAC versus continued OAC in patients with AF undergoing catheter ablation.
Methods: In this international, randomized trial, 1,600 patients with AF and elevated CHA₂DS₂-VASc scores (≥2 in men, ≥3 in women) who underwent or were scheduled for catheter ablation were assigned to either LAAC (n=803) or OAC (n=797). The primary safety endpoint was non–procedure-related major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding through 36 months. The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of death from any cause, stroke, or systemic embolism at 36 months. The secondary endpoint was major bleeding, including procedure-related bleeding.
Results: At 36 months, bleeding events occurred in 8.5% of the LAAC group versus 18.1% of the OAC group (P<0.001 for superiority). The primary efficacy endpoint occurred in 5.3% of the LAAC group and 5.8% of the OAC group (P<0.001 for noninferiority). Major bleeding, including procedure-related bleeding, occurred in 3.9% of the LAAC group and 5.0% of the OAC group (P<0.001 for noninferiority). Device-related complications occurred in 23 patients, and incomplete device closure was noted in up to 20% of patients.
Conclusions: Among patients undergoing AF ablation, LAAC reduced the risk of bleeding compared to OAC without increasing the risk of death, stroke, or systemic embolism over 36 months.
Implications for Practice: LAAC may be considered as an alternative to long-term OAC in patients undergoing AF ablation who are at moderate to high risk of stroke. However, clinicians should exercise caution due to potential device-related complications, such as incomplete closure and peri-device leaks, which may increase stroke risk. The decision to use LAAC should involve a thorough discussion with the patient about the benefits and risks.
Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include the randomized design and large sample size. Limitations involve the exclusion of procedure-related bleeding from the primary safety endpoint, potentially underestimating the true bleeding risk of LAAC. The inclusion of all-cause mortality in the primary efficacy endpoint may dilute the ability to detect differences in stroke risk. Additionally, missing data and a significant rate of incomplete device closure raise concerns about the generalizability and safety of LAAC.
Future Research: Further large-scale, randomized trials are needed to address these limitations, especially to assess stroke risk adequately and the impact of procedural complications. Studies should also evaluate long-term outcomes and the cost-effectiveness of LAAC compared to OAC in diverse patient populations.
References:
- Wazni OM, Saliba WI, Nair DG, et al. Left Atrial Appendage Closure after Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation. New England Journal of Medicine. Published November 16, 2024. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2408308
- Mandrola J. Electrophysiology is on the brink of a possible disaster. November 19, 2024. Available at: https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/electrophysiology-is-on-the-brink
Meta-Analysis: Moderately Rapid Sodium Correction Linked to Better Outcomes in Severe Hyponatremia
20 Nov, 2024 | 16:10h | UTCBackground: Severe hyponatremia is a critical condition that can lead to hyponatremic encephalopathy, necessitating prompt treatment to prevent neurological damage or death. Traditional guidelines recommend limiting sodium correction rates to prevent osmotic demyelination syndrome (ODS). However, emerging evidence suggests that slower correction rates may be associated with increased mortality.
Objective: To evaluate the association between sodium correction rates and mortality among hospitalized adults with severe hyponatremia.
Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis included 16 cohort studies published between January 2013 and October 2023, involving 11,811 hospitalized adults with severe hyponatremia (serum sodium <120 mEq/L or <125 mEq/L with severe symptoms). Patients were categorized based on sodium correction rates: rapid (≥8-10 mEq/L per 24 hours), slow (<8 or 6-10 mEq/L per 24 hours), and very slow (<4-6 mEq/L per 24 hours). Primary outcomes were in-hospital and 30-day mortality; secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS) and incidence of ODS.
Results: Rapid correction was associated with significantly lower in-hospital mortality compared to slow correction (odds ratio [OR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.55-0.82) and very slow correction (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.11-0.79), corresponding to 32 and 221 fewer deaths per 1,000 patients, respectively. At 30 days, rapid correction was associated with 61 and 134 fewer deaths per 1,000 patients compared to slow and very slow correction, respectively. Rapid correction also resulted in shorter hospital LOS by 1.20 days (95% CI, 0.51-1.89) compared to slow correction and 3.09 days (95% CI, 1.21-4.94) compared to very slow correction. There was no statistically significant increase in ODS risk with rapid correction.
Conclusions: In hospitalized adults with severe hyponatremia, rapid sodium correction was associated with reduced mortality and shorter hospital stays without a significant increase in ODS risk.
Implications for Practice: These findings suggest that more aggressive sodium correction may benefit patients with severe hyponatremia, challenging current guidelines that recommend slower correction rates to prevent ODS. Clinicians should weigh the potential benefits of rapid correction against the traditionally emphasized risks, although caution is still warranted given the seriousness of ODS.
Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include a large sample size and inclusion of recent studies reflecting current practices. Limitations involve the observational nature of included studies, potential confounding factors, heterogeneity in correction rate definitions, and possible underreporting of ODS due to its rarity and diagnostic challenges.
Future Research: Randomized controlled trials are needed to establish causality and optimal correction rates, as well as to identify patient subgroups that may benefit most from rapid correction while minimizing ODS risk.
RCT: Linear Ablation Plus Ethanol infusion of the vein of Marshall Enhances Rhythm Outcomes in Persistent AF
20 Nov, 2024 | 15:48h | UTCBackground: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is the cornerstone of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) but has modest efficacy in persistent AF. Previous randomized trials have not demonstrated additional benefit from adding linear ablation to PVI, possibly due to challenges in achieving durable lesions. Ethanol infusion of the vein of Marshall (EIVOM) may facilitate linear ablation, especially at the mitral isthmus, potentially improving outcomes.
Objective: To determine whether adding linear ablation combined with EIVOM to PVI improves maintenance of sinus rhythm compared with PVI alone in patients with persistent AF.
Methods: PROMPT-AF was an investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label randomized trial involving 12 hospitals in China. The study included 498 patients aged 18–80 years with persistent AF lasting >3 months undergoing first-time ablation. Participants were randomized to either PVI alone or PVI plus EIVOM and linear ablation targeting the left atrial roof, mitral isthmus, and cavotricuspid isthmus. Primary outcomes included freedom from atrial arrhythmias lasting >30 seconds without antiarrhythmic drugs over 12 months. Patients were monitored weekly with wearable ECG patches and periodic Holter monitoring.
Results: Among 495 patients analyzed (mean age, 61.1 years; 72.9% male), the intervention group demonstrated significantly higher freedom from atrial arrhythmias without antiarrhythmic drugs (70.7% vs 61.5%; HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54–0.99; P = .045). Secondary outcomes showed no significant differences in quality of life or arrhythmia recurrence with antiarrhythmic drugs. Linear ablation increased procedural time (188.0 vs 140.8 minutes, P < .001) and fluoroscopy exposure. Serious adverse events were comparable between groups, though pericarditis or pericardial effusion occurred in 7 intervention patients versus none in the control.
Conclusions: Adding linear ablation and EIVOM to PVI significantly improves freedom from atrial arrhythmias in patients with persistent AF compared with PVI alone.
Implications for Practice: The combination of linear ablation and EIVOM addresses limitations of PVI alone by enhancing lesion durability and targeting challenging areas such as the mitral isthmus. However, the increased procedural complexity and longer operative times highlight the need for skilled operators. Adoption should be balanced against risks and resource demands.
Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include the randomized, multicenter design and high procedural adherence. Limitations involve the open-label design and potential underestimation of arrhythmia recurrence due to intermittent rhythm monitoring rather than continuous monitoring. The increased procedural time and fluoroscopy exposure are concerns, and the findings may not be generalizable to all persistent AF patients, especially those with episodes lasting less than 3 months.
Future Research: Further studies are needed to optimize ablation strategies, assess long-term outcomes, and evaluate the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of incorporating EIVOM and linear ablation in diverse patient populations.
Review: Comparative Analysis of ESC and ESH Hypertension Guidelines
20 Nov, 2024 | 15:03h | UTCIntroduction: Hypertension remains a significant global health challenge with increasing prevalence and substantial morbidity and mortality rates. To address this, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) have independently published updated guidelines on hypertension management. This review provides a pragmatic comparison of these guidelines, highlighting their major similarities and differences to assist clinicians in optimizing patient care.
Key Recommendations:
Shared Recommendations:
- Diagnosis Criteria: Both guidelines recommend diagnosing hypertension based on office systolic and diastolic blood pressures of ≥140/90 mmHg.
- Blood Pressure Targets: Both advocate aiming for an optimal blood pressure of <130/80 mmHg. The ESH emphasizes personalized targets for specific populations like the elderly, while the ESC adopts the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle.
- Out-of-Office Measurements: Emphasis is placed on home blood pressure monitoring and ambulatory measurements to confirm diagnoses and tailor treatments.
- Comprehensive Assessment: Both recommend thorough initial evaluations, including screening for orthostatic hypotension, comorbidities, and hypertension-mediated organ damage (HMOD).
- Early Treatment Initiation: Both suggest starting antihypertensive therapy promptly, preferably using a single-pill combination of two agents after lifestyle interventions.
- Treatment Goals and Follow-Up: Both aim for patients to reach blood pressure targets within three months, underscoring the importance of close monitoring.
- Adjunctive Therapies: The use of SGLT-2 inhibitors is recommended for patients with chronic kidney disease and/or heart failure. Renal denervation is considered for true resistant hypertension.
Differences:
- Blood Pressure Classification: The ESC introduces a new category of “elevated blood pressure,” altering patient classification but with minimal impact on practical management.
- Screening for Secondary Hypertension: The ESC strongly encourages screening for secondary hypertension, particularly primary aldosteronism; the ESH does not emphasize this as strongly.
- Age Stratification: Different age thresholds for the very elderly are used (ESH: ≥80 years; ESC: ≥85 years), with the ESH providing more detailed treatment personalization for this group.
- Treatment Targets Philosophy: The ESC supports the ALARA principle for blood pressure targets, aiming for the lowest achievable levels without adverse effects, while the ESH provides specific target ranges.
- Beta-Blocker Use: The ESH includes beta-blockers as first-line therapy options, whereas the ESC positions them as third-line agents.
Conclusion: Despite minor discrepancies, the ESC and ESH hypertension guidelines are largely concordant and based on the same evidence base. Both sets provide clear, pragmatic recommendations emphasizing early diagnosis, personalized treatment, and close follow-up. Clinicians can confidently use either guideline to inform practice, as both aim to improve patient outcomes by effectively managing hypertension in the primary care setting.
RCT: Low-Dose Ketamine Enhances Pain Relief When Added to Morphine in ED Patients
20 Nov, 2024 | 14:42h | UTCBackground: Acute pain is a prevalent complaint among emergency department (ED) patients, yet effective pain management remains suboptimal, especially in individuals with current opioid use due to opioid tolerance and hyperalgesia. Low-dose ketamine (LDK) has been proposed as an adjunct to opioids to enhance analgesia through synergistic or additive effects, but its efficacy in patients with and without current opioid use in the ED setting is not well established.
Objective: This randomized controlled trial aimed to determine the effectiveness of LDK as an adjunct to morphine versus morphine alone for acute pain management in ED patients with and without current opioid use.
Methods: In this single-center, double-blind study, 116 adult patients presenting to the ED with acute pain (numeric rating scale [NRS] ≥5) requiring intravenous opioids were randomized to receive either 0.1 mg/kg ketamine or isotonic saline (placebo) as an adjunct to morphine. Patients with and without current opioid use were randomized separately. Pain intensity was measured at baseline and at 10, 20, 30, 45, 60, and 120 minutes post-randomization. The primary outcome was pain reduction from baseline to 10 minutes. Secondary outcomes included pain intensity over 120 minutes, need for rescue opioids, side effects, and patient and provider satisfaction.
Results: The study included 116 patients (median age 51 years; 58% male; 36% with current opioid use). Pain reduction from baseline to 10 minutes was significantly greater in the LDK group compared to placebo (median reduction of 4 [IQR 3–6] vs. 1 [IQR 0–2]; p = 0.001). Pain intensity was significantly lower in the LDK group at 10, 20, and 30 minutes post-administration. There was a higher incidence of nausea, vomiting, and dissociation in the LDK group during the first 10 minutes. No significant differences were observed in the need for rescue opioids or in patient and provider satisfaction between groups.
Conclusions: LDK administered as an adjunct to morphine significantly enhances short-term pain relief in ED patients with acute pain, regardless of current opioid use status. However, the increased risk of transient side effects necessitates careful consideration.
Implications for Practice: LDK may be considered as an adjunct to morphine for acute pain management in the ED, particularly when traditional opioid treatments are insufficient. Clinicians should weigh the benefits against the potential for transient side effects, and LDK should not be universally recommended for all patients with moderate to severe pain.
Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths of the study include its randomized, double-blind design and the inclusion of patients with current opioid use. Limitations include early termination leading to a smaller sample size, potentially underpowering the stratified analysis, and heterogeneity in patient pain conditions. Additionally, assessing the primary outcome at 10 minutes may not capture the peak effect of morphine.
Future Research: Further studies should focus on optimizing LDK administration protocols, such as exploring bolus versus continuous infusion methods, to achieve sustained pain reduction and minimize side effects.
RCT: Catheter Ablation Superior to Antiarrhythmic Drugs in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy with Ventricular Tachycardia
20 Nov, 2024 | 14:32h | UTCBackground: Patients with ventricular tachycardia and ischemic cardiomyopathy face high risks of adverse outcomes, including death and recurrent arrhythmias. While catheter ablation is commonly used when antiarrhythmic drugs fail to suppress ventricular tachycardia, its effectiveness as a first-line therapy compared to antiarrhythmic drugs remains uncertain.
Objective: To compare the efficacy of catheter ablation versus antiarrhythmic drug therapy as a first-line treatment in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and ventricular tachycardia who have an implantable cardioverter–defibrillator (ICD).
Methods: In this multicenter, randomized controlled trial (VANISH2), 416 patients with previous myocardial infarction, clinically significant ventricular tachycardia, and an ICD were randomly assigned to receive catheter ablation within 14 days or antiarrhythmic drug therapy with sotalol or amiodarone based on prespecified criteria. The primary endpoint was a composite of death from any cause during follow-up or, more than 14 days after randomization, ventricular tachycardia storm, appropriate ICD shock, or sustained ventricular tachycardia treated by medical intervention.
Results: Over a median follow-up of 4.3 years, the primary endpoint occurred in 50.7% of patients in the catheter ablation group and 60.6% in the drug therapy group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58–0.97; P=0.03). Adverse events within 30 days post-ablation included death in 1.0% and nonfatal events in 11.3% of patients. In the drug therapy group, adverse events attributed to antiarrhythmic drugs included death from pulmonary toxicity in 0.5% and nonfatal events in 21.6% of patients.
Conclusions: Catheter ablation as an initial therapy significantly reduced the risk of the composite primary endpoint compared to antiarrhythmic drug therapy in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and ventricular tachycardia.
Implications for Practice: These findings support considering catheter ablation as a first-line treatment option for patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and ventricular tachycardia, potentially leading to improved clinical outcomes over initial antiarrhythmic drug therapy.
Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include the randomized, multicenter design and long-term follow-up. Limitations involve the inability to assess effects on individual components of the primary endpoint, such as mortality. Operator experience with catheter ablation may affect outcomes, potentially influencing the generalizability of the results.
Future Research: Further studies are needed to evaluate the long-term benefits and risks of catheter ablation, particularly with advancements in ablation technology. Research into new antiarrhythmic drugs and alternative ICD programming strategies may also provide additional insights.
Phase 2 RCT: Oral Muvalaplin Significantly Reduces Lipoprotein(a) Levels in High-Risk Patients
20 Nov, 2024 | 14:22h | UTCBackground: Elevated lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] levels are an independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and calcific aortic valve stenosis. Current therapeutic options to lower Lp(a) are limited, and no approved pharmacotherapies specifically target Lp(a) reduction.
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of muvalaplin, an oral small-molecule inhibitor of Lp(a) formation, in reducing Lp(a) levels in patients at high risk of cardiovascular events.
Methods: In this phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 233 adults aged 40 years or older with Lp(a) concentrations of 175 nmol/L or greater and high cardiovascular risk (due to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or familial hypercholesterolemia) were enrolled across 43 sites worldwide. Participants were randomized to receive muvalaplin at doses of 10 mg/d (n = 34), 60 mg/d (n = 64), or 240 mg/d (n = 68), or placebo (n = 67) for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the placebo-adjusted percentage change from baseline in Lp(a) levels at week 12, measured using both an intact Lp(a) assay and a traditional apolipoprotein(a)-based assay.
Results
At week 12, muvalaplin achieved significant, dose-dependent reductions in Lp(a) levels compared with placebo. Using the intact Lp(a) assay, placebo-adjusted reductions were:
- 47.6% (95% CI, 35.1%-57.7%) for 10 mg/d
- 81.7% (95% CI, 78.1%-84.6%) for 60 mg/d
- 85.8% (95% CI, 83.1%-88.0%) for 240 mg/d
Using the apolipoprotein(a)-based assay, reductions were:
- 40.4% (95% CI, 28.3%-50.5%) for 10 mg/d
- 70.0% (95% CI, 65.0%-74.2%) for 60 mg/d
- 68.9% (95% CI, 63.8%-73.3%) for 240 mg/d
Dose-dependent decreases in apolipoprotein B levels were also observed, with placebo-adjusted reductions ranging from 8.9% to 16.1%. Muvalaplin was well tolerated across all doses, with no significant safety or tolerability concerns reported.
Conclusions: Muvalaplin significantly reduced Lp(a) levels in high-risk patients over a 12-week period and was well tolerated. These findings suggest that muvalaplin could be an effective oral therapy for lowering Lp(a) levels.
Implications for Practice: Muvalaplin may offer a convenient oral option to reduce elevated Lp(a) levels, potentially lowering cardiovascular risk in high-risk patient populations.
Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths of the study include its randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design and the use of both traditional and novel assays to accurately measure Lp(a) levels. Limitations involve the short duration of the trial, the relatively small sample size for each dosage group, and the lack of assessment of long-term cardiovascular outcomes and safety.
Future Research: Long-term studies are necessary to determine whether the reduction in Lp(a) levels with muvalaplin translates into decreased cardiovascular events. Future research should also explore optimal dosing strategies and assess the long-term safety profile of muvalaplin.