Geriatrics
Aspirin vs. Clopidogrel Monotherapy After PCI: 1-Year Follow-Up of the STOPDAPT-3 Trial
6 Oct, 2024 | 16:51h | UTCBackground: Following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES), patients are typically managed with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). Recent evidence suggests that monotherapy with a P2Y12 inhibitor may reduce bleeding risks compared to aspirin monotherapy, but no prior trials have directly compared these regimens beyond one month of DAPT. The STOPDAPT-3 trial aimed to evaluate the cardiovascular and bleeding outcomes of aspirin versus clopidogrel monotherapy following a short duration of DAPT.
Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of aspirin monotherapy with clopidogrel monotherapy from 1 month to 1 year after PCI with DES, focusing on cardiovascular and bleeding outcomes.
Methods: The STOPDAPT-3 trial was a prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized clinical trial conducted in Japan. A total of 6002 patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or high bleeding risk (HBR) were randomized to either a 1-month DAPT regimen followed by aspirin monotherapy (aspirin group, n=2920) or 1-month prasugrel monotherapy followed by clopidogrel monotherapy (clopidogrel group, n=2913). The primary endpoints were a composite of cardiovascular events (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, or ischemic stroke) and major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 or 5).
Results: At the 1-year follow-up, both the aspirin and clopidogrel groups had comparable cardiovascular outcomes (4.5% incidence in both groups; HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.77–1.30, P=0.97). Bleeding rates were also similar between groups (aspirin: 2.0%; clopidogrel: 1.9%; HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.69–1.52, P=0.92). No significant differences were observed in secondary outcomes, including all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, or revascularization. Additionally, adherence to the assigned monotherapy at 1 year was high in both groups (87.5% for aspirin; 87.2% for clopidogrel).
Conclusions: Aspirin monotherapy, compared to clopidogrel monotherapy, resulted in similar cardiovascular and bleeding outcomes during the 1-year follow-up after PCI with DES. Both therapies appear equally effective and safe for use following short-duration DAPT.
Implications for Practice: These findings suggest that either aspirin or clopidogrel monotherapy could be safely used following a short course of DAPT, with similar clinical outcomes. In regions where more potent P2Y12 inhibitors are not widely used, aspirin monotherapy remains a cost-effective and safe alternative.
Study Strengths and Limitations: The study’s strengths include a large sample size and a well-structured, multicenter design. Limitations include the lack of randomization after 1 month and the high prescription of proton pump inhibitors, which may have affected bleeding outcomes. Additionally, the follow-up period of 1 year may be too short to detect long-term differences.
Future Research: Longer-term studies are needed to confirm the findings, particularly regarding cardiovascular outcomes beyond 1 year. Further research is also required to evaluate the impact of aspirin versus more potent P2Y12 inhibitors in diverse populations and clinical settings.
RCT: Early Surgical AVR Improved Outcomes in Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis
6 Oct, 2024 | 16:29h | UTCBackground: Severe aortic stenosis (AS) is a prevalent valvular heart disease requiring intervention in symptomatic patients. The optimal timing for surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in truly asymptomatic patients with severe AS and normal left ventricular (LV) systolic function remains uncertain and is under investigation.
Objective: To determine whether early surgical AVR improves clinical outcomes compared to conservative management with watchful waiting in asymptomatic patients with severe AS and normal LV ejection fraction (LVEF ≥50%).
Methods: The AVATAR trial was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial involving 157 low-risk, asymptomatic patients (mean age 67 years, 57% men) with severe AS and normal LVEF. Patients were randomized to early surgical AVR (n=78) or conservative treatment (n=79). All participants had negative exercise stress tests to confirm asymptomatic status. The primary composite endpoint included all-cause death, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned hospitalization for heart failure (HF). Secondary outcomes encompassed individual components of the primary endpoint, cardiovascular death, serious adverse events, and procedural metrics.
Results: Over a median follow-up of 63 months, the primary composite endpoint occurred in 23.1% of the early surgery group versus 46.8% of the conservative group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24–0.73; P=0.002). All-cause mortality was significantly lower in the early surgery group (16.7% vs. 34.2%; HR 0.44; 95% CI, 0.23–0.85; P=0.012). Unplanned HF hospitalizations were also reduced (4.0% vs. 17.0%; HR 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06–0.73; P=0.007). There were no significant differences in stroke rates between the groups. Serious adverse events occurred less frequently in the early surgery group (26.4% vs. 49.4%; P=0.013). Sudden cardiac death was less common in the early surgery group, though not statistically significant (5.1% vs. 11.4%; P=0.17).
Conclusions: Early surgical AVR in asymptomatic patients with severe AS and normal LVEF significantly improved clinical outcomes, including reductions in all-cause mortality and HF hospitalizations, compared to conservative management.
Implications for Practice: These findings support considering early surgical AVR in truly asymptomatic patients with severe AS and normal LV function to reduce the risk of adverse events and improve long-term outcomes. Clinicians should weigh the benefits of early intervention against surgical risks, emphasizing careful patient selection and monitoring.
Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths of the study include its randomized design, extended follow-up period, and strict inclusion of truly asymptomatic patients confirmed by negative exercise testing. Limitations involve a smaller sample size than initially projected, potential impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on follow-up and healthcare access, and early termination of enrollment, which may affect the generalizability of the results.
Future Research: Further large-scale randomized trials are needed to validate these findings and explore the role of early intervention strategies, including transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), in asymptomatic patients with severe AS.
Guideline Summary: Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) Inhibitors for Adults with Chronic Kidney Disease
4 Oct, 2024 | 11:14h | UTCIntroduction
A recent clinical practice guideline published in The BMJ titled “Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors for adults with chronic kidney disease” provides evidence-based recommendations on the use of SGLT-2 inhibitors in adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD), regardless of diabetes status. The guideline aims to assist clinicians in making informed decisions to improve patient outcomes in CKD management.
Key Recommendations and Patient Care Implications
- Risk Stratification
- Assessment: Patients with CKD should be stratified based on their risk of disease progression and complications using estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and albuminuria levels, following the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) classification.
- Clinical Implication: Proper risk stratification guides the intensity of treatment and monitoring.
- Use of SGLT-2 Inhibitors
- Low to Moderate Risk Patients: For adults at low or moderate risk, the guideline suggests administering SGLT-2 inhibitors (weak recommendation in favor).
- Patient Care Impact: Clinicians should discuss potential benefits and risks with patients, considering individual preferences.
- High to Very High Risk Patients: For adults at high or very high risk, a strong recommendation is made to administer SGLT-2 inhibitors.
- Patient Care Impact: Clinicians should prioritize initiating SGLT-2 inhibitors in these patients to reduce risks of mortality and progression to kidney failure.
- Low to Moderate Risk Patients: For adults at low or moderate risk, the guideline suggests administering SGLT-2 inhibitors (weak recommendation in favor).
- Benefits of SGLT-2 Inhibitors
- Outcomes: Reduction in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, hospitalization for heart failure, kidney failure, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and non-fatal stroke.
- Clinical Implication: SGLT-2 inhibitors provide significant protective effects on cardiovascular and kidney health in CKD patients.
- Potential Harms and Monitoring
- Adverse Effects: Minimal increase in risks of acute kidney injury requiring dialysis, bone fractures, lower limb amputations, ketoacidosis, genital infections, or symptomatic hypovolemia.
- Patient Counseling: Patients should be informed about possible side effects and advised on when to seek medical attention.
- Monitoring: Routine laboratory monitoring is not generally necessary, except in high-risk individuals.
- Practical Considerations for Prescribing
- Initiation: Start SGLT-2 inhibitors in patients with eGFR ≥20 mL/min/1.73 m².
- Continuation: Medications can be continued even if eGFR falls below 20 mL/min/1.73 m² until dialysis is initiated.
- Dosage: Initiate at the highest possible dose without the need for titration.
- Drug Selection: Canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and empagliflozin are suitable options.
- Concurrent Medications: Review and adjust diuretics to prevent volume depletion.
- Patient Education and Self-Management
- Sick Day Rules: Advise patients to temporarily discontinue SGLT-2 inhibitors during acute illnesses causing dehydration.
- Lifestyle Modifications: Encourage adherence to medication and healthy lifestyle changes to enhance treatment efficacy.
- Applicability and Exceptions
- Applicable Populations: Recommendations apply broadly to adults with CKD, with or without type 2 diabetes.
- Exceptions: Caution or alternative approaches may be necessary for patients:
- Receiving kidney replacement therapy.
- With kidney transplants, polycystic kidney disease, rare kidney diseases.
- With eGFR <20 mL/min/1.73 m² not on replacement therapy.
Conclusion
The guideline underscores the importance of incorporating SGLT-2 inhibitors into the management plan for adults with CKD to improve survival and reduce cardiovascular and kidney-related complications. Clinicians should evaluate each patient’s risk profile and engage in shared decision-making to optimize treatment outcomes.
Summary of “Dialysis for Chronic Kidney Failure: A Review”
3 Oct, 2024 | 22:46h | UTCIn their comprehensive review published in JAMA on October 2, 2024, Dr. Jennifer E. Flythe and Dr. Suzanne Watnick discuss current evidence regarding the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of dialysis-dependent chronic kidney failure. The article emphasizes clinical considerations that directly impact patient care, particularly in the initiation and management of dialysis therapy.
Key Aspects Influencing Patient Care
- Initiation of Dialysis
- No Specific eGFR Threshold: There is no recommended estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) for starting dialysis. Decisions should be individualized, focusing on persistent uremic symptoms (e.g., nausea, fatigue), volume overload (e.g., dyspnea, peripheral edema), worsening eGFR, metabolic acidosis, and hyperkalemia.
- Shared Decision-Making: The timing of dialysis initiation should involve a collaborative approach between clinicians and patients, considering symptoms, laboratory trends, and patient preferences.
- No Mortality Benefit from Early Initiation: A randomized clinical trial found no mortality advantage in starting dialysis at higher eGFR levels (10–14 mL/min/1.73 m²) compared to lower levels (5–7 mL/min/1.73 m²).
- Dialysis Modalities
- Hemodialysis vs. Peritoneal Dialysis: Observational data indicate no significant difference in 5-year mortality rates between the two modalities.
- Modality Selection Factors: Decisions should consider patient lifestyle, comorbid conditions, availability of home support, and resource accessibility.
- Common Complications
- Cardiovascular Risks: Cardiovascular complications, such as arrhythmias and cardiac arrest, are leading causes of death among dialysis patients.
- Infections:
- Hemodialysis: Catheter-related bloodstream infections occur at rates of 1.1 to 5.5 episodes per 1000 catheter-days.
- Peritoneal Dialysis: Peritonitis occurs at a rate of 0.26 episodes per patient-year.
- Systemic Complications: Anemia, hyperphosphatemia, hypocalcemia, and hypertension are prevalent and often require pharmacologic intervention.
- Dialysis-Related Issues: Hypotension during dialysis, muscle cramps, itching, and vascular access malfunction can hinder effective treatment.
- Management Strategies
- Anemia: Initiate intravenous iron and/or erythropoietin-stimulating agents when hemoglobin is below 10 g/dL, aiming to maintain levels between 10 and 11.5 g/dL.
- Mineral and Bone Disorders: Use dietary phosphorus restrictions and phosphorus binders; monitor and manage parathyroid hormone levels to mitigate fracture risk.
- Hypertension: Implement dietary salt restriction, adjust ultrafiltration, and prescribe antihypertensive medications, recognizing there’s no specific BP target in dialysis patients.
- Practical Considerations for Clinicians
- Medication Management: Avoid nephrotoxic agents like NSAIDs and iodinated contrast media in patients with residual kidney function. Adjust dosages for medications excreted renally.
- Symptom Control: Address common symptoms such as pruritus with appropriate therapies such as oral antihistamines and moisturizers. Difelikefalin is a new agent that can also be used.
- Patient Education: Counsel on dietary restrictions (salt, fluid, potassium) and ensure vaccinations are up to date, including hepatitis B, pneumococcal, COVID-19, and RSV vaccines.
Conclusion
For the over 540,000 patients in the U.S. receiving maintenance dialysis, individualized care plans that involve shared decision-making are crucial. Understanding when to initiate dialysis, selecting the appropriate modality, managing complications, and addressing patient-specific needs can significantly influence outcomes and quality of life.
RCT: Telehealth-Delivered Early Palliative Care Equivalent to In-Person Care in Advanced Lung Cancer
26 Sep, 2024 | 15:06h | UTCBackground: Patients with advanced lung cancer often face a high symptom burden and decreased quality of life (QOL), but access to early palliative care, which can improve these outcomes, remains limited. While telehealth has become increasingly utilized due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is unclear whether virtual palliative care is as effective as in-person care.
Objective: To compare the effect of early palliative care delivered via secure video vs in-person visits on the quality of life of patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Methods: This multisite, randomized comparative effectiveness trial enrolled 1250 adults with advanced NSCLC from 22 cancer centers in the US between June 2018 and May 2023. Participants were randomized to receive either early palliative care via video visits or in person every four weeks. The primary outcome was QOL measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) questionnaire at 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes included caregiver participation in palliative care visits and patient and caregiver satisfaction with care, mood symptoms, coping, and prognostic understanding.
Results: By week 24, patients in both groups reported equivalent QOL scores, with the video visit group scoring a mean of 99.7 compared to 97.7 in the in-person group (difference of 2.0 points, 90% CI, 0.1-3.9; P = .04 for equivalence). Both groups experienced similar improvements in QOL from baseline (mean increase of 8.4 points for video visits and 6.9 points for in-person care). Caregiver participation in palliative care visits was lower in the video visit group (36.6% vs 49.7%; P < .001). No significant differences were found between the groups in caregiver QOL, patient or caregiver satisfaction with care, mood symptoms, or coping strategies.
Conclusions: Early palliative care delivered via telehealth was equivalent to in-person visits in improving QOL for patients with advanced NSCLC. This underscores the potential of telehealth to increase access to essential palliative care services for this population without compromising care quality.
Implications for Practice: Telehealth can provide a feasible alternative to in-person palliative care, especially for patients with advanced lung cancer who face barriers to in-person visits, such as transportation challenges. However, strategies to enhance caregiver involvement in virtual visits may need to be developed.
Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include the large, multisite randomized design and the use of validated outcome measures. Limitations involve the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact, which caused some intervention contamination due to unavoidable video visits in the in-person group. Additionally, caregiver participation was lower than expected, potentially limiting the generalizability of results regarding caregiver outcomes.
Future Research: Further studies should explore the long-term impact of telehealth on palliative care outcomes and investigate ways to enhance caregiver involvement in virtual care.
RCT: MRI-Guided Biopsy Reduces Overdiagnosis of Clinically Insignificant Prostate Cancer
26 Sep, 2024 | 12:22h | UTCBackground: Overdiagnosis of clinically insignificant prostate cancer is a significant issue in population-based screening programs, primarily when prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing is followed by systematic biopsy. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsies, which avoid systematic biopsies in men with negative MRI results, have shown potential in reducing unnecessary cancer diagnoses. However, long-term data are needed to confirm the safety and efficacy of this approach.
Objective: To evaluate whether MRI-targeted biopsies, when combined with PSA screening, can reduce the detection of clinically insignificant prostate cancer without compromising the identification of clinically significant or advanced disease.
Methods: This population-based, randomized trial in Sweden (GÖTEBORG-2) enrolled 13,153 men aged 50-60 years who underwent PSA screening. Men with PSA levels ≥3 ng/mL were randomized into two groups: (1) MRI-targeted biopsy only in cases with suspicious lesions, or (2) systematic biopsy in all cases with PSA elevation. Screening occurred every 2, 4, or 8 years depending on PSA levels, with follow-up for up to four years. The primary outcome was the detection of clinically insignificant prostate cancer, and secondary outcomes included clinically significant and advanced or high-risk prostate cancer.
Results: After a median follow-up of 3.9 years, the detection of clinically insignificant prostate cancer was significantly lower in the MRI-targeted biopsy group (2.8%) compared to the systematic biopsy group (4.5%), with a relative risk (RR) of 0.43 (95% CI, 0.32-0.57; P < 0.001). The relative risk of detecting clinically significant cancer was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.66-1.07), indicating no significant difference between the two groups. Advanced or high-risk cancers were detected in 15 men in the MRI group and 23 men in the systematic group (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.34-1.24). Severe adverse events occurred in five patients (three in the systematic biopsy group, two in the MRI-targeted biopsy group).
Conclusions: Omitting biopsies in men with negative MRI results substantially reduced the diagnosis of clinically insignificant prostate cancer without increasing the risk of missing clinically significant or advanced cancers. MRI-targeted biopsy strategies can effectively limit overdiagnosis while maintaining safety in screening programs.
Implications for Practice: MRI-targeted biopsies offer a promising strategy to reduce unnecessary cancer diagnoses and avoid overtreatment in prostate cancer screening. Clinicians should consider integrating MRI into prostate cancer screening algorithms, especially in cases with elevated PSA but no MRI-detected lesions. This approach may also decrease biopsy-related complications and patient anxiety.
Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths of this trial include its population-based design, large sample size, and thorough follow-up. Limitations include its single-center setting in Sweden, which may limit generalizability to more diverse populations, and a modest participation rate of 50%.
Future Research: Further studies should assess the cost-effectiveness of widespread MRI use in prostate cancer screening and explore its utility in diverse populations. Investigations into novel biomarkers that could further refine patient selection for MRI-targeted biopsy are also warranted.
Summary: Perioperative Management of Patients Taking Direct Oral Anticoagulants
19 Sep, 2024 | 21:12h | UTCDirect oral anticoagulants (DOACs)—including apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban, and dabigatran—are increasingly used for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation and for treating venous thromboembolism. Effective perioperative management of DOACs is essential to minimize bleeding and thromboembolic risks during surgical and nonsurgical procedures. Below are practical recommendations focused on the perioperative management of patients taking DOACs, based on a recent JAMA review article.
Elective Surgical or Nonsurgical Procedures
Classify Bleeding Risk of Procedures:
- Minimal Risk:
- Minor dental procedures (e.g., cleaning, extractions)
- Minor dermatologic procedures (e.g., skin lesion removal)
- Cataract surgery
- Low to Moderate Risk:
- Endoscopic procedures without high-risk interventions
- Cholecystectomy
- Inguinal hernia repair
- High Risk:
- Major surgery (e.g., cancer surgery, joint replacement)
- Procedures involving neuraxial anesthesia
- Endoscopic procedures with high-risk interventions (e.g., large polyp removal)
DOAC Management Strategies:
- Minimal Bleeding Risk Procedures:
- Option 1: Continue DOACs without interruption.
- Option 2: For added safety, withhold the morning dose on the day of the procedure (especially for twice-daily DOACs like apixaban and dabigatran).
- Low to Moderate Bleeding Risk Procedures:
- Preoperative:
- Discontinue DOACs 1 day before the procedure.
- This allows approximately 2 half-lives for drug clearance.
- Postoperative:
- Resume DOACs 1 day after the procedure, ensuring adequate hemostasis.
- Preoperative:
- High Bleeding Risk Procedures:
- Preoperative:
- Discontinue DOACs 2 days before the procedure.
- This allows approximately 4-5 half-lives for drug clearance.
- Postoperative:
- Resume DOACs 2-3 days after the procedure, based on bleeding risk and hemostasis.
- Preoperative:
Evidence Supporting These Strategies:
- The PAUSE study demonstrated that standardized interruption protocols without heparin bridging result in low rates of:
- Thromboembolism: 0.2%–0.4%
- Major Bleeding: 1%–2%
Postoperative DOAC Resumption:
- Assess surgical-site hemostasis before resuming DOACs.
- Delay resumption if there is ongoing bleeding or concerns about hemostasis.
- For high bleeding risk procedures, consider a longer delay (2–3 days).
Perioperative Heparin Bridging:
- Not recommended for patients on DOACs.
- Bridging increases bleeding risk without reducing thromboembolism.
- DOACs have rapid offset and onset, making bridging unnecessary.
Special Considerations
Patients with Impaired Renal Function:
- For CrCl 30–50 mL/min:
- Dabigatran: Extend preoperative discontinuation by an additional day.
- For CrCl <30 mL/min:
- Dabigatran is contraindicated.
- For other DOACs, consider extending discontinuation to 3–4 days before surgery.
Patients Undergoing Neuraxial Anesthesia:
- Discontinue DOACs for 3 days (apixaban, edoxaban, rivaroxaban) or 4 days (dabigatran) before the procedure.
- Minimizes risk of spinal or epidural hematoma.
Dental Procedures:
- Generally safe to continue DOACs.
- For added safety:
- Omit or delay the dose on the day of the procedure.
- Employ local hemostatic measures (e.g., tranexamic acid mouthwash).
Endoscopic Procedures:
- Low-risk procedures (e.g., diagnostic endoscopy without biopsy):
- Follow standard DOAC interruption for low to moderate bleeding risk.
- High-risk procedures (e.g., polypectomy of large polyps):
- Extend DOAC discontinuation by an additional day pre- and post-procedure.
Patients Unable to Resume Oral Medications Postoperatively:
- Use prophylactic low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) until oral intake is possible.
- Avoid therapeutic-dose LMWH due to bleeding risk.
Emergent, Urgent, or Semiurgent Procedures
Risks:
- Higher bleeding risk: Up to 23%
- Thromboembolism risk: Up to 11%
Management Strategies:
- Assess Time Since Last DOAC Dose:
- If within 48 hours, consider that significant anticoagulant effect may persist.
- Laboratory Testing (if available):
- DOAC Level Testing:
- ≥50 ng/mL: Consider using reversal agents.
- <50 ng/mL: May proceed without reversal agents.
- DOAC Level Testing:
- Use of Reversal Agents:
- For Dabigatran:
- Idarucizumab (5 g IV)
- For Factor Xa Inhibitors (apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban):
- Andexanet alfa (dosing based on last dose timing and amount)
- Prothrombin Complex Concentrates (PCCs): If andexanet alfa is unavailable or contraindicated.
- For Dabigatran:
- Proceeding Without Testing:
- If testing is unavailable and last DOAC dose was within 48 hours, consider reversal agents.
- If >48 hours since last dose, may proceed without reversal.
Considerations:
- Reversal agents are expensive and may carry thrombotic risks.
- Use should be judicious, weighing risks and benefits.
- Consult hematology or thrombosis experts when possible.
Key Takeaways
- Elective Procedures:
- Utilize standardized protocols based on procedural bleeding risk.
- Routine preoperative DOAC level testing is unnecessary.
- Avoid heparin bridging.
- Emergent/Urgent Procedures:
- Reversal agents may be appropriate when significant DOAC levels are present.
- Decision to use reversal agents should consider bleeding risk, time since last dose, and availability of DOAC level testing.
- Patient Communication:
- Ensure patients understand the plan for DOAC interruption and resumption.
- Provide clear instructions regarding timing and dosing.
- Interdisciplinary Coordination:
- Collaborate with surgical teams, anesthesiologists, and pharmacists.
- Use electronic medical records and clinical decision support tools to enhance communication.
Conclusion
By applying standardized perioperative management protocols, clinicians can effectively balance the risks of bleeding and thromboembolism in patients taking DOACs who require surgical or nonsurgical procedures. These strategies simplify decision-making, avoid unnecessary interventions like heparin bridging, and promote patient safety.
RCT: Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy Reduced Incontinence and Sexual Dysfunction vs. Prostatectomy in Localized Prostate Cancer
18 Sep, 2024 | 10:51h | UTCBackground: Men with localized prostate cancer have several treatment options, including prostatectomy and radiotherapy. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are crucial in guiding treatment decisions due to potential impacts on quality of life. However, randomized data comparing stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) with prostatectomy are lacking.
Objective: To compare patient-reported urinary, bowel, and sexual outcomes at 2 years following SBRT versus prostatectomy in men with low- to intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer.
Methods: In the phase 3 PACE-A randomized controlled trial conducted in the UK from 2012 to 2022, 123 men with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) low- to intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer were randomized 1:1 to receive either SBRT (36.25 Gy in five fractions) or prostatectomy. Androgen deprivation therapy was not permitted. The co-primary outcomes were the number of absorbent urinary pads used daily and the Expanded Prostate Index Composite (EPIC-26) bowel domain score at 2 years. Secondary outcomes included clinician-reported toxicity and sexual function.
Results: Among 110 men who received treatment (median age 65.5 years; median PSA 7.9 ng/ml; 92% intermediate-risk), 50 underwent prostatectomy and 60 received SBRT. At 2 years, 50% of prostatectomy patients reported using one or more urinary pads daily compared to 6.5% of SBRT patients (p < 0.001; difference 43%, 95% CI 25%–62%). Bowel domain scores were better for prostatectomy (median 100) than for SBRT (median 87.5; p < 0.001; mean difference 8.9, 95% CI 4.2–13.7). Sexual function scores were worse for prostatectomy (median 18) compared to SBRT (median 62.5; p < 0.001). Clinician-reported genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities were low in both groups.
Conclusions: SBRT was associated with significantly less urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction but slightly worse bowel function compared to prostatectomy at 2 years in men with localized prostate cancer.
Implications for Practice: These findings provide preliminary evidence to inform treatment decisions for men with low- to intermediate-risk localized prostate cancer. SBRT may offer advantages in reducing urinary incontinence and sexual dysfunction, which are significant considerations for patients. Clinicians should also discuss the potential for increased bowel symptoms with SBRT.
Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include the randomized design, use of contemporary treatment modalities, and comprehensive assessment of PROs. Limitations involve the small sample size due to slow recruitment, differential dropout rates, and incomplete PRO responses at the 2-year mark.
Future Research: Larger-scale randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings, assess long-term outcomes beyond 2 years, and evaluate the impact on disease control and quality of life.
Systematic Review: Antidepressants Offer Limited Pain Relief with Potential Harms in Older Adults
17 Sep, 2024 | 11:34h | UTCBackground: Chronic pain is prevalent among older adults and significantly affects their quality of life. Antidepressants are commonly prescribed for pain management in this population across various countries. While several systematic reviews have evaluated the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for pain in adults, none have specifically focused on individuals aged 65 years and older. The efficacy and safety profile of antidepressants for pain relief in older adults remains unclear.
Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of antidepressant medications compared to all alternatives for the management of non-cancer pain in older adults aged 65 years and above.
Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted. Thirteen databases were searched from inception to February 1, 2024, to identify relevant studies. Trials included compared any antidepressant medication to any alternative (e.g., placebo, other medications, or non-drug therapies) for the treatment of non-cancer pain in older adults. Data extracted included study and participant characteristics, primary efficacy outcomes (pain scores converted to a 0–100 scale), and harms. Estimates for efficacy were pooled using a random-effects model and reported as mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The quality of included trials was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.
Results: Fifteen studies encompassing 1,369 participants met the inclusion criteria. The most frequently studied antidepressants were duloxetine and amitriptyline (six studies each). Pain related to knee osteoarthritis was the most commonly studied condition (six studies). For knee osteoarthritis:
- Immediate Term (0–2 weeks): Antidepressants did not provide a statistically significant reduction in pain compared to alternatives (mean difference [MD], –5.6; 95% CI, –11.5 to 0.3).
- Intermediate Term (≥6 weeks and <12 months): Duloxetine provided a statistically significant, albeit very small, reduction in pain (MD, –9.1; 95% CI, –11.8 to –6.4).
Nearly half of the studies (7 out of 15) reported increased withdrawal of participants in the antidepressant treatment group compared to the comparator group due to adverse events.
Conclusions: For most chronic painful conditions in older adults, the benefits and harms of antidepressant medications are unclear. The available evidence predominantly comes from trials with small sample sizes (less than 100 participants), disclosed industry ties, and trials classified as having unclear or high risk of bias.
Implications for Practice:
- Minimal Benefit: Antidepressants, particularly duloxetine, may offer a very small benefit for pain relief in older adults with knee osteoarthritis over the intermediate term.
- Risk of Harms: The potential harms, including increased adverse events leading to higher withdrawal rates, may outweigh these minimal benefits.
- Clinical Decision-Making: Clinicians should carefully weigh the benefits against the risks when considering prescribing antidepressants for pain in older adults.
- Alternative Strategies: Non-pharmacological interventions and alternative pain management strategies should be prioritized in this population.
Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include the comprehensive search strategy across multiple databases and the focus on older adults, a population often underrepresented in clinical trials. Limitations involve the generally low quality of the included trials, small sample sizes, high risk of bias, and inconsistent reporting of pain outcomes and adverse events among studies.
Future Research: Further large-scale, high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to investigate the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for pain management in older adults. Future studies should also compare antidepressants to non-pharmacological interventions and explore long-term outcomes and optimal dosing regimens in this population.
RCT: High-Intensity NPPV Reduced Criteria for Intubation in Acute COPD Exacerbations
16 Sep, 2024 | 16:50h | UTCBackground: Acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often lead to hypercapnic respiratory failure requiring ventilatory support. Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) is standard care, commonly delivered at low intensity with lower inspiratory pressures. However, approximately 15% of patients still require endotracheal intubation despite low-intensity NPPV. High-intensity NPPV, using higher inspiratory pressures to achieve greater reductions in PaCO₂, has shown benefits in stable hypercapnic COPD patients, but its effect during acute exacerbations is unclear.
Objective: To determine whether high-intensity NPPV reduces the need for endotracheal intubation in patients with acute COPD exacerbations and persistent hypercapnia compared to low-intensity NPPV.
Methods: In a multicenter, randomized clinical trial conducted at 30 respiratory wards in China from January 2019 to January 2022, 300 patients with acute COPD exacerbations and PaCO₂ greater than 45 mm Hg after 6 hours of low-intensity NPPV were enrolled. Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive either high-intensity NPPV (inspiratory positive airway pressure [IPAP] adjusted to achieve tidal volumes of 10–15 mL/kg predicted body weight, typically IPAP 20–30 cm H₂O) or to continue low-intensity NPPV (IPAP adjusted for tidal volumes of 6–10 mL/kg, maximum IPAP 20 cm H₂O). Patients in the low-intensity group meeting prespecified criteria for intubation were allowed to crossover to high-intensity NPPV. The primary outcome was the need for endotracheal intubation during hospitalization, defined by prespecified clinical and gas exchange criteria. Secondary outcomes included actual endotracheal intubation rates, mortality, length of hospital stay, and adverse events.
Results: Of the 300 patients (mean age 73 years; 68% male), the primary outcome occurred in 4.8% of the high-intensity group versus 13.7% of the low-intensity group (absolute difference –9.0%; 95% CI, –15.4% to –2.5%; one-sided P = .004; adjusted risk ratio [RR], 0.35; 95% CI, 0.14–0.76). However, actual endotracheal intubation rates did not differ significantly between groups (3.4% vs 3.9%; absolute difference –0.5%; 95% CI, –4.8% to 3.7%; P = .81). The high-intensity group had greater reductions in PaCO₂ levels over 72 hours (mean PaCO₂ at 72 hours: 53 mm Hg vs 64 mm Hg; P < .001) and higher rates of achieving normocapnia (21.8% vs 4.6%; P < .001). Abdominal distension occurred more frequently in the high-intensity group (37.4% vs 25.5%; absolute difference 11.9%; 95% CI, 1.5%–22.4%; P = .03), but other adverse events and serious adverse events were similar between groups.
Conclusions: High-intensity NPPV reduced the proportion of patients meeting criteria for endotracheal intubation compared to low-intensity NPPV in patients with acute COPD exacerbations and persistent hypercapnia. However, actual intubation rates did not differ, possibly due to crossover from low- to high-intensity NPPV in patients meeting intubation criteria.
Implications for Practice: High-intensity NPPV may be considered for patients with acute COPD exacerbations who remain hypercapnic after initial low-intensity NPPV, as it may reduce progression to severe respiratory failure requiring intubation criteria. Clinicians should monitor for abdominal distension and potential alkalosis, although these did not significantly affect overall tolerance or safety.
Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include the multicenter randomized design, clear enrollment criteria, and standardized protocols. Limitations include early trial termination, unblinded interventions, potential bias due to allowed crossover, and lack of power to detect differences in mortality or actual intubation rates.
Future Research: Further large-scale trials are needed to confirm these findings, assess the impact on actual intubation rates and mortality, and explore the efficacy of high-intensity NPPV in different clinical settings and patient populations, including those without prior NPPV exposure or with more severe respiratory distress.
Polled Analysis: Semaglutide Reduces Heart Failure Events in Obese Patients with HFpEF
12 Sep, 2024 | 13:39h | UTCStudy Design and Population: This post-hoc pooled analysis combined data from four randomized, placebo-controlled trials (SELECT, FLOW, STEP-HFpEF, and STEP-HFpEF DM) involving 3,743 participants with heart failure and preserved or mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFpEF). The participants had various comorbidities including obesity, diabetes, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. They were randomized to receive either semaglutide or placebo.
Main Findings: Semaglutide significantly reduced the risk of the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure events compared to placebo (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53–0.89, p=0.0045). It also reduced worsening heart failure events alone (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.41–0.82, p=0.0019). However, no significant reduction in cardiovascular death alone was observed (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.57–1.16, p=0.25). Semaglutide was generally well tolerated, with fewer serious adverse events compared to placebo.
Implications for Practice: These findings suggest semaglutide may be an effective therapy to reduce heart failure-related events in obese patients with HFpEF. Although semaglutide did not reduce cardiovascular death, its ability to lower the risk of heart failure hospitalizations makes it a potential therapeutic option for managing HFpEF in this population, a condition with limited treatment choices.
RCT: 24-Hour Oxygen Therapy Does Not Reduce Hospitalization or Mortality Compared to 15-Hour Therapy in Severe Hypoxemia
12 Sep, 2024 | 13:21h | UTCStudy Design and Population: This multicenter, registry-based randomized controlled trial compared the effects of 24-hour versus 15-hour daily oxygen therapy in 241 patients with chronic, severe hypoxemia. Patients, recruited between 2018 and 2022, were assigned to either 24 hours (117 patients) or 15 hours (124 patients) of oxygen therapy daily. The study’s primary outcome was the composite of hospitalization or death from any cause within 1 year.
Main Findings: After 12 months, the results showed no significant difference between the two groups in the primary outcome. The event rates for hospitalization or death were similar in the 24-hour and 15-hour groups (124.7 vs. 124.5 events per 100 person-years, hazard ratio 0.99, 95% CI, 0.72-1.36). Secondary outcomes, including individual rates of hospitalization and mortality, also showed no meaningful differences, and adverse event rates were comparable between groups.
Implications for Practice: These findings suggest that increasing oxygen therapy from 15 to 24 hours per day does not reduce hospitalization or mortality in patients with severe hypoxemia. Therefore, the less burdensome 15-hour regimen may be preferable in clinical practice, as it is equally effective while reducing patient burden.
RCT: Transcatheter Repair Noninferior to Mitral-Valve Surgery for Secondary Mitral Regurgitation
12 Sep, 2024 | 12:13h | UTCStudy Design and Population: This noninferiority trial, conducted in Germany, enrolled 210 patients with heart failure and secondary mitral regurgitation who remained symptomatic despite medical therapy. Patients were randomized to undergo either transcatheter edge-to-edge repair or mitral-valve surgery, with outcomes assessed over a one-year period.
Main Findings: Transcatheter repair was found to be noninferior to mitral-valve surgery regarding the primary efficacy outcome—a composite of death, heart failure hospitalization, mitral-valve reintervention, assist device implantation, or stroke at one year (16.7% in the transcatheter group vs. 22.5% in the surgery group; mean difference, -6%; 95% CI, -17 to 6; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The transcatheter group experienced fewer major adverse events within 30 days (14.9% vs. 54.8%; mean difference, -40%; 95% CI, -51 to -27; P<0.001).
Implications for Practice: Transcatheter edge-to-edge repair offers a similar efficacy to mitral-valve surgery at one year with a lower rate of short-term adverse events, suggesting it may be a suitable alternative, particularly for patients with higher surgical risk.
RCT: Invasive Strategy Does Not Significantly Improve Cardiovascular Outcomes Over Conservative Management in Older Adults with NSTEMI
7 Sep, 2024 | 13:25h | UTCStudy Design and Population: This was a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial conducted across 48 sites in the UK, enrolling 1,518 patients aged 75 years or older with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Patients were randomly assigned to receive either the best available medical therapy alone (conservative strategy) or in combination with invasive treatment (coronary angiography and revascularization). The population included individuals who were frail or had high comorbidities, with a mean age of 82 years.
Main Findings: Over a median follow-up of 4.1 years, the primary outcome (a composite of cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction) occurred in 25.6% of the invasive-strategy group and 26.3% of the conservative-strategy group (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.77–1.14; P=0.53), showing no significant difference. Cardiovascular death rates were similar between the two groups, but nonfatal myocardial infarction was lower in the invasive group (11.7% vs. 15.0%; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57–0.99). Procedural complications were rare, affecting less than 1% of patients.
Implications for Practice: This trial suggests that in older adults with NSTEMI, an invasive strategy does not significantly reduce the risk of cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction compared to a conservative approach. The findings support the consideration of conservative management in frail elderly patients or those with significant comorbidities, given the minimal additional benefit of invasive treatment.
Reference: Kunadian, V., Mossop, H., Shields, C., Bardgett, M., Watts, P., Teare, M. D., Pritchard, J., et al. (2024). Invasive treatment strategy for older patients with myocardial infarction. New England Journal of Medicine. http://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2407791
Link: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2407791
RCT: Edoxaban Monotherapy Reduces Bleeding Events in Atrial Fibrillation with Stable CAD Compared to Dual Therapy
7 Sep, 2024 | 13:03h | UTCStudy Design and Population: This multicenter, open-label, adjudicator-masked randomized trial enrolled 1,040 patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and stable coronary artery disease (CAD) across 18 sites in South Korea. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either edoxaban monotherapy (n=524) or dual antithrombotic therapy (edoxaban plus a single antiplatelet agent; n=516). The mean age was 72.1 years, with a mean CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4.3, reflecting a moderate to high stroke risk.
Main Findings: At 12 months, the primary composite outcome occurred in fewer patients in the edoxaban monotherapy group (6.8%) than in the dual therapy group (16.2%) (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.30–0.65; P<0.001). The reduction was largely driven by a significantly lower incidence of major bleeding or clinically relevant non-major bleeding (4.7% vs. 14.2%; HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.22–0.53). In contrast, the incidence of major ischemic events was similar between the two groups.
Implications for Practice: Edoxaban monotherapy provides a safer antithrombotic option for patients with AF and stable CAD by significantly reducing bleeding without increasing ischemic events compared to dual therapy. These findings suggest that monotherapy could be a preferable long-term treatment strategy in this population.
RCT: Interruption of Oral Anticoagulation during TAVI Reduces Bleeding Without Increasing Thromboembolic Events
7 Sep, 2024 | 12:43h | UTCStudy Design and Population: This international, open-label, randomized noninferiority trial examined 858 patients undergoing transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) who had an indication for oral anticoagulation due to concomitant diseases. Patients were randomized 1:1 to either continue or interrupt their oral anticoagulation during the procedure, with the primary outcome being a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, myocardial infarction, major vascular complications, or major bleeding within 30 days.
Main Findings: Primary outcome events occurred in 16.5% of the continuation group and 14.8% of the interruption group, showing a non-significant risk difference of 1.7 percentage points (95% CI, -3.1 to 6.6). Thromboembolic events were similar between groups (8.8% in continuation vs. 8.2% in interruption). However, bleeding events were significantly higher in the continuation group (31.1% vs. 21.3%; risk difference, 9.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 3.9 to 15.6).
Implications for Practice: Interrupting oral anticoagulation during TAVI significantly reduces bleeding without increasing thromboembolic risks, suggesting it may be a safer strategy for patients undergoing TAVI. These findings could influence clinical decision-making regarding anticoagulation management in this population.
Reference: van Ginkel, D.J. et al. (2024). Continuation versus Interruption of Oral Anticoagulation during TAVI. The New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2407794
RCT: Continuing Aspirin vs. Antiplatelet Cessation Before Surgery Did Not Reduce Ischemic Events in Patients With Coronary Stents Over 1 Year Post-Implantation
7 Sep, 2024 | 12:29h | UTCStudy Design and Population: This randomized controlled trial (ASSURE-DES) investigated the perioperative management of antiplatelet therapy in 926 patients with coronary drug-eluting stents (DES) undergoing low-to-intermediate-risk noncardiac surgery. The patients, at least one year post-stent implantation, were randomized to continue aspirin monotherapy or stop all antiplatelet therapy five days prior to surgery.
Main Findings: The study found no significant difference in the primary composite outcome (death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, or stroke) between the aspirin monotherapy group (0.6%) and the no antiplatelet group (0.9%). However, minor bleeding was more frequent in the aspirin group (14.9% vs 10.1%, P=0.027), with no difference in major bleeding.
Implications for Practice: These results suggest that for stable patients with DES undergoing noncardiac surgery, temporarily discontinuing aspirin may be a safe option, as continuing aspirin did not reduce ischemic events but did increase minor bleeding risk. Further research is needed to assess outcomes in higher-risk surgical settings.
RCT: AF Screening Does Not Reduce Stroke Hospitalizations in Elderly Patients
6 Sep, 2024 | 22:18h | UTCStudy Design and Population: The GUARD-AF trial was a prospective, randomized controlled trial conducted across 149 primary care sites in the U.S. It enrolled 11,905 participants aged 70 and older, with a median age of 75 years, 56.6% of whom were female. Participants were randomized 1:1 to either screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) using a 14-day continuous electrocardiographic patch monitor or usual care. The primary outcome was all-cause stroke hospitalization, with bleeding as a key safety outcome.
Main Findings: After a median follow-up of 15.3 months, AF diagnosis was higher in the screening group (5%) compared to the usual care group (3.3%), and anticoagulation initiation was also more frequent (4.2% vs. 2.8%). However, the risk of stroke hospitalization was not significantly different between the screening and usual care groups (0.7% vs. 0.6%; HR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.69-1.75). Similarly, there was no significant difference in bleeding risk (1.0% vs. 1.1%; HR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.60-1.26).
Implications for Practice: The findings suggest that screening for AF using continuous electrocardiographic monitoring in elderly patients does not reduce stroke hospitalizations despite an increased detection of AF. Given the low event rates and premature termination of enrollment due to COVID-19, further studies are needed to confirm these results and explore alternative strategies for stroke prevention in this population.
2024 ESC Guidelines for the Management of Chronic Coronary Syndromes
1 Sep, 2024 | 18:49h | UTCIntroduction: The 2024 guidelines were developed by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) with the endorsement of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). These guidelines provide updated recommendations for the management of chronic coronary syndromes (CCS), focusing on the diagnosis, treatment, and long-term care of patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD).
Key Points:
1 – History and Risk Assessment:
– Detailed assessment of cardiovascular risk factors, medical history, and symptom characteristics is essential in patients with suspected CCS.
– Symptoms like chest pain triggered by emotional stress, dyspnea on exertion, or fatigue should be considered potential angina equivalents.
2 – Diagnostic Testing:
– Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography (CCTA): Recommended as a first-line diagnostic tool for patients with low to moderate pre-test likelihood of obstructive CAD.
– Stress Imaging: Stress echocardiography, SPECT, PET, or cardiac MRI is recommended for those with moderate to high pre-test likelihood to diagnose myocardial ischemia and estimate the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).
3 – Revascularization Indications:
– Symptom Relief: Revascularization is recommended for patients with obstructive CAD who have significant symptoms despite optimal medical therapy.
– Prognostic Benefit: Indicated in patients with left main coronary artery disease, severe three-vessel disease, or two-vessel disease including proximal left anterior descending artery stenosis, particularly if associated with reduced left ventricular function.
– High-Risk Anatomical Features: Revascularization is advised when significant stenosis is present in patients with high-risk anatomical features identified by imaging, especially if non-invasive testing shows a large area of ischemia.
4 – Lifestyle and Risk Management:
– A comprehensive approach to cardiovascular risk reduction, including lifestyle changes (e.g., smoking cessation, diet, and physical activity) and guideline-directed medical therapy, is strongly recommended.
– Home-based cardiac rehabilitation and digital health interventions are suggested to improve long-term adherence to healthy behaviors.
5 – Antianginal and Antithrombotic Therapy:
– Tailoring antianginal therapy based on individual patient characteristics, comorbidities, and local drug availability is recommended.
– Long-term antithrombotic therapy with aspirin or clopidogrel is recommended for patients with prior myocardial infarction or revascularization.
Conclusion: The 2024 ESC guidelines emphasize a patient-centered approach, integrating advanced diagnostic tools and personalized therapeutic strategies to optimize outcomes for patients with chronic coronary syndromes. The guidelines highlight the importance of detailed risk assessment, appropriate use of diagnostic imaging, clear criteria for revascularization, and a strong focus on lifestyle interventions alongside pharmacological management.
Updated ESC Hypertension Guidelines 2024: Intensified Blood Pressure Targets and New Categories – Eur Heart J
31 Aug, 2024 | 19:54h | UTCIntroduction:
The 2024 ESC Guidelines for managing elevated blood pressure (BP) and hypertension were developed by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and endorsed by the European Society of Endocrinology (ESE) and the European Stroke Organisation (ESO). These guidelines introduce significant updates to BP management, including more intensive treatment targets and the introduction of a new category for “Elevated BP.”
Key Points:
1 – New Intensive BP Target: For most patients receiving BP-lowering medication, the guidelines now recommend a systolic BP treatment target range of 120-129 mmHg. This marks a significant shift from previous guidelines, which suggested a less aggressive initial target.
2 – New ‘Elevated BP’ Category: The guidelines introduce a new category, “Elevated BP,” defined as a systolic BP of 120-139 mmHg and/or diastolic BP of 70-89 mmHg. This aims to identify more patients at risk of cardiovascular events, such as heart attacks and strokes, before they meet the traditional threshold for hypertension.
3 – Pragmatic BP Management: For patients who cannot tolerate the intensive BP target, the guidelines recommend aiming for a BP that is “as low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA), particularly in frail or older individuals.
4 – Lifestyle Modifications: The guidelines emphasize lifestyle interventions, including dietary changes like potassium supplementation and new exercise recommendations, as first-line strategies for managing BP.
5 – Renal Denervation: For the first time, the guidelines include recommendations on the use of renal denervation—a procedure for patients with resistant hypertension that has not responded to standard treatments. This is not recommended as a first-line treatment but may be considered in specific high-risk cases.
Conclusion:
These new guidelines represent a major update in the management of hypertension, particularly in promoting more aggressive BP targets to reduce cardiovascular risks. The inclusion of a new BP category and recommendations for renal denervation highlight the guidelines’ focus on early intervention and advanced treatment options.
2024 ESC Guidelines for the Management of Atrial Fibrillation – Eur Heart J
31 Aug, 2024 | 19:34h | UTCIntroduction: The 2024 guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation (AF) were developed by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) and other specialized associations. These guidelines aim to provide evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis, treatment, and management of AF, with a focus on improving patient outcomes through a multidisciplinary approach.
Key Points:
1 – Patient-Centered Care and Education:
– Education directed at patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals is essential for optimizing shared decision-making. This approach ensures that treatment options are discussed openly, considering both the benefits and risks.
2 – Comorbidity and Risk Factor Management:
– Diuretics are recommended for patients with AF, heart failure (HF), and congestion to alleviate symptoms and improve AF management.
– Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2 inhibitors) are recommended for patients with AF and HF, regardless of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), to reduce the risk of hospitalization and cardiovascular death.
3 – Stroke Prevention and Anticoagulation:
– Oral anticoagulation is recommended for all patients with clinical AF and elevated thromboembolic risk, particularly those with a CHA2DS2-VA score of 2 or more.
– Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are preferred over vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in eligible patients undergoing cardioversion.
4 – Rate and Rhythm Control:
– Beta-blockers, diltiazem, verapamil, or digoxin are recommended as first-choice drugs for heart rate control in patients with AF and LVEF >40%.
– Catheter ablation is recommended as a first-line treatment option in patients with paroxysmal AF to reduce symptoms and prevent AF progression.
Conclusion: The 2024 ESC guidelines emphasize a patient-centered, multidisciplinary approach to AF management, with a strong focus on the early identification and management of comorbidities and risk factors. The guidelines also advocate for the use of DOACs in stroke prevention and recommend specific strategies for rate and rhythm control to enhance patient outcomes.
Updated Guidelines for Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Adults (2023 AGS Beers Criteria®) – J Am Geriatr Soc
31 Aug, 2024 | 19:20h | UTCIntroduction:
The American Geriatrics Society (AGS) has released the 2023 update to the AGS Beers Criteria®, a critical tool for healthcare professionals aimed at improving the safety of medication prescribing in adults aged 65 and older. The guidelines identify potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) that should generally be avoided in older adults due to the heightened risk of adverse effects.
Key Points:
1 – Anticholinergic Drugs: First-generation antihistamines (e.g., diphenhydramine) should be avoided due to their high anticholinergic activity, which can lead to confusion, dry mouth, constipation, and other serious side effects, including increased risk of falls and dementia.
2 – Nitrofurantoin: Should be avoided in individuals with a creatinine clearance less than 30 mL/min due to the risk of pulmonary toxicity, hepatotoxicity, and peripheral neuropathy.
3 – Cardiovascular Drugs: Aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease is not recommended in older adults due to the increased risk of bleeding and lack of clear benefit. Similarly, warfarin is discouraged as an initial treatment for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism in favor of Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs) unless DOACs are contraindicated.
4 – Central Nervous System (CNS) Medications: Benzodiazepines and non-benzodiazepine receptor agonist hypnotics (“Z-drugs”) are associated with increased risks of cognitive impairment, delirium, falls, fractures, and motor vehicle accidents in older adults and should generally be avoided.
5 – Antipsychotics: Should be avoided for the treatment of behavioral problems in dementia or delirium due to the increased risk of stroke and greater rates of cognitive decline and mortality unless required for specific psychiatric conditions like schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.
Conclusion:
The 2023 AGS Beers Criteria® continues to serve as an essential guide for minimizing the risks associated with medication use in older adults. It emphasizes the need for individualized care and the importance of weighing the benefits and risks of medications, particularly in vulnerable populations.
RCT: No Difference in Postoperative Complications Between Continuation and Discontinuation of Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitors Before Major Surgery – JAMA
31 Aug, 2024 | 19:12h | UTCStudy Design and Population: This multicenter randomized clinical trial included 2,222 patients who had been treated with renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASIs) for at least 3 months and were scheduled for major noncardiac surgery at 40 hospitals in France between January 2018 and April 2023. The participants were randomly assigned to either continue RASIs until the day of surgery or to discontinue them 48 hours before surgery.
Main Findings: The trial found no significant difference in the primary outcome—a composite of all-cause mortality and major postoperative complications within 28 days—between the continuation and discontinuation groups (22% in both groups, RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87-1.19). However, the continuation group experienced a higher incidence of intraoperative hypotension (54% vs. 41%, RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.19-1.44).
Implications for Practice: Continuation of RASIs before major noncardiac surgery does not increase the risk of postoperative mortality or major complications, but it does elevate the risk of intraoperative hypotension. Clinicians should weigh these risks when deciding whether to continue or discontinue RASIs before surgery.
RCT: Beta-Blocker Interruption Post-Myocardial Infarction Increases Cardiovascular Events Without Improving Quality of Life – N Engl J Med
31 Aug, 2024 | 19:04h | UTCStudy Design and Population: This multicenter, open-label, randomized, noninferiority trial included 3,698 patients across 49 sites in France. Participants had a history of myocardial infarction, a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 40%, and had not experienced a cardiovascular event in the past six months. The study compared outcomes between patients who either interrupted or continued long-term beta-blocker therapy, with a minimum follow-up of one year.
Main Findings: Interruption of beta-blocker treatment resulted in a higher incidence of adverse cardiovascular events (23.8%) compared to continuation (21.1%), with a hazard ratio of 1.16 (95% CI, 1.01 to 1.33). The difference did not meet the criteria for noninferiority (P=0.44). Additionally, there was no significant improvement in quality of life among patients who discontinued beta-blockers.
Implications for Practice: The findings suggest that in patients with a history of myocardial infarction and stable cardiovascular health, continuing beta-blocker therapy is preferable to interruption. Discontinuation may increase the risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes without offering quality of life benefits, supporting the ongoing use of beta-blockers in this population.
RCT: Methotrexate Shows Modest Pain Reduction in Knee Osteoarthritis, More Research Needed – Ann Intern Med
18 Aug, 2024 | 18:01h | UTCStudy Design and Population: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluated the effects of oral methotrexate on 207 participants with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (KOA) who had persistent knee pain despite prior treatments. Conducted across 15 musculoskeletal clinics in the UK from June 2014 to October 2017, participants were randomly assigned to receive either methotrexate or placebo over a 12-month period.
Main Findings: At 6 months, methotrexate resulted in a modest reduction in knee pain, with a statistically significant difference of 0.79 points on the NRS compared to placebo (95% CI, 0.08 to 1.51; P = 0.030). Small but statistically significant improvements were also noted in knee stiffness and function. However, the clinical significance of these findings remains uncertain, and potential side effects of methotrexate warrant caution.
Implications for Practice: While methotrexate may offer some symptomatic relief for patients with knee osteoarthritis who do not respond to standard treatments, the modest reduction in pain and improvement in function observed in this study may not justify its routine use given the potential for significant side effects. The small magnitude of benefit suggests that methotrexate should be considered cautiously and only in select patients. Further research is necessary to confirm these findings and to better understand the risk-benefit profile of methotrexate in this population before broader clinical adoption.