Arrhythmias & EP

TOPLINE:

Left atrial appendage closure was associated with about half as many disabling or fatal strokes and lower mortality after a stroke, compared with dual oral anticoagulant therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), new observational research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• The retrospective registry analysis included 447 adult patients with nonvalvular AFib, mean age 74 years, who were hospitalized with an ischemic stroke, 322 of whom were receiving direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy, mostly (84%) apixaban or rivaroxaban, and 125 were treated with left atrial appendage closure (LAAC), almost all (97%) with Watchman or Watchman-FLX devices.
• All patients received standard stroke care, monitoring, and treatment as well as physical therapy/rehabilitation.
• For the primary outcome, researchers used the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) to determine disabling (mRS score of 3-5) and fatal (mRS score of 6) strokes at discharge and at 3 months.
• The study adjusted for age, smoking, paroxysmal AFib, prior major bleeding, prior hemorrhagic stroke, medication adherence, and other risk factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of disabling or fatal IS was significantly lower with LAAC versus with DOAC at discharge (38.3% vs. 70.3%; P < .001) and at 3 months (33.3% vs. 56.2%; P < .001), even though the LAAC group had more baseline comorbidity, for example, older age, more smokers, and more prior major bleeding.
• There was no significant difference in mortality between groups during hospitalization, but at 3 months, mortality was lower in the LAAC group (14.7% vs. 32.1%; P = .002).
• Multivariate linear regression analysis showed LAAC independently predicted more favorable mRS at discharge (2.8) and 3 months (1.4) (both P < .001) and was associated with less all-cause death at 3 months (odds ratio, 0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.64; P = .002).
• Including those that excluded the 14.4% of LAAC patients who also received DOAC therapy, sensitivity analyses patients who got reduced dose DOACs and nonadherent patients yielded nearly identical outcomes to the full cohort analysis.

IN PRACTICE:

“Despite a higher baseline risk profile, patients treated with LAAC who developed IS had better outcomes than those receiving DOAC prophylaxis,” the authors conclude, adding that several ongoing prospective trials could, “shed light on the mechanism(s) responsible for differences in stroke severity.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Mohit K. Turagam, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues. It was published online in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.

LIMITATIONS:

Despite sensitivity analyses and adjustment for risk factors, selection bias, missing data, and other confounding factors could have affected outcomes. The study didn’t evaluate recurrent IS or type and intensity of rehabilitation on outcomes. Lack of imaging data comparing stroke infarct size and volume limits understanding of exact mechanism driving higher stroke severity with DOACs. Because patients who died before reaching hospital weren’t captured in the registry, the actual mortality may be higher than reported.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Turagam has served as a consultant for Biosense Webster and Sanofi.

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

TOPLINE:

Left atrial appendage closure was associated with about half as many disabling or fatal strokes and lower mortality after a stroke, compared with dual oral anticoagulant therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), new observational research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• The retrospective registry analysis included 447 adult patients with nonvalvular AFib, mean age 74 years, who were hospitalized with an ischemic stroke, 322 of whom were receiving direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy, mostly (84%) apixaban or rivaroxaban, and 125 were treated with left atrial appendage closure (LAAC), almost all (97%) with Watchman or Watchman-FLX devices.
• All patients received standard stroke care, monitoring, and treatment as well as physical therapy/rehabilitation.
• For the primary outcome, researchers used the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) to determine disabling (mRS score of 3-5) and fatal (mRS score of 6) strokes at discharge and at 3 months.
• The study adjusted for age, smoking, paroxysmal AFib, prior major bleeding, prior hemorrhagic stroke, medication adherence, and other risk factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of disabling or fatal IS was significantly lower with LAAC versus with DOAC at discharge (38.3% vs. 70.3%; P < .001) and at 3 months (33.3% vs. 56.2%; P < .001), even though the LAAC group had more baseline comorbidity, for example, older age, more smokers, and more prior major bleeding.
• There was no significant difference in mortality between groups during hospitalization, but at 3 months, mortality was lower in the LAAC group (14.7% vs. 32.1%; P = .002).
• Multivariate linear regression analysis showed LAAC independently predicted more favorable mRS at discharge (2.8) and 3 months (1.4) (both P < .001) and was associated with less all-cause death at 3 months (odds ratio, 0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.64; P = .002).
• Including those that excluded the 14.4% of LAAC patients who also received DOAC therapy, sensitivity analyses patients who got reduced dose DOACs and nonadherent patients yielded nearly identical outcomes to the full cohort analysis.

IN PRACTICE:

“Despite a higher baseline risk profile, patients treated with LAAC who developed IS had better outcomes than those receiving DOAC prophylaxis,” the authors conclude, adding that several ongoing prospective trials could, “shed light on the mechanism(s) responsible for differences in stroke severity.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Mohit K. Turagam, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues. It was published online in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.

LIMITATIONS:

Despite sensitivity analyses and adjustment for risk factors, selection bias, missing data, and other confounding factors could have affected outcomes. The study didn’t evaluate recurrent IS or type and intensity of rehabilitation on outcomes. Lack of imaging data comparing stroke infarct size and volume limits understanding of exact mechanism driving higher stroke severity with DOACs. Because patients who died before reaching hospital weren’t captured in the registry, the actual mortality may be higher than reported.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Turagam has served as a consultant for Biosense Webster and Sanofi.

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

TOPLINE:

Left atrial appendage closure was associated with about half as many disabling or fatal strokes and lower mortality after a stroke, compared with dual oral anticoagulant therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib), new observational research shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• The retrospective registry analysis included 447 adult patients with nonvalvular AFib, mean age 74 years, who were hospitalized with an ischemic stroke, 322 of whom were receiving direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy, mostly (84%) apixaban or rivaroxaban, and 125 were treated with left atrial appendage closure (LAAC), almost all (97%) with Watchman or Watchman-FLX devices.
• All patients received standard stroke care, monitoring, and treatment as well as physical therapy/rehabilitation.
• For the primary outcome, researchers used the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) to determine disabling (mRS score of 3-5) and fatal (mRS score of 6) strokes at discharge and at 3 months.
• The study adjusted for age, smoking, paroxysmal AFib, prior major bleeding, prior hemorrhagic stroke, medication adherence, and other risk factors.

TAKEAWAY:

• The incidence of disabling or fatal IS was significantly lower with LAAC versus with DOAC at discharge (38.3% vs. 70.3%; P < .001) and at 3 months (33.3% vs. 56.2%; P < .001), even though the LAAC group had more baseline comorbidity, for example, older age, more smokers, and more prior major bleeding.
• There was no significant difference in mortality between groups during hospitalization, but at 3 months, mortality was lower in the LAAC group (14.7% vs. 32.1%; P = .002).
• Multivariate linear regression analysis showed LAAC independently predicted more favorable mRS at discharge (2.8) and 3 months (1.4) (both P < .001) and was associated with less all-cause death at 3 months (odds ratio, 0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.12-0.64; P = .002).
• Including those that excluded the 14.4% of LAAC patients who also received DOAC therapy, sensitivity analyses patients who got reduced dose DOACs and nonadherent patients yielded nearly identical outcomes to the full cohort analysis.

IN PRACTICE:

“Despite a higher baseline risk profile, patients treated with LAAC who developed IS had better outcomes than those receiving DOAC prophylaxis,” the authors conclude, adding that several ongoing prospective trials could, “shed light on the mechanism(s) responsible for differences in stroke severity.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Mohit K. Turagam, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and colleagues. It was published online in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.

LIMITATIONS:

Despite sensitivity analyses and adjustment for risk factors, selection bias, missing data, and other confounding factors could have affected outcomes. The study didn’t evaluate recurrent IS or type and intensity of rehabilitation on outcomes. Lack of imaging data comparing stroke infarct size and volume limits understanding of exact mechanism driving higher stroke severity with DOACs. Because patients who died before reaching hospital weren’t captured in the registry, the actual mortality may be higher than reported.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Turagam has served as a consultant for Biosense Webster and Sanofi.

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

In patients with subclinical atrial fibrillation (AFib) detected by implanted devices such as pacemakers or loop recorders, oral anticoagulation with apixaban resulted in a lower risk of stroke or systemic embolism than aspirin, but a higher risk of major bleeding in the ARTESIA study.

The results appear to contrast somewhat with the recently reported NOAH-AFNET 6 trial, which failed to show a reduction in stroke with the anticoagulant edoxaban versus placebo in a similar patient group, but that trial was stopped early and so was underpowered.

However, the lead investigators of both trials say the studies actually show consistent results – both found a lower rate of stroke than expected in this population, but the confidence intervals for stroke reduction with anticoagulation overlap, suggesting there is likely some effect, albeit less than that in clinical AFib.

The big question is whether the reduction in stroke with anticoagulation outweighs the increase in major bleeding.

A new meta-analysis of the two trials showed that “oral anticoagulation with edoxaban or apixaban reduces the risk of ischemic stroke by approximately one-third and increases major bleeding by roughly double.”

In absolute numbers, there were three fewer ischemic strokes per 1,000 patient-years with anticoagulation in the two trials combined, at the cost of seven more major bleeds.

The lead investigators of the two trials have somewhat different opinions on how these findings may translate into clinical practice.

Jeff Healey, MD, Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., lead investigator of the ARTESIA trial, believes that the risks and benefits need to be assessed in individual patients, but there should be some patient groups that will benefit from anticoagulation treatment.

“In patients with pacemakers or implantable loop recorders with continuous monitoring, subclinical AF[ib] is detected in about one third of patients, so this is extremely common,” he said in an interview. “The question is whether this is just a normal feature of getting older or is this like AF[ib] that we see in the clinic which increases stroke risk, and I think we can conclude from ARTESIA that this subclinical AF[ib] is associated with an increased risk of stroke, although that is lower than the risk with clinical AF[ib], and that it can be reduced by anticoagulation.”

Until recently it hasn’t been possible to quantify the risk associated with subclinical AFib, he noted. “But now we have a rich dataset to use to see if we can tease out some specifics on this. Future analyses of this dataset will help define patients where the benefits outweigh the risks of bleeding. For now, I think we can look at the data in a qualitative way and consider the totality of risk factors in each patient – their bleeding risk, stroke risk, how much AF[ib] they have, and make a decision as to whether to give anticoagulation or not.”

But Paulus Kirchhof, MD, University Heart and Vascular Center Hamburg (Germany), lead investigator of the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial said: “Both trials showed the stroke rate is low in these patients – about 1% per year – and that anticoagulation can reduce it a bit further at the expense of increasing major bleeding. I don’t believe the AF[ib] episodes picked up on these devices constitute a sufficient stroke risk to warrant anticoagulation, given the bleeding risk.”

Dr. Kirchhof suggests an alternate approach of performing further traditional AFib monitoring on these patients.

“I think going forward in my practice, when we come across this device-detected AF[ib], we will do further investigations with an established method for detecting AF[ib] involving surface ECG monitoring – maybe a 3-day or 7-day Holter. If that shows AF[ib], then we will be on firm ground to start anticoagulation. If that doesn’t show AF[ib], we will probably not use anticoagulation.”

The ARTESIA trial and the meta-analysis of the two trials were both presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. Both studies were also simultaneously published online – ARTESIA in the New England Journal of Medicine and the meta-analysis in Circulation.
 

ARTESIA

For the ARTESIA study, 4012 patients with device-detected AFib and other clinical risk factors for stroke were randomly assigned to treatment with apixaban (5 mg twice daily) or aspirin (81 mg daily).

After a mean follow-up of 3.5 years, the primary endpoint – stroke or systemic embolism – occurred in 55 patients in the apixaban group (0.78% per patient-year), compared with 86 patients in the aspirin group (1.24% per patient-year), giving a hazard ratio of 0.63 (95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.88; P = .007).

“The risk of stroke or systemic embolism was lower by 37% with apixaban than with aspirin, and the risk of disabling or fatal stroke was lower by 49%,” Dr. Healey reported.

In the “on-treatment” population, the rate of major bleeding was 1.71% per patient-year in the apixaban group and 0.94% per patient-year in the aspirin group (HR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.26-2.57; P = .001).

Fatal bleeding occurred in five patients in the apixaban group and eight patients in the aspirin group. Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 12 patients with apixaban and 15 patients with aspirin.

One of the main findings of the trial is the lower-than-expected risk of ischemic stroke in this population – about 1% per year in the aspirin group, which was reduced to 0.64% per year in the apixaban group.

The authors noted that “simply counting strokes as compared with bleeding events might suggest a neutral overall effect. With apixaban as compared with aspirin, 31 fewer cases of stroke or systemic embolism were seen in the intention-to-treat analysis, as compared with 39 more major bleeding events in the on-treatment analysis.”

However, they pointed out that strokes involve permanent loss of brain tissue, whereas major bleeding is usually reversible, with most patients having complete recovery, which was the case in this study.

“Thus, on the basis of the considerably greater severity of the stroke events prevented than the bleeding events caused, we believe that these findings favor consideration of the use of oral anticoagulation for patients with risk factors for stroke in whom subclinical atrial fibrillation develops,” they concluded.
 

First well-powered trial addressing this question

Discussing the ARTESIA trial at an AHA press conference, Christine Albert, MD, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said: “I want to emphasize how important this trial is.”

She explained that current guidelines do not recommend any treatment for patients with device-detected AFib that is not shown on ECG, even though it is known this confers some excess risk of stroke.

“ARTESIA is the first well-powered, long-term trial looking at this question,” she said. “It found a clear reduction in the risk of stroke/systemic embolism with apixaban vs aspirin, but there was also a significant amount of bleeding – about an 80% increase. The question is whether the benefit on stroke is worth it given the bleeding risk.”

Dr. Albert highlighted the low absolute risk of stroke in this study population of around 1.2%, pointing out that even with the 37% relative reduction with anticoagulation, stroke is only reduced in absolute terms by 0.4%.

“We are going to have to take this back to committees and guidelines and look at the balance between the benefit on stroke and the increase in bleeding,” she concluded.

Noting that observational studies have shown that the duration of AFib impacts the risk of stroke, Dr. Albert suggested that patients with longer-duration AFib may benefit from anticoagulation to a greater extent; and given that the bleeding seen in ARTESIA was mainly GI bleeding, it might be possible to screen out patients at high risk of GI bleeding.

She also pointed out that a lot of patients discontinued anticoagulation treatment in both ARTESIA and NOAH-AFNET 6, showing that this is not an easy strategy for elderly patients.

In an editorial accompanying publication of the ARTESIA trial, Emma Svennberg, MD, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, also concluded that, “going forward, we must balance the increased bleeding risks with the risk for disabling strokes,” and that “future substudies and meta-analyses may provide further insights regarding treatment benefits in specific subgroups.”
 

NOAH-AFNET 6: New subgroup analysis

The previously reported NOAH-AFNET 6 study randomly assigned 2,538 patients with subclinical AFib and additional risk factors for stroke to anticoagulation with edoxaban or placebo. The trial was stopped early, so it was underpowered – but it found no difference between groups in the incidence of the composite endpoint of stroke, systemic embolism, or death from cardiovascular causes or in the incidence of stroke, although there was higher risk of major bleeding.

Again, there was a low rate of stroke in this trial with just 49 strokes in total in the whole study. The NOAH-AFNET-6 investigators concluded that these patients should not receive anticoagulation because the risk of bleeding outweighed any potential benefits.

A new subanalysis of the 259 patients who had durations of subclinical AFib of 24 hours or longer in the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial was presented at the AHA meeting, and simultaneously published online in the European Heart Journal.

This showed that the rate of stroke also appeared low in patients with these long durations of subclinical AFib, and that there was no interaction between the duration of subclinical AFib and the efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulation.

But with such a low number of events in the study as a whole and in the long duration subclinical AFib subgroup (in which there were just two strokes in each treatment group), this analysis was unlikely to show a difference, Dr. Kirchhof commented.

The subgroup analysis did, however, show that patients experiencing subclinical AFib durations of 24 hours or more were more likely to develop clinical AFib over time than those with shorter durations, suggesting the need for regular ECGs in these patients.

Dr. Kirchhof said better methods are needed to detect patients with subclinical AFib at high risk of stroke. “I don’t think our clinical stroke risk factor scores such as CHA2DS2-VASc are sufficient to detect high-risk patients. Patients in both NOAH-AFNET 6 and ARTESIA had a median CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4, but they had a stroke rate of just 1% per year,” he noted.

The meta-analysis of the two trials showed that the results from both are consistent, with an overall reduction in ischemic stroke with oral anticoagulation (relative risk, 0.68). Oral anticoagulation also reduced a composite of cardiovascular death, all-cause stroke, peripheral arterial embolism, myocardial infarction, or pulmonary embolism (RR, 0.85).

There was no significant difference in cardiovascular death (RR, 0.95) or all-cause mortality (RR, 1.08), but anticoagulation significantly increased major bleeding (RR, 1.62).
 

Aspirin use complicates results

Dr. Healey said further analyses of the ARTESIA data will try to tease out the effect of concomitant aspirin use in the trial.

He explained that patients in this trial were allowed to take a single antiplatelet agent on top of study therapy.

“It is difficult to work out the exact use of antiplatelet therapy as it changed throughout the study,” he said. “About two-thirds were taking antiplatelet agents at the time of enrollment into the trial, but this decreased throughout the study. Many clinicians stopped open-label antiplatelet therapy during the trial when new evidence came out to suggest that there was no added benefit of adding aspirin on top of anticoagulants.

“We need to look carefully as to what impact that may have had,” Dr. Healey added. “We know from other studies that adding an antiplatelet on top of an anticoagulant doesn’t do much to thromboembolic events, but it approximately doubles the risk of major bleeding.”

In contrast, the NOAH-AFNET trial did not allow aspirin use in the anticoagulation group and aspirin was taken by around half the patients in the placebo group who had an indication for its use.

The authors of the meta-analysis pointed out that the omission of aspirin in nearly half of the control patients in NOAH-AFNET 6 and the early termination of the trial may have led to a slightly higher estimate for excess major bleeding with anticoagulation.

The ARTESIA study was supported by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, the Bristol Myers Squibb-Pfizer Alliance, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Canadian Stroke Prevention Intervention Network, Hamilton Health Sciences, the Advancing Clinical Trials Network and the Population Health Research Institute. Dr. Healey reported research grants and speaking fees from BMS/Pfizer Alliance, Servier, Novartis, Boston Scientific, Medtronic; and acts as a consultant to Bayer, Servier and Boston Scientific. The NOAH-AFNET 6 trial was an investigator-initiated trial funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research and Daiichi Sankyo Europe. Dr. Kirchhof reported research support from several drug and device companies active in AFib. He is also listed as an inventor on two patents held by the University of Hamburg on AFib therapy and AFib markers.

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

In patients with subclinical atrial fibrillation (AFib) detected by implanted devices such as pacemakers or loop recorders, oral anticoagulation with apixaban resulted in a lower risk of stroke or systemic embolism than aspirin, but a higher risk of major bleeding in the ARTESIA study.

The results appear to contrast somewhat with the recently reported NOAH-AFNET 6 trial, which failed to show a reduction in stroke with the anticoagulant edoxaban versus placebo in a similar patient group, but that trial was stopped early and so was underpowered.

However, the lead investigators of both trials say the studies actually show consistent results – both found a lower rate of stroke than expected in this population, but the confidence intervals for stroke reduction with anticoagulation overlap, suggesting there is likely some effect, albeit less than that in clinical AFib.

The big question is whether the reduction in stroke with anticoagulation outweighs the increase in major bleeding.

A new meta-analysis of the two trials showed that “oral anticoagulation with edoxaban or apixaban reduces the risk of ischemic stroke by approximately one-third and increases major bleeding by roughly double.”

In absolute numbers, there were three fewer ischemic strokes per 1,000 patient-years with anticoagulation in the two trials combined, at the cost of seven more major bleeds.

The lead investigators of the two trials have somewhat different opinions on how these findings may translate into clinical practice.

Jeff Healey, MD, Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., lead investigator of the ARTESIA trial, believes that the risks and benefits need to be assessed in individual patients, but there should be some patient groups that will benefit from anticoagulation treatment.

“In patients with pacemakers or implantable loop recorders with continuous monitoring, subclinical AF[ib] is detected in about one third of patients, so this is extremely common,” he said in an interview. “The question is whether this is just a normal feature of getting older or is this like AF[ib] that we see in the clinic which increases stroke risk, and I think we can conclude from ARTESIA that this subclinical AF[ib] is associated with an increased risk of stroke, although that is lower than the risk with clinical AF[ib], and that it can be reduced by anticoagulation.”

Until recently it hasn’t been possible to quantify the risk associated with subclinical AFib, he noted. “But now we have a rich dataset to use to see if we can tease out some specifics on this. Future analyses of this dataset will help define patients where the benefits outweigh the risks of bleeding. For now, I think we can look at the data in a qualitative way and consider the totality of risk factors in each patient – their bleeding risk, stroke risk, how much AF[ib] they have, and make a decision as to whether to give anticoagulation or not.”

But Paulus Kirchhof, MD, University Heart and Vascular Center Hamburg (Germany), lead investigator of the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial said: “Both trials showed the stroke rate is low in these patients – about 1% per year – and that anticoagulation can reduce it a bit further at the expense of increasing major bleeding. I don’t believe the AF[ib] episodes picked up on these devices constitute a sufficient stroke risk to warrant anticoagulation, given the bleeding risk.”

Dr. Kirchhof suggests an alternate approach of performing further traditional AFib monitoring on these patients.

“I think going forward in my practice, when we come across this device-detected AF[ib], we will do further investigations with an established method for detecting AF[ib] involving surface ECG monitoring – maybe a 3-day or 7-day Holter. If that shows AF[ib], then we will be on firm ground to start anticoagulation. If that doesn’t show AF[ib], we will probably not use anticoagulation.”

The ARTESIA trial and the meta-analysis of the two trials were both presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. Both studies were also simultaneously published online – ARTESIA in the New England Journal of Medicine and the meta-analysis in Circulation.
 

ARTESIA

For the ARTESIA study, 4012 patients with device-detected AFib and other clinical risk factors for stroke were randomly assigned to treatment with apixaban (5 mg twice daily) or aspirin (81 mg daily).

After a mean follow-up of 3.5 years, the primary endpoint – stroke or systemic embolism – occurred in 55 patients in the apixaban group (0.78% per patient-year), compared with 86 patients in the aspirin group (1.24% per patient-year), giving a hazard ratio of 0.63 (95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.88; P = .007).

“The risk of stroke or systemic embolism was lower by 37% with apixaban than with aspirin, and the risk of disabling or fatal stroke was lower by 49%,” Dr. Healey reported.

In the “on-treatment” population, the rate of major bleeding was 1.71% per patient-year in the apixaban group and 0.94% per patient-year in the aspirin group (HR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.26-2.57; P = .001).

Fatal bleeding occurred in five patients in the apixaban group and eight patients in the aspirin group. Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 12 patients with apixaban and 15 patients with aspirin.

One of the main findings of the trial is the lower-than-expected risk of ischemic stroke in this population – about 1% per year in the aspirin group, which was reduced to 0.64% per year in the apixaban group.

The authors noted that “simply counting strokes as compared with bleeding events might suggest a neutral overall effect. With apixaban as compared with aspirin, 31 fewer cases of stroke or systemic embolism were seen in the intention-to-treat analysis, as compared with 39 more major bleeding events in the on-treatment analysis.”

However, they pointed out that strokes involve permanent loss of brain tissue, whereas major bleeding is usually reversible, with most patients having complete recovery, which was the case in this study.

“Thus, on the basis of the considerably greater severity of the stroke events prevented than the bleeding events caused, we believe that these findings favor consideration of the use of oral anticoagulation for patients with risk factors for stroke in whom subclinical atrial fibrillation develops,” they concluded.
 

First well-powered trial addressing this question

Discussing the ARTESIA trial at an AHA press conference, Christine Albert, MD, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said: “I want to emphasize how important this trial is.”

She explained that current guidelines do not recommend any treatment for patients with device-detected AFib that is not shown on ECG, even though it is known this confers some excess risk of stroke.

“ARTESIA is the first well-powered, long-term trial looking at this question,” she said. “It found a clear reduction in the risk of stroke/systemic embolism with apixaban vs aspirin, but there was also a significant amount of bleeding – about an 80% increase. The question is whether the benefit on stroke is worth it given the bleeding risk.”

Dr. Albert highlighted the low absolute risk of stroke in this study population of around 1.2%, pointing out that even with the 37% relative reduction with anticoagulation, stroke is only reduced in absolute terms by 0.4%.

“We are going to have to take this back to committees and guidelines and look at the balance between the benefit on stroke and the increase in bleeding,” she concluded.

Noting that observational studies have shown that the duration of AFib impacts the risk of stroke, Dr. Albert suggested that patients with longer-duration AFib may benefit from anticoagulation to a greater extent; and given that the bleeding seen in ARTESIA was mainly GI bleeding, it might be possible to screen out patients at high risk of GI bleeding.

She also pointed out that a lot of patients discontinued anticoagulation treatment in both ARTESIA and NOAH-AFNET 6, showing that this is not an easy strategy for elderly patients.

In an editorial accompanying publication of the ARTESIA trial, Emma Svennberg, MD, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, also concluded that, “going forward, we must balance the increased bleeding risks with the risk for disabling strokes,” and that “future substudies and meta-analyses may provide further insights regarding treatment benefits in specific subgroups.”
 

NOAH-AFNET 6: New subgroup analysis

The previously reported NOAH-AFNET 6 study randomly assigned 2,538 patients with subclinical AFib and additional risk factors for stroke to anticoagulation with edoxaban or placebo. The trial was stopped early, so it was underpowered – but it found no difference between groups in the incidence of the composite endpoint of stroke, systemic embolism, or death from cardiovascular causes or in the incidence of stroke, although there was higher risk of major bleeding.

Again, there was a low rate of stroke in this trial with just 49 strokes in total in the whole study. The NOAH-AFNET-6 investigators concluded that these patients should not receive anticoagulation because the risk of bleeding outweighed any potential benefits.

A new subanalysis of the 259 patients who had durations of subclinical AFib of 24 hours or longer in the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial was presented at the AHA meeting, and simultaneously published online in the European Heart Journal.

This showed that the rate of stroke also appeared low in patients with these long durations of subclinical AFib, and that there was no interaction between the duration of subclinical AFib and the efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulation.

But with such a low number of events in the study as a whole and in the long duration subclinical AFib subgroup (in which there were just two strokes in each treatment group), this analysis was unlikely to show a difference, Dr. Kirchhof commented.

The subgroup analysis did, however, show that patients experiencing subclinical AFib durations of 24 hours or more were more likely to develop clinical AFib over time than those with shorter durations, suggesting the need for regular ECGs in these patients.

Dr. Kirchhof said better methods are needed to detect patients with subclinical AFib at high risk of stroke. “I don’t think our clinical stroke risk factor scores such as CHA2DS2-VASc are sufficient to detect high-risk patients. Patients in both NOAH-AFNET 6 and ARTESIA had a median CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4, but they had a stroke rate of just 1% per year,” he noted.

The meta-analysis of the two trials showed that the results from both are consistent, with an overall reduction in ischemic stroke with oral anticoagulation (relative risk, 0.68). Oral anticoagulation also reduced a composite of cardiovascular death, all-cause stroke, peripheral arterial embolism, myocardial infarction, or pulmonary embolism (RR, 0.85).

There was no significant difference in cardiovascular death (RR, 0.95) or all-cause mortality (RR, 1.08), but anticoagulation significantly increased major bleeding (RR, 1.62).
 

Aspirin use complicates results

Dr. Healey said further analyses of the ARTESIA data will try to tease out the effect of concomitant aspirin use in the trial.

He explained that patients in this trial were allowed to take a single antiplatelet agent on top of study therapy.

“It is difficult to work out the exact use of antiplatelet therapy as it changed throughout the study,” he said. “About two-thirds were taking antiplatelet agents at the time of enrollment into the trial, but this decreased throughout the study. Many clinicians stopped open-label antiplatelet therapy during the trial when new evidence came out to suggest that there was no added benefit of adding aspirin on top of anticoagulants.

“We need to look carefully as to what impact that may have had,” Dr. Healey added. “We know from other studies that adding an antiplatelet on top of an anticoagulant doesn’t do much to thromboembolic events, but it approximately doubles the risk of major bleeding.”

In contrast, the NOAH-AFNET trial did not allow aspirin use in the anticoagulation group and aspirin was taken by around half the patients in the placebo group who had an indication for its use.

The authors of the meta-analysis pointed out that the omission of aspirin in nearly half of the control patients in NOAH-AFNET 6 and the early termination of the trial may have led to a slightly higher estimate for excess major bleeding with anticoagulation.

The ARTESIA study was supported by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, the Bristol Myers Squibb-Pfizer Alliance, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Canadian Stroke Prevention Intervention Network, Hamilton Health Sciences, the Advancing Clinical Trials Network and the Population Health Research Institute. Dr. Healey reported research grants and speaking fees from BMS/Pfizer Alliance, Servier, Novartis, Boston Scientific, Medtronic; and acts as a consultant to Bayer, Servier and Boston Scientific. The NOAH-AFNET 6 trial was an investigator-initiated trial funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research and Daiichi Sankyo Europe. Dr. Kirchhof reported research support from several drug and device companies active in AFib. He is also listed as an inventor on two patents held by the University of Hamburg on AFib therapy and AFib markers.

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

In patients with subclinical atrial fibrillation (AFib) detected by implanted devices such as pacemakers or loop recorders, oral anticoagulation with apixaban resulted in a lower risk of stroke or systemic embolism than aspirin, but a higher risk of major bleeding in the ARTESIA study.

The results appear to contrast somewhat with the recently reported NOAH-AFNET 6 trial, which failed to show a reduction in stroke with the anticoagulant edoxaban versus placebo in a similar patient group, but that trial was stopped early and so was underpowered.

However, the lead investigators of both trials say the studies actually show consistent results – both found a lower rate of stroke than expected in this population, but the confidence intervals for stroke reduction with anticoagulation overlap, suggesting there is likely some effect, albeit less than that in clinical AFib.

The big question is whether the reduction in stroke with anticoagulation outweighs the increase in major bleeding.

A new meta-analysis of the two trials showed that “oral anticoagulation with edoxaban or apixaban reduces the risk of ischemic stroke by approximately one-third and increases major bleeding by roughly double.”

In absolute numbers, there were three fewer ischemic strokes per 1,000 patient-years with anticoagulation in the two trials combined, at the cost of seven more major bleeds.

The lead investigators of the two trials have somewhat different opinions on how these findings may translate into clinical practice.

Jeff Healey, MD, Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., lead investigator of the ARTESIA trial, believes that the risks and benefits need to be assessed in individual patients, but there should be some patient groups that will benefit from anticoagulation treatment.

“In patients with pacemakers or implantable loop recorders with continuous monitoring, subclinical AF[ib] is detected in about one third of patients, so this is extremely common,” he said in an interview. “The question is whether this is just a normal feature of getting older or is this like AF[ib] that we see in the clinic which increases stroke risk, and I think we can conclude from ARTESIA that this subclinical AF[ib] is associated with an increased risk of stroke, although that is lower than the risk with clinical AF[ib], and that it can be reduced by anticoagulation.”

Until recently it hasn’t been possible to quantify the risk associated with subclinical AFib, he noted. “But now we have a rich dataset to use to see if we can tease out some specifics on this. Future analyses of this dataset will help define patients where the benefits outweigh the risks of bleeding. For now, I think we can look at the data in a qualitative way and consider the totality of risk factors in each patient – their bleeding risk, stroke risk, how much AF[ib] they have, and make a decision as to whether to give anticoagulation or not.”

But Paulus Kirchhof, MD, University Heart and Vascular Center Hamburg (Germany), lead investigator of the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial said: “Both trials showed the stroke rate is low in these patients – about 1% per year – and that anticoagulation can reduce it a bit further at the expense of increasing major bleeding. I don’t believe the AF[ib] episodes picked up on these devices constitute a sufficient stroke risk to warrant anticoagulation, given the bleeding risk.”

Dr. Kirchhof suggests an alternate approach of performing further traditional AFib monitoring on these patients.

“I think going forward in my practice, when we come across this device-detected AF[ib], we will do further investigations with an established method for detecting AF[ib] involving surface ECG monitoring – maybe a 3-day or 7-day Holter. If that shows AF[ib], then we will be on firm ground to start anticoagulation. If that doesn’t show AF[ib], we will probably not use anticoagulation.”

The ARTESIA trial and the meta-analysis of the two trials were both presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association. Both studies were also simultaneously published online – ARTESIA in the New England Journal of Medicine and the meta-analysis in Circulation.
 

ARTESIA

For the ARTESIA study, 4012 patients with device-detected AFib and other clinical risk factors for stroke were randomly assigned to treatment with apixaban (5 mg twice daily) or aspirin (81 mg daily).

After a mean follow-up of 3.5 years, the primary endpoint – stroke or systemic embolism – occurred in 55 patients in the apixaban group (0.78% per patient-year), compared with 86 patients in the aspirin group (1.24% per patient-year), giving a hazard ratio of 0.63 (95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.88; P = .007).

“The risk of stroke or systemic embolism was lower by 37% with apixaban than with aspirin, and the risk of disabling or fatal stroke was lower by 49%,” Dr. Healey reported.

In the “on-treatment” population, the rate of major bleeding was 1.71% per patient-year in the apixaban group and 0.94% per patient-year in the aspirin group (HR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.26-2.57; P = .001).

Fatal bleeding occurred in five patients in the apixaban group and eight patients in the aspirin group. Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 12 patients with apixaban and 15 patients with aspirin.

One of the main findings of the trial is the lower-than-expected risk of ischemic stroke in this population – about 1% per year in the aspirin group, which was reduced to 0.64% per year in the apixaban group.

The authors noted that “simply counting strokes as compared with bleeding events might suggest a neutral overall effect. With apixaban as compared with aspirin, 31 fewer cases of stroke or systemic embolism were seen in the intention-to-treat analysis, as compared with 39 more major bleeding events in the on-treatment analysis.”

However, they pointed out that strokes involve permanent loss of brain tissue, whereas major bleeding is usually reversible, with most patients having complete recovery, which was the case in this study.

“Thus, on the basis of the considerably greater severity of the stroke events prevented than the bleeding events caused, we believe that these findings favor consideration of the use of oral anticoagulation for patients with risk factors for stroke in whom subclinical atrial fibrillation develops,” they concluded.
 

First well-powered trial addressing this question

Discussing the ARTESIA trial at an AHA press conference, Christine Albert, MD, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said: “I want to emphasize how important this trial is.”

She explained that current guidelines do not recommend any treatment for patients with device-detected AFib that is not shown on ECG, even though it is known this confers some excess risk of stroke.

“ARTESIA is the first well-powered, long-term trial looking at this question,” she said. “It found a clear reduction in the risk of stroke/systemic embolism with apixaban vs aspirin, but there was also a significant amount of bleeding – about an 80% increase. The question is whether the benefit on stroke is worth it given the bleeding risk.”

Dr. Albert highlighted the low absolute risk of stroke in this study population of around 1.2%, pointing out that even with the 37% relative reduction with anticoagulation, stroke is only reduced in absolute terms by 0.4%.

“We are going to have to take this back to committees and guidelines and look at the balance between the benefit on stroke and the increase in bleeding,” she concluded.

Noting that observational studies have shown that the duration of AFib impacts the risk of stroke, Dr. Albert suggested that patients with longer-duration AFib may benefit from anticoagulation to a greater extent; and given that the bleeding seen in ARTESIA was mainly GI bleeding, it might be possible to screen out patients at high risk of GI bleeding.

She also pointed out that a lot of patients discontinued anticoagulation treatment in both ARTESIA and NOAH-AFNET 6, showing that this is not an easy strategy for elderly patients.

In an editorial accompanying publication of the ARTESIA trial, Emma Svennberg, MD, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, also concluded that, “going forward, we must balance the increased bleeding risks with the risk for disabling strokes,” and that “future substudies and meta-analyses may provide further insights regarding treatment benefits in specific subgroups.”
 

NOAH-AFNET 6: New subgroup analysis

The previously reported NOAH-AFNET 6 study randomly assigned 2,538 patients with subclinical AFib and additional risk factors for stroke to anticoagulation with edoxaban or placebo. The trial was stopped early, so it was underpowered – but it found no difference between groups in the incidence of the composite endpoint of stroke, systemic embolism, or death from cardiovascular causes or in the incidence of stroke, although there was higher risk of major bleeding.

Again, there was a low rate of stroke in this trial with just 49 strokes in total in the whole study. The NOAH-AFNET-6 investigators concluded that these patients should not receive anticoagulation because the risk of bleeding outweighed any potential benefits.

A new subanalysis of the 259 patients who had durations of subclinical AFib of 24 hours or longer in the NOAH-AFNET 6 trial was presented at the AHA meeting, and simultaneously published online in the European Heart Journal.

This showed that the rate of stroke also appeared low in patients with these long durations of subclinical AFib, and that there was no interaction between the duration of subclinical AFib and the efficacy and safety of oral anticoagulation.

But with such a low number of events in the study as a whole and in the long duration subclinical AFib subgroup (in which there were just two strokes in each treatment group), this analysis was unlikely to show a difference, Dr. Kirchhof commented.

The subgroup analysis did, however, show that patients experiencing subclinical AFib durations of 24 hours or more were more likely to develop clinical AFib over time than those with shorter durations, suggesting the need for regular ECGs in these patients.

Dr. Kirchhof said better methods are needed to detect patients with subclinical AFib at high risk of stroke. “I don’t think our clinical stroke risk factor scores such as CHA2DS2-VASc are sufficient to detect high-risk patients. Patients in both NOAH-AFNET 6 and ARTESIA had a median CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4, but they had a stroke rate of just 1% per year,” he noted.

The meta-analysis of the two trials showed that the results from both are consistent, with an overall reduction in ischemic stroke with oral anticoagulation (relative risk, 0.68). Oral anticoagulation also reduced a composite of cardiovascular death, all-cause stroke, peripheral arterial embolism, myocardial infarction, or pulmonary embolism (RR, 0.85).

There was no significant difference in cardiovascular death (RR, 0.95) or all-cause mortality (RR, 1.08), but anticoagulation significantly increased major bleeding (RR, 1.62).
 

Aspirin use complicates results

Dr. Healey said further analyses of the ARTESIA data will try to tease out the effect of concomitant aspirin use in the trial.

He explained that patients in this trial were allowed to take a single antiplatelet agent on top of study therapy.

“It is difficult to work out the exact use of antiplatelet therapy as it changed throughout the study,” he said. “About two-thirds were taking antiplatelet agents at the time of enrollment into the trial, but this decreased throughout the study. Many clinicians stopped open-label antiplatelet therapy during the trial when new evidence came out to suggest that there was no added benefit of adding aspirin on top of anticoagulants.

“We need to look carefully as to what impact that may have had,” Dr. Healey added. “We know from other studies that adding an antiplatelet on top of an anticoagulant doesn’t do much to thromboembolic events, but it approximately doubles the risk of major bleeding.”

In contrast, the NOAH-AFNET trial did not allow aspirin use in the anticoagulation group and aspirin was taken by around half the patients in the placebo group who had an indication for its use.

The authors of the meta-analysis pointed out that the omission of aspirin in nearly half of the control patients in NOAH-AFNET 6 and the early termination of the trial may have led to a slightly higher estimate for excess major bleeding with anticoagulation.

The ARTESIA study was supported by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, the Bristol Myers Squibb-Pfizer Alliance, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Canadian Stroke Prevention Intervention Network, Hamilton Health Sciences, the Advancing Clinical Trials Network and the Population Health Research Institute. Dr. Healey reported research grants and speaking fees from BMS/Pfizer Alliance, Servier, Novartis, Boston Scientific, Medtronic; and acts as a consultant to Bayer, Servier and Boston Scientific. The NOAH-AFNET 6 trial was an investigator-initiated trial funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research and Daiichi Sankyo Europe. Dr. Kirchhof reported research support from several drug and device companies active in AFib. He is also listed as an inventor on two patents held by the University of Hamburg on AFib therapy and AFib markers.

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

Further details from the phase 2b AZALEA trial with the factor XI inhibitor abelacimab (Anthos) show significant reductions in major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, compared with rivaroxaban, for patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib); the risk of stroke was moderate to high.

The trial was stopped earlier this year because of an “overwhelming” reduction in bleeding with abelacimab in comparison to rivaroxaban. Abelacimab is a monoclonal antibody given by subcutaneous injection once a month.

“Details of the bleeding results have now shown that the 150-mg dose of abelacimab, which is the dose being carried forward to phase 3 trials, was associated with a 67% reduction in major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, the primary endpoint of the study.”

In addition, major bleeding was reduced by 74%, and major gastrointestinal bleeding was reduced by 93%.

“We are seeing really profound reductions in bleeding with this agent vs. a NOAC [novel oral anticoagulant],” lead AZALEA investigator Christian Ruff, MD, professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

“Major bleeding – effectively the type of bleeding that results in hospitalization – is reduced by more than two-thirds, and major GI bleeding – which is the most common type of bleeding experienced by AF patients on anticoagulants – is almost eliminated. This gives us real hope that we have finally found an anticoagulant that is remarkably safe and will allow us to use anticoagulation in our most vulnerable patients,” he said.

Dr. Ruff presented the full results from the AZALEA trial at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

He noted that AFib is one of the most common medical conditions in the world and that it confers an increased risk of stroke. Anticoagulants reduce this risk very effectively, and while the NOACS, such as apixaban and rivaroxaban, are safer than warfarin, significant bleeding still occurs, and “shockingly,” he said, between 30% and 60% of patients are not prescribed an anticoagulant or discontinue treatment because of bleeding concerns.

“Clearly, we need safer anticoagulants to protect these patients. Factor XI inhibitors, of which abelacimab is one, have emerged as the most promising agents, as they are thought to provide precision anticoagulation,” Dr. Ruff said.

He explained that factor XI appears to be involved in the formation of thrombus, which blocks arteries and causes strokes and myocardial infarction (thrombosis), but not in the healing process of blood vessels after injury (hemostasis). So, it is believed that inhibiting factor XI should reduce thrombotic events without causing excess bleeding.

AZALEA, which is the largest and longest trial of a factor XI inhibitor to date, enrolled 1,287 adults with AF who were at moderate to high risk of stroke.

They were randomly assigned to receive one of three treatments: oral rivaroxaban 20 mg daily; abelacimab 90 mg; or abelacimab 150 mg. Abelacimab was given monthly by injection.

Both doses of abelacimab inhibited factor XI almost completely; 97% inhibition was achieved with the 90-mg dose, and 99% inhibition was achieved with the 150-mg dose.

Results showed that after a median follow-up of 1.8 years, there was a clear reduction in all bleeding endpoints with both doses of abelacimab, compared with rivaroxaban.

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

Further details from the phase 2b AZALEA trial with the factor XI inhibitor abelacimab (Anthos) show significant reductions in major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, compared with rivaroxaban, for patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib); the risk of stroke was moderate to high.

The trial was stopped earlier this year because of an “overwhelming” reduction in bleeding with abelacimab in comparison to rivaroxaban. Abelacimab is a monoclonal antibody given by subcutaneous injection once a month.

“Details of the bleeding results have now shown that the 150-mg dose of abelacimab, which is the dose being carried forward to phase 3 trials, was associated with a 67% reduction in major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, the primary endpoint of the study.”

In addition, major bleeding was reduced by 74%, and major gastrointestinal bleeding was reduced by 93%.

“We are seeing really profound reductions in bleeding with this agent vs. a NOAC [novel oral anticoagulant],” lead AZALEA investigator Christian Ruff, MD, professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

“Major bleeding – effectively the type of bleeding that results in hospitalization – is reduced by more than two-thirds, and major GI bleeding – which is the most common type of bleeding experienced by AF patients on anticoagulants – is almost eliminated. This gives us real hope that we have finally found an anticoagulant that is remarkably safe and will allow us to use anticoagulation in our most vulnerable patients,” he said.

Dr. Ruff presented the full results from the AZALEA trial at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

He noted that AFib is one of the most common medical conditions in the world and that it confers an increased risk of stroke. Anticoagulants reduce this risk very effectively, and while the NOACS, such as apixaban and rivaroxaban, are safer than warfarin, significant bleeding still occurs, and “shockingly,” he said, between 30% and 60% of patients are not prescribed an anticoagulant or discontinue treatment because of bleeding concerns.

“Clearly, we need safer anticoagulants to protect these patients. Factor XI inhibitors, of which abelacimab is one, have emerged as the most promising agents, as they are thought to provide precision anticoagulation,” Dr. Ruff said.

He explained that factor XI appears to be involved in the formation of thrombus, which blocks arteries and causes strokes and myocardial infarction (thrombosis), but not in the healing process of blood vessels after injury (hemostasis). So, it is believed that inhibiting factor XI should reduce thrombotic events without causing excess bleeding.

AZALEA, which is the largest and longest trial of a factor XI inhibitor to date, enrolled 1,287 adults with AF who were at moderate to high risk of stroke.

They were randomly assigned to receive one of three treatments: oral rivaroxaban 20 mg daily; abelacimab 90 mg; or abelacimab 150 mg. Abelacimab was given monthly by injection.

Both doses of abelacimab inhibited factor XI almost completely; 97% inhibition was achieved with the 90-mg dose, and 99% inhibition was achieved with the 150-mg dose.

Results showed that after a median follow-up of 1.8 years, there was a clear reduction in all bleeding endpoints with both doses of abelacimab, compared with rivaroxaban.

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

Further details from the phase 2b AZALEA trial with the factor XI inhibitor abelacimab (Anthos) show significant reductions in major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, compared with rivaroxaban, for patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib); the risk of stroke was moderate to high.

The trial was stopped earlier this year because of an “overwhelming” reduction in bleeding with abelacimab in comparison to rivaroxaban. Abelacimab is a monoclonal antibody given by subcutaneous injection once a month.

“Details of the bleeding results have now shown that the 150-mg dose of abelacimab, which is the dose being carried forward to phase 3 trials, was associated with a 67% reduction in major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, the primary endpoint of the study.”

In addition, major bleeding was reduced by 74%, and major gastrointestinal bleeding was reduced by 93%.

“We are seeing really profound reductions in bleeding with this agent vs. a NOAC [novel oral anticoagulant],” lead AZALEA investigator Christian Ruff, MD, professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

“Major bleeding – effectively the type of bleeding that results in hospitalization – is reduced by more than two-thirds, and major GI bleeding – which is the most common type of bleeding experienced by AF patients on anticoagulants – is almost eliminated. This gives us real hope that we have finally found an anticoagulant that is remarkably safe and will allow us to use anticoagulation in our most vulnerable patients,” he said.

Dr. Ruff presented the full results from the AZALEA trial at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

He noted that AFib is one of the most common medical conditions in the world and that it confers an increased risk of stroke. Anticoagulants reduce this risk very effectively, and while the NOACS, such as apixaban and rivaroxaban, are safer than warfarin, significant bleeding still occurs, and “shockingly,” he said, between 30% and 60% of patients are not prescribed an anticoagulant or discontinue treatment because of bleeding concerns.

“Clearly, we need safer anticoagulants to protect these patients. Factor XI inhibitors, of which abelacimab is one, have emerged as the most promising agents, as they are thought to provide precision anticoagulation,” Dr. Ruff said.

He explained that factor XI appears to be involved in the formation of thrombus, which blocks arteries and causes strokes and myocardial infarction (thrombosis), but not in the healing process of blood vessels after injury (hemostasis). So, it is believed that inhibiting factor XI should reduce thrombotic events without causing excess bleeding.

AZALEA, which is the largest and longest trial of a factor XI inhibitor to date, enrolled 1,287 adults with AF who were at moderate to high risk of stroke.

They were randomly assigned to receive one of three treatments: oral rivaroxaban 20 mg daily; abelacimab 90 mg; or abelacimab 150 mg. Abelacimab was given monthly by injection.

Both doses of abelacimab inhibited factor XI almost completely; 97% inhibition was achieved with the 90-mg dose, and 99% inhibition was achieved with the 150-mg dose.

Results showed that after a median follow-up of 1.8 years, there was a clear reduction in all bleeding endpoints with both doses of abelacimab, compared with rivaroxaban.

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

TOPLINE:

Adults with atrial fibrillation (AFib) are at increased risk for dementia, especially when AFib occurs before age 65 years, new research shows. Investigators note the findings highlight the importance of monitoring cognitive function in adults with AF.

METHODOLOGY:

• This prospective, population-based cohort study leveraged data from 433,746 UK Biobank participants (55% women), including 30,601 with AFib, who were followed for a median of 12.6 years
• Incident cases of dementia were determined through linkage from multiple databases.
• Cox proportional hazards models and propensity score matching were used to estimate the association between age at onset of AFib and incident dementia.

TAKEAWAY:

• During follow-up, new-onset dementia occurred in 5,898 participants (2,546 with Alzheimer’s disease [AD] and 1,211 with vascular dementia [VD]), of which, 1,031 had AFib (350 with AD; 320 with VD).
• Compared with participants without AFib, those with AFib had a 42% higher risk for all-cause dementia (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.42; P < .001) and more than double the risk for VD (aHR, 2.06; P < .001), but no significantly higher risk for AD.
• Younger age at AFib onset was associated with higher risks for all-cause dementia, AD and VD, with aHRs per 10-year decrease of 1.23, 1.27, and 1.35, respectively (P < .001 for all).
• After propensity score matching, AFib onset before age 65 years had the highest risk for all-cause dementia (aHR, 1.82; P < .001), followed by AF onset at age 65-74 years (aHR, 1.47; P < .001). Similar results were seen in AD and VD.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings indicate that careful monitoring of cognitive function for patients with a younger [AFib] onset age, particularly those diagnosed with [AFib] before age 65 years, is important to attenuate the risk of subsequent dementia,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Wenya Zhang, with the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Because the study was observational, a cause-effect relationship cannot be established. Despite the adjustment for many underlying confounders, residual unidentified confounders may still exist. The vast majority of participants were White. The analyses did not consider the potential impact of effective treatment of AFib on dementia risk.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no commercial funding. The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adults with atrial fibrillation (AFib) are at increased risk for dementia, especially when AFib occurs before age 65 years, new research shows. Investigators note the findings highlight the importance of monitoring cognitive function in adults with AF.

METHODOLOGY:

• This prospective, population-based cohort study leveraged data from 433,746 UK Biobank participants (55% women), including 30,601 with AFib, who were followed for a median of 12.6 years
• Incident cases of dementia were determined through linkage from multiple databases.
• Cox proportional hazards models and propensity score matching were used to estimate the association between age at onset of AFib and incident dementia.

TAKEAWAY:

• During follow-up, new-onset dementia occurred in 5,898 participants (2,546 with Alzheimer’s disease [AD] and 1,211 with vascular dementia [VD]), of which, 1,031 had AFib (350 with AD; 320 with VD).
• Compared with participants without AFib, those with AFib had a 42% higher risk for all-cause dementia (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.42; P < .001) and more than double the risk for VD (aHR, 2.06; P < .001), but no significantly higher risk for AD.
• Younger age at AFib onset was associated with higher risks for all-cause dementia, AD and VD, with aHRs per 10-year decrease of 1.23, 1.27, and 1.35, respectively (P < .001 for all).
• After propensity score matching, AFib onset before age 65 years had the highest risk for all-cause dementia (aHR, 1.82; P < .001), followed by AF onset at age 65-74 years (aHR, 1.47; P < .001). Similar results were seen in AD and VD.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings indicate that careful monitoring of cognitive function for patients with a younger [AFib] onset age, particularly those diagnosed with [AFib] before age 65 years, is important to attenuate the risk of subsequent dementia,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Wenya Zhang, with the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Because the study was observational, a cause-effect relationship cannot be established. Despite the adjustment for many underlying confounders, residual unidentified confounders may still exist. The vast majority of participants were White. The analyses did not consider the potential impact of effective treatment of AFib on dementia risk.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no commercial funding. The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adults with atrial fibrillation (AFib) are at increased risk for dementia, especially when AFib occurs before age 65 years, new research shows. Investigators note the findings highlight the importance of monitoring cognitive function in adults with AF.

METHODOLOGY:

• This prospective, population-based cohort study leveraged data from 433,746 UK Biobank participants (55% women), including 30,601 with AFib, who were followed for a median of 12.6 years
• Incident cases of dementia were determined through linkage from multiple databases.
• Cox proportional hazards models and propensity score matching were used to estimate the association between age at onset of AFib and incident dementia.

TAKEAWAY:

• During follow-up, new-onset dementia occurred in 5,898 participants (2,546 with Alzheimer’s disease [AD] and 1,211 with vascular dementia [VD]), of which, 1,031 had AFib (350 with AD; 320 with VD).
• Compared with participants without AFib, those with AFib had a 42% higher risk for all-cause dementia (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.42; P < .001) and more than double the risk for VD (aHR, 2.06; P < .001), but no significantly higher risk for AD.
• Younger age at AFib onset was associated with higher risks for all-cause dementia, AD and VD, with aHRs per 10-year decrease of 1.23, 1.27, and 1.35, respectively (P < .001 for all).
• After propensity score matching, AFib onset before age 65 years had the highest risk for all-cause dementia (aHR, 1.82; P < .001), followed by AF onset at age 65-74 years (aHR, 1.47; P < .001). Similar results were seen in AD and VD.

IN PRACTICE:

“The findings indicate that careful monitoring of cognitive function for patients with a younger [AFib] onset age, particularly those diagnosed with [AFib] before age 65 years, is important to attenuate the risk of subsequent dementia,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Wenya Zhang, with the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Because the study was observational, a cause-effect relationship cannot be established. Despite the adjustment for many underlying confounders, residual unidentified confounders may still exist. The vast majority of participants were White. The analyses did not consider the potential impact of effective treatment of AFib on dementia risk.

DISCLOSURES:

The study had no commercial funding. The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PHILADELPHIA – As an initial treatment strategy for treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with obesity, dual energy cardioversion is substantially more reliable and just as safe as conventional single energy cardioversion, a multicenter randomized trial shows.

When treated with dual direct current cardioversion (DCCV), only 2% of patients with obesity failed to cardiovert on the first shock versus 14% (P = .002) of those treated with a conventional single DCCV, reported Joshua D. Aymond, MD, a fellow in electrophysiology at Ochsner Health, New Orleans.

Of the 14 patients in the single DCCV arm who did not convert on the first shock, 12 cardioverted when switched to dual energy. The remaining two cardioverted on the second dual shock.

In the dual DCCV group, of the two patients who did not cardiovert on the first dual shock, one did on the second. The other also cardioverted on a second shock, but this second shock was not delivered for 2 weeks, during which time the patient received a course of amiodarone-based anti-arrhythmic therapy.

No disadvantages seen with dual energy

The greater efficacy of a first shock with dual DCCV was achieved with no apparent disadvantages. There were no differences in post-procedure chest discomfort and no procedure-related adverse events in either arm, Dr. Aymond said.

The rising prevalence of obesity in the United States has created the need for a more effective first-line strategy for AF, noted Dr. Aymond, who presented the results of this study at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

Cardioversion, which he characterized as the treatment of choice for AF, “fails to restore sinus rhythm in 20% to 35% of obese patients versus less than 10% of non-obese patients,” he said. The higher failure rate in patients with obesity is becoming a more common clinical issue not only due to the rising rates of obesity but a corresponding rise in AF, which is a related phenomenon.

“The risk of atrial fibrillation is increased by 50% relative to those who are not obese,” Dr. Aymond explained.

In this study, 200 patients at three participating centers were randomized to single DCCV or double DCCV after exclusions that included ventricular tachycardia and respiratory instability. The baseline characteristics were comparable. All 101 patients in the single DCCV group and 99 patients in the dual DCCV group were available for the intention-to-treat analysis.

200 vs. 400 joules delivered across the heart

In the study protocol, patients were fitted with four chest pads, two located adjacent but above the heart and two adjacent but below the heart. For single DCCV, 200 joules of energy were delivered from the upper right pad to the lower left pad across the heart. For dual DCCV, another 200 joules were delivered simultaneously from the upper left to the lower right across the heart. The total dose in the dual DCCV group was 400 joules.

The primary outcome was restoration of sinus rhythm of any duration immediately after DCCV. Safety, including clinical events, was a secondary outcome. Only the patients were blinded to the energy they received.

On univariate analysis, the odds ratio for successful cardioversion with dual DCCV was nearly eightfold higher (OR 7.8; P = .008) than single DCCV. On a simple multivariable analysis, when the researchers controlled for just age, sex, and body mass index, the odds ratio rose (OR 8.5; P = .007).

On a comprehensive multivariable analysis adding control for such characteristics as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), obstructive sleep apnea, and antiarrhythmic drugs, the advantage of dual DCCV climbed above 12-fold (OR 12.6; P = .03).

The study is addressing a relevant and persistent question, said the AHA-invited discussant Jose A. Joglar, MD, program director, Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology Fellowship, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Dr. Joglar pointed out that alternatives to single DCCV for patients more difficult to cardiovert have been “sought for decades.” He noted that a variety of techniques, including dual DCCV, have been evaluated in small studies and case reports.

Alternatives for obese outlined

Several have shown promise, Dr. Joglar said. As one of several examples, he cited a 20-patient study that randomized patients to adhesive patches, like those employed in the Aymond trial, or handheld paddles. Both patches and paddles were applied with manual pressure while a 200-joule shock was delivered. The proportion of patients who cardioverted on the first shock was almost two times higher in the group after the first shock with the paddles (50% vs. 27%; P = .01). Dr. Joglar said the study supports the principle that 200 joules delivered by adhesive patches is inadequate for treatment of AF in many patients with obesity.

Dr. Joglar also cited studies suggesting that single DCCV delivered with higher energy than 200 joules appears to improve cardioversion success rates, but he indicated that this study with dual DCCV in the front-line setting provides evidence for another alternative.

“This is the first such trial with dual defibrillators as an initial strategy,” he said, calling the groups well matched and the superiority of dual DCCV “impressive.” He cautioned that the study size was well powered for the endpoint but perhaps small for evaluating relative safety.

Yet, “the study adds credibility and confidence for the use of dual DCCV, especially in difficult or refractory patients,” he said. He is less certain that it establishes dual DCCV as a standard first-line therapy in all patients with obesity. This would require additional studies to compare it to other types of strategies such as those he mentioned.

As an option for improving cardioversion in first-line treatment, dual DCCV “can be added to a list of other techniques, such as manual pressure or a higher initial dose with single DCCV,” he said.

Dr. Aymond and Dr. Joglar report no potential conflicts of interest.

PHILADELPHIA – As an initial treatment strategy for treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with obesity, dual energy cardioversion is substantially more reliable and just as safe as conventional single energy cardioversion, a multicenter randomized trial shows.

When treated with dual direct current cardioversion (DCCV), only 2% of patients with obesity failed to cardiovert on the first shock versus 14% (P = .002) of those treated with a conventional single DCCV, reported Joshua D. Aymond, MD, a fellow in electrophysiology at Ochsner Health, New Orleans.

Of the 14 patients in the single DCCV arm who did not convert on the first shock, 12 cardioverted when switched to dual energy. The remaining two cardioverted on the second dual shock.

In the dual DCCV group, of the two patients who did not cardiovert on the first dual shock, one did on the second. The other also cardioverted on a second shock, but this second shock was not delivered for 2 weeks, during which time the patient received a course of amiodarone-based anti-arrhythmic therapy.

No disadvantages seen with dual energy

The greater efficacy of a first shock with dual DCCV was achieved with no apparent disadvantages. There were no differences in post-procedure chest discomfort and no procedure-related adverse events in either arm, Dr. Aymond said.

The rising prevalence of obesity in the United States has created the need for a more effective first-line strategy for AF, noted Dr. Aymond, who presented the results of this study at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

Cardioversion, which he characterized as the treatment of choice for AF, “fails to restore sinus rhythm in 20% to 35% of obese patients versus less than 10% of non-obese patients,” he said. The higher failure rate in patients with obesity is becoming a more common clinical issue not only due to the rising rates of obesity but a corresponding rise in AF, which is a related phenomenon.

“The risk of atrial fibrillation is increased by 50% relative to those who are not obese,” Dr. Aymond explained.

In this study, 200 patients at three participating centers were randomized to single DCCV or double DCCV after exclusions that included ventricular tachycardia and respiratory instability. The baseline characteristics were comparable. All 101 patients in the single DCCV group and 99 patients in the dual DCCV group were available for the intention-to-treat analysis.

200 vs. 400 joules delivered across the heart

In the study protocol, patients were fitted with four chest pads, two located adjacent but above the heart and two adjacent but below the heart. For single DCCV, 200 joules of energy were delivered from the upper right pad to the lower left pad across the heart. For dual DCCV, another 200 joules were delivered simultaneously from the upper left to the lower right across the heart. The total dose in the dual DCCV group was 400 joules.

The primary outcome was restoration of sinus rhythm of any duration immediately after DCCV. Safety, including clinical events, was a secondary outcome. Only the patients were blinded to the energy they received.

On univariate analysis, the odds ratio for successful cardioversion with dual DCCV was nearly eightfold higher (OR 7.8; P = .008) than single DCCV. On a simple multivariable analysis, when the researchers controlled for just age, sex, and body mass index, the odds ratio rose (OR 8.5; P = .007).

On a comprehensive multivariable analysis adding control for such characteristics as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), obstructive sleep apnea, and antiarrhythmic drugs, the advantage of dual DCCV climbed above 12-fold (OR 12.6; P = .03).

The study is addressing a relevant and persistent question, said the AHA-invited discussant Jose A. Joglar, MD, program director, Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology Fellowship, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Dr. Joglar pointed out that alternatives to single DCCV for patients more difficult to cardiovert have been “sought for decades.” He noted that a variety of techniques, including dual DCCV, have been evaluated in small studies and case reports.

Alternatives for obese outlined

Several have shown promise, Dr. Joglar said. As one of several examples, he cited a 20-patient study that randomized patients to adhesive patches, like those employed in the Aymond trial, or handheld paddles. Both patches and paddles were applied with manual pressure while a 200-joule shock was delivered. The proportion of patients who cardioverted on the first shock was almost two times higher in the group after the first shock with the paddles (50% vs. 27%; P = .01). Dr. Joglar said the study supports the principle that 200 joules delivered by adhesive patches is inadequate for treatment of AF in many patients with obesity.

Dr. Joglar also cited studies suggesting that single DCCV delivered with higher energy than 200 joules appears to improve cardioversion success rates, but he indicated that this study with dual DCCV in the front-line setting provides evidence for another alternative.

“This is the first such trial with dual defibrillators as an initial strategy,” he said, calling the groups well matched and the superiority of dual DCCV “impressive.” He cautioned that the study size was well powered for the endpoint but perhaps small for evaluating relative safety.

Yet, “the study adds credibility and confidence for the use of dual DCCV, especially in difficult or refractory patients,” he said. He is less certain that it establishes dual DCCV as a standard first-line therapy in all patients with obesity. This would require additional studies to compare it to other types of strategies such as those he mentioned.

As an option for improving cardioversion in first-line treatment, dual DCCV “can be added to a list of other techniques, such as manual pressure or a higher initial dose with single DCCV,” he said.

Dr. Aymond and Dr. Joglar report no potential conflicts of interest.

PHILADELPHIA – As an initial treatment strategy for treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with obesity, dual energy cardioversion is substantially more reliable and just as safe as conventional single energy cardioversion, a multicenter randomized trial shows.

When treated with dual direct current cardioversion (DCCV), only 2% of patients with obesity failed to cardiovert on the first shock versus 14% (P = .002) of those treated with a conventional single DCCV, reported Joshua D. Aymond, MD, a fellow in electrophysiology at Ochsner Health, New Orleans.

Of the 14 patients in the single DCCV arm who did not convert on the first shock, 12 cardioverted when switched to dual energy. The remaining two cardioverted on the second dual shock.

In the dual DCCV group, of the two patients who did not cardiovert on the first dual shock, one did on the second. The other also cardioverted on a second shock, but this second shock was not delivered for 2 weeks, during which time the patient received a course of amiodarone-based anti-arrhythmic therapy.

No disadvantages seen with dual energy

The greater efficacy of a first shock with dual DCCV was achieved with no apparent disadvantages. There were no differences in post-procedure chest discomfort and no procedure-related adverse events in either arm, Dr. Aymond said.

The rising prevalence of obesity in the United States has created the need for a more effective first-line strategy for AF, noted Dr. Aymond, who presented the results of this study at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

Cardioversion, which he characterized as the treatment of choice for AF, “fails to restore sinus rhythm in 20% to 35% of obese patients versus less than 10% of non-obese patients,” he said. The higher failure rate in patients with obesity is becoming a more common clinical issue not only due to the rising rates of obesity but a corresponding rise in AF, which is a related phenomenon.

“The risk of atrial fibrillation is increased by 50% relative to those who are not obese,” Dr. Aymond explained.

In this study, 200 patients at three participating centers were randomized to single DCCV or double DCCV after exclusions that included ventricular tachycardia and respiratory instability. The baseline characteristics were comparable. All 101 patients in the single DCCV group and 99 patients in the dual DCCV group were available for the intention-to-treat analysis.

200 vs. 400 joules delivered across the heart

In the study protocol, patients were fitted with four chest pads, two located adjacent but above the heart and two adjacent but below the heart. For single DCCV, 200 joules of energy were delivered from the upper right pad to the lower left pad across the heart. For dual DCCV, another 200 joules were delivered simultaneously from the upper left to the lower right across the heart. The total dose in the dual DCCV group was 400 joules.

The primary outcome was restoration of sinus rhythm of any duration immediately after DCCV. Safety, including clinical events, was a secondary outcome. Only the patients were blinded to the energy they received.

On univariate analysis, the odds ratio for successful cardioversion with dual DCCV was nearly eightfold higher (OR 7.8; P = .008) than single DCCV. On a simple multivariable analysis, when the researchers controlled for just age, sex, and body mass index, the odds ratio rose (OR 8.5; P = .007).

On a comprehensive multivariable analysis adding control for such characteristics as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), obstructive sleep apnea, and antiarrhythmic drugs, the advantage of dual DCCV climbed above 12-fold (OR 12.6; P = .03).

The study is addressing a relevant and persistent question, said the AHA-invited discussant Jose A. Joglar, MD, program director, Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology Fellowship, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.

Dr. Joglar pointed out that alternatives to single DCCV for patients more difficult to cardiovert have been “sought for decades.” He noted that a variety of techniques, including dual DCCV, have been evaluated in small studies and case reports.

Alternatives for obese outlined

Several have shown promise, Dr. Joglar said. As one of several examples, he cited a 20-patient study that randomized patients to adhesive patches, like those employed in the Aymond trial, or handheld paddles. Both patches and paddles were applied with manual pressure while a 200-joule shock was delivered. The proportion of patients who cardioverted on the first shock was almost two times higher in the group after the first shock with the paddles (50% vs. 27%; P = .01). Dr. Joglar said the study supports the principle that 200 joules delivered by adhesive patches is inadequate for treatment of AF in many patients with obesity.

Dr. Joglar also cited studies suggesting that single DCCV delivered with higher energy than 200 joules appears to improve cardioversion success rates, but he indicated that this study with dual DCCV in the front-line setting provides evidence for another alternative.

“This is the first such trial with dual defibrillators as an initial strategy,” he said, calling the groups well matched and the superiority of dual DCCV “impressive.” He cautioned that the study size was well powered for the endpoint but perhaps small for evaluating relative safety.

Yet, “the study adds credibility and confidence for the use of dual DCCV, especially in difficult or refractory patients,” he said. He is less certain that it establishes dual DCCV as a standard first-line therapy in all patients with obesity. This would require additional studies to compare it to other types of strategies such as those he mentioned.

As an option for improving cardioversion in first-line treatment, dual DCCV “can be added to a list of other techniques, such as manual pressure or a higher initial dose with single DCCV,” he said.

Dr. Aymond and Dr. Joglar report no potential conflicts of interest.

SAN DIEGO – Pregnant individuals with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs) are at least four times more likely to experience an acute cardiovascular event (CVE) than are pregnant individuals without these conditions, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. Pregnant individuals with primary antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) had a 15-fold increase in CVE risk.

Patients who experienced CVEs were also more likely to experience preterm birth and other adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs).

zoranm/Getty Images

Rashmi Dhital, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues examined the medical records of pregnant individuals in California who had delivered singleton live-born infants from 2005 to 2020. Using data from the Study of Outcomes in Mothers and Infants (SOMI) database, an administrative population-based birth cohort in California, they identified more than 7 million individuals, 19,340 with ARDs and 7,758 with APS.

They then analyzed how many patients experienced an acute CVE during pregnancy and up to 6 weeks after giving birth.

CVEs occurred in 2.0% of patients with ARDs, 6.9% of individuals with APS, and 0.4% of women without these conditions. CVE risk was four times higher in the ARDs group (adjusted relative risk, 4.1; 95% confidence interval, 3.7-4.5) and nearly 15 times higher in the APS group (aRR, 14.7; 95% CI, 13.5-16.0) than in the comparison group. Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) had a sixfold higher risk of CVE, which was further exacerbated by concomitant APS (18-fold higher risk) or lupus nephritis (15-fold higher risk).

Dr. Dhital also classified CVEs as either venous thromboembolism and non-VTE events. Pregnant patients with APS had a high risk for VTE-only CVE (40-fold greater) and a 3.7-fold higher risk of non-VTE events, compared with pregnant patients without these conditions. Patients with SLE along with lupus nephritis had a 20-fold increased risk of VTE-only CVE and an 11-fold higher risk of non-VTE CVE.

Although the study grouped rheumatic diseases together, “lupus is generally driving these results,” Sharon Kolasinski, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, noted in an interview. She moderated the plenary session where the research was presented. “If you take out lupus, then what is the risk? That would be an interesting question.”

Between 25% and 30% of all CVEs occurred in the postpartum period, highlighting the importance of close monitoring of cardiovascular risks and events in women with ARDs or APS both during pregnancy and postpartum, Dr. Dhital noted.

Recognizing these risks “can sometimes be challenging due to a lower suspicion of CVE in younger patients, and also symptoms overlap with normal pregnancy,” Dr. Dhital said during her plenary presentation. Working with other clinical teams could help physicians detect these risks in patients.

“It’s important for us to remember that there’s increased risk of cardiovascular events in pregnancy in our patients. It’s uncommon, but it’s not zero,” added Dr. Kolasinski, and this study highlighted when physicians should be more focused about that risk.

Dr. Dhital noted there were some limitations to the study that are inherent in using administrative databases for research that relies on ICD codes, including “the availability of information on disease activity, medications, and labs, which may restrict clinical interpretation.”
 

SOMI data reinforced by National Inpatient Sample study

The findings were complemented by a study using the National Inpatient Sample database to explore CVE risk in pregnant individuals with various rheumatic diseases. Lead author Karun Shrestha, MD, a resident physician at St. Barnabas Hospital in New York, and colleagues identified delivery hospitalizations from 2016 to 2019 for individuals with SLE, RA, and systemic vasculitis and looked for CVEs including preeclampsia, peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM), heart failure, stroke, cardiac arrhythmias, and VTE.

Lucy Hicks/Medscape Medical News

Out of over 3.4 million delivery hospitalizations, researchers identified 5,900 individuals with SLE, 4,895 with RA, and 325 with vasculitis. After adjusting for confounding factors such as race, age, insurance, and other comorbidities, SLE was identified as an independent risk factor for preeclampsia (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1), arrhythmia (OR, 3.17; 95% CI, 1.73-5.79), and venous thrombosis (OR, 8.4; 95% CI, 2.9-22.1). Vasculitis was tied to increased risk for preeclampsia (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 2-11.3), stroke (OR, 513.3; 95% CI, 114-2,284), heart failure (OR, 24.17; 95% CI, 4.68-124.6), and PPCM (OR, 66.7; 95% CI, 8.7-509.4). RA was tied to an increased risk for preeclampsia (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.05-2.1).

Patients with SLE or vasculitis had longer, more costly hospital stays, compared with those without these conditions, and they experienced higher rates of in-hospital mortality. While previous research has demonstrated that patients with SLE have higher risk of cardiac events, there is less literature on CVE risk in pregnancies for vasculitis, Dr. Shrestha said in an interview.

“It’s something to work on,” he said.
 

Adverse pregnancy outcomes higher with ARDs, APS

In a second abstract also led by Dr. Dhital using SOMI data, researchers found that pregnant individuals with ARDs or APS had a higher risk of experiencing an APO – preterm birth or small-for-gestational age – than individuals without these conditions. CVEs exacerbated that risk, regardless of underlying chronic health conditions.

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

SAN DIEGO – Pregnant individuals with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs) are at least four times more likely to experience an acute cardiovascular event (CVE) than are pregnant individuals without these conditions, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. Pregnant individuals with primary antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) had a 15-fold increase in CVE risk.

Patients who experienced CVEs were also more likely to experience preterm birth and other adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs).

zoranm/Getty Images

Rashmi Dhital, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues examined the medical records of pregnant individuals in California who had delivered singleton live-born infants from 2005 to 2020. Using data from the Study of Outcomes in Mothers and Infants (SOMI) database, an administrative population-based birth cohort in California, they identified more than 7 million individuals, 19,340 with ARDs and 7,758 with APS.

They then analyzed how many patients experienced an acute CVE during pregnancy and up to 6 weeks after giving birth.

CVEs occurred in 2.0% of patients with ARDs, 6.9% of individuals with APS, and 0.4% of women without these conditions. CVE risk was four times higher in the ARDs group (adjusted relative risk, 4.1; 95% confidence interval, 3.7-4.5) and nearly 15 times higher in the APS group (aRR, 14.7; 95% CI, 13.5-16.0) than in the comparison group. Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) had a sixfold higher risk of CVE, which was further exacerbated by concomitant APS (18-fold higher risk) or lupus nephritis (15-fold higher risk).

Dr. Dhital also classified CVEs as either venous thromboembolism and non-VTE events. Pregnant patients with APS had a high risk for VTE-only CVE (40-fold greater) and a 3.7-fold higher risk of non-VTE events, compared with pregnant patients without these conditions. Patients with SLE along with lupus nephritis had a 20-fold increased risk of VTE-only CVE and an 11-fold higher risk of non-VTE CVE.

Although the study grouped rheumatic diseases together, “lupus is generally driving these results,” Sharon Kolasinski, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, noted in an interview. She moderated the plenary session where the research was presented. “If you take out lupus, then what is the risk? That would be an interesting question.”

Between 25% and 30% of all CVEs occurred in the postpartum period, highlighting the importance of close monitoring of cardiovascular risks and events in women with ARDs or APS both during pregnancy and postpartum, Dr. Dhital noted.

Recognizing these risks “can sometimes be challenging due to a lower suspicion of CVE in younger patients, and also symptoms overlap with normal pregnancy,” Dr. Dhital said during her plenary presentation. Working with other clinical teams could help physicians detect these risks in patients.

“It’s important for us to remember that there’s increased risk of cardiovascular events in pregnancy in our patients. It’s uncommon, but it’s not zero,” added Dr. Kolasinski, and this study highlighted when physicians should be more focused about that risk.

Dr. Dhital noted there were some limitations to the study that are inherent in using administrative databases for research that relies on ICD codes, including “the availability of information on disease activity, medications, and labs, which may restrict clinical interpretation.”
 

SOMI data reinforced by National Inpatient Sample study

The findings were complemented by a study using the National Inpatient Sample database to explore CVE risk in pregnant individuals with various rheumatic diseases. Lead author Karun Shrestha, MD, a resident physician at St. Barnabas Hospital in New York, and colleagues identified delivery hospitalizations from 2016 to 2019 for individuals with SLE, RA, and systemic vasculitis and looked for CVEs including preeclampsia, peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM), heart failure, stroke, cardiac arrhythmias, and VTE.

Lucy Hicks/Medscape Medical News

Out of over 3.4 million delivery hospitalizations, researchers identified 5,900 individuals with SLE, 4,895 with RA, and 325 with vasculitis. After adjusting for confounding factors such as race, age, insurance, and other comorbidities, SLE was identified as an independent risk factor for preeclampsia (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1), arrhythmia (OR, 3.17; 95% CI, 1.73-5.79), and venous thrombosis (OR, 8.4; 95% CI, 2.9-22.1). Vasculitis was tied to increased risk for preeclampsia (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 2-11.3), stroke (OR, 513.3; 95% CI, 114-2,284), heart failure (OR, 24.17; 95% CI, 4.68-124.6), and PPCM (OR, 66.7; 95% CI, 8.7-509.4). RA was tied to an increased risk for preeclampsia (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.05-2.1).

Patients with SLE or vasculitis had longer, more costly hospital stays, compared with those without these conditions, and they experienced higher rates of in-hospital mortality. While previous research has demonstrated that patients with SLE have higher risk of cardiac events, there is less literature on CVE risk in pregnancies for vasculitis, Dr. Shrestha said in an interview.

“It’s something to work on,” he said.
 

Adverse pregnancy outcomes higher with ARDs, APS

In a second abstract also led by Dr. Dhital using SOMI data, researchers found that pregnant individuals with ARDs or APS had a higher risk of experiencing an APO – preterm birth or small-for-gestational age – than individuals without these conditions. CVEs exacerbated that risk, regardless of underlying chronic health conditions.

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

SAN DIEGO – Pregnant individuals with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs) are at least four times more likely to experience an acute cardiovascular event (CVE) than are pregnant individuals without these conditions, according to new research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. Pregnant individuals with primary antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) had a 15-fold increase in CVE risk.

Patients who experienced CVEs were also more likely to experience preterm birth and other adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs).

zoranm/Getty Images

Rashmi Dhital, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues examined the medical records of pregnant individuals in California who had delivered singleton live-born infants from 2005 to 2020. Using data from the Study of Outcomes in Mothers and Infants (SOMI) database, an administrative population-based birth cohort in California, they identified more than 7 million individuals, 19,340 with ARDs and 7,758 with APS.

They then analyzed how many patients experienced an acute CVE during pregnancy and up to 6 weeks after giving birth.

CVEs occurred in 2.0% of patients with ARDs, 6.9% of individuals with APS, and 0.4% of women without these conditions. CVE risk was four times higher in the ARDs group (adjusted relative risk, 4.1; 95% confidence interval, 3.7-4.5) and nearly 15 times higher in the APS group (aRR, 14.7; 95% CI, 13.5-16.0) than in the comparison group. Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) had a sixfold higher risk of CVE, which was further exacerbated by concomitant APS (18-fold higher risk) or lupus nephritis (15-fold higher risk).

Dr. Dhital also classified CVEs as either venous thromboembolism and non-VTE events. Pregnant patients with APS had a high risk for VTE-only CVE (40-fold greater) and a 3.7-fold higher risk of non-VTE events, compared with pregnant patients without these conditions. Patients with SLE along with lupus nephritis had a 20-fold increased risk of VTE-only CVE and an 11-fold higher risk of non-VTE CVE.

Although the study grouped rheumatic diseases together, “lupus is generally driving these results,” Sharon Kolasinski, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, noted in an interview. She moderated the plenary session where the research was presented. “If you take out lupus, then what is the risk? That would be an interesting question.”

Between 25% and 30% of all CVEs occurred in the postpartum period, highlighting the importance of close monitoring of cardiovascular risks and events in women with ARDs or APS both during pregnancy and postpartum, Dr. Dhital noted.

Recognizing these risks “can sometimes be challenging due to a lower suspicion of CVE in younger patients, and also symptoms overlap with normal pregnancy,” Dr. Dhital said during her plenary presentation. Working with other clinical teams could help physicians detect these risks in patients.

“It’s important for us to remember that there’s increased risk of cardiovascular events in pregnancy in our patients. It’s uncommon, but it’s not zero,” added Dr. Kolasinski, and this study highlighted when physicians should be more focused about that risk.

Dr. Dhital noted there were some limitations to the study that are inherent in using administrative databases for research that relies on ICD codes, including “the availability of information on disease activity, medications, and labs, which may restrict clinical interpretation.”
 

SOMI data reinforced by National Inpatient Sample study

The findings were complemented by a study using the National Inpatient Sample database to explore CVE risk in pregnant individuals with various rheumatic diseases. Lead author Karun Shrestha, MD, a resident physician at St. Barnabas Hospital in New York, and colleagues identified delivery hospitalizations from 2016 to 2019 for individuals with SLE, RA, and systemic vasculitis and looked for CVEs including preeclampsia, peripartum cardiomyopathy (PPCM), heart failure, stroke, cardiac arrhythmias, and VTE.

Lucy Hicks/Medscape Medical News

Out of over 3.4 million delivery hospitalizations, researchers identified 5,900 individuals with SLE, 4,895 with RA, and 325 with vasculitis. After adjusting for confounding factors such as race, age, insurance, and other comorbidities, SLE was identified as an independent risk factor for preeclampsia (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1), arrhythmia (OR, 3.17; 95% CI, 1.73-5.79), and venous thrombosis (OR, 8.4; 95% CI, 2.9-22.1). Vasculitis was tied to increased risk for preeclampsia (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 2-11.3), stroke (OR, 513.3; 95% CI, 114-2,284), heart failure (OR, 24.17; 95% CI, 4.68-124.6), and PPCM (OR, 66.7; 95% CI, 8.7-509.4). RA was tied to an increased risk for preeclampsia (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.05-2.1).

Patients with SLE or vasculitis had longer, more costly hospital stays, compared with those without these conditions, and they experienced higher rates of in-hospital mortality. While previous research has demonstrated that patients with SLE have higher risk of cardiac events, there is less literature on CVE risk in pregnancies for vasculitis, Dr. Shrestha said in an interview.

“It’s something to work on,” he said.
 

Adverse pregnancy outcomes higher with ARDs, APS

In a second abstract also led by Dr. Dhital using SOMI data, researchers found that pregnant individuals with ARDs or APS had a higher risk of experiencing an APO – preterm birth or small-for-gestational age – than individuals without these conditions. CVEs exacerbated that risk, regardless of underlying chronic health conditions.

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

TOPLINE:

There are no sex differences in the effectiveness and safety of pulsed field ablation (PFA), a novel modality that uses short, high-energy electrical pulses to treat atrial fibrillation (AFib), results of a large registry study show.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included all 1,568 patients (mean age 64.5 years and 35.3% women) in the MANIFEST-PF registry, which includes 24 European centers that began using PFA for treating AFib after regulatory approval in 2021.
• Researchers categorized patients by sex and evaluated them for clinical outcomes of PFA, including freedom from AFib and adverse events.
• All patients underwent pulmonary vein isolation (Farawave, Boston Scientific) and were followed up at 3, 6, and 12 months.
• The primary effectiveness outcome was freedom from atrial arrhythmia outside the 90-day blanking period lasting 30 seconds or longer.
• The primary safety outcome included the composite of acute (less than 7 days post-procedure) and chronic (more than 7 days post-procedure) major adverse events, including atrioesophageal fistula, symptomatic pulmonary vein stenosis, cardiac tamponade/perforation requiring intervention or surgery, stroke or systemic thromboembolism, persistent phrenic nerve injury, vascular access complications requiring surgery, coronary artery spasm, and death.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was no significant difference in 12-month recurrence of atrial arrhythmia between male and female patients (79.0% vs 76.3%; P = .28), with greater overall effectiveness in the paroxysmal AFib cohort (men, 82.5% vs women, 80.2%; P = .30) than in the persistent AF/long-standing persistent AFib cohort (men, 73.3% vs women, 67.3%; P = .40).
• Repeated ablation rates were similar between sexes (men, 8.3% vs women, 10.0%; P = .32).
• Among patients who underwent repeat ablation, pulmonary vein isolation durability was higher in female than in male patients (per vein, 82.6% vs 68.1%; P = .15 and per patient, 63.0% vs 37.8%; P = .005).
• Major adverse events occurred in 2.5% of women and 1.5% of men (P = .19), with such events mostly consisting of cardiac tamponade (women, 1.4% vs men, 1.0%; P = .46) and stroke (0.4% vs 0.4%, P > .99), and with no atrioesophageal fistulas or symptomatic pulmonary valve stenosis in either group.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results are important, as women are underrepresented in prior ablation studies and the results have been mixed with regards to both safety and effectiveness using conventional ablation strategies such as radiofrequency or cryoablation,” lead author Mohit Turagam, MD, associate professor of medicine (cardiology), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, said in a press release.

In an accompanying commentary, Peter M. Kistler, MBBS, PhD, Department of Cardiology, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, and a colleague said that the study authors should be congratulated “for presenting much-needed data on sex-specific outcomes in catheter ablation,” which “reassuringly” suggest that success and safety for AFib ablation are comparable between the sexes, although the study does have “important limitations.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Turagam and colleagues. It was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

Researchers can’t rule out the possibility that treatment selection and unmeasured confounders between sexes affected the validity of the study findings. The median number of follow-up 24-hour Holter monitors used for AFib monitoring was only two, which may have resulted in inaccurate estimates of AFib recurrence rates and treatment effectiveness.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Boston Scientific Corporation, the PFA device manufacturer. Turagam has no relevant conflicts of interest; see paper for disclosures of other study authors. The commentary authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

There are no sex differences in the effectiveness and safety of pulsed field ablation (PFA), a novel modality that uses short, high-energy electrical pulses to treat atrial fibrillation (AFib), results of a large registry study show.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included all 1,568 patients (mean age 64.5 years and 35.3% women) in the MANIFEST-PF registry, which includes 24 European centers that began using PFA for treating AFib after regulatory approval in 2021.
• Researchers categorized patients by sex and evaluated them for clinical outcomes of PFA, including freedom from AFib and adverse events.
• All patients underwent pulmonary vein isolation (Farawave, Boston Scientific) and were followed up at 3, 6, and 12 months.
• The primary effectiveness outcome was freedom from atrial arrhythmia outside the 90-day blanking period lasting 30 seconds or longer.
• The primary safety outcome included the composite of acute (less than 7 days post-procedure) and chronic (more than 7 days post-procedure) major adverse events, including atrioesophageal fistula, symptomatic pulmonary vein stenosis, cardiac tamponade/perforation requiring intervention or surgery, stroke or systemic thromboembolism, persistent phrenic nerve injury, vascular access complications requiring surgery, coronary artery spasm, and death.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was no significant difference in 12-month recurrence of atrial arrhythmia between male and female patients (79.0% vs 76.3%; P = .28), with greater overall effectiveness in the paroxysmal AFib cohort (men, 82.5% vs women, 80.2%; P = .30) than in the persistent AF/long-standing persistent AFib cohort (men, 73.3% vs women, 67.3%; P = .40).
• Repeated ablation rates were similar between sexes (men, 8.3% vs women, 10.0%; P = .32).
• Among patients who underwent repeat ablation, pulmonary vein isolation durability was higher in female than in male patients (per vein, 82.6% vs 68.1%; P = .15 and per patient, 63.0% vs 37.8%; P = .005).
• Major adverse events occurred in 2.5% of women and 1.5% of men (P = .19), with such events mostly consisting of cardiac tamponade (women, 1.4% vs men, 1.0%; P = .46) and stroke (0.4% vs 0.4%, P > .99), and with no atrioesophageal fistulas or symptomatic pulmonary valve stenosis in either group.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results are important, as women are underrepresented in prior ablation studies and the results have been mixed with regards to both safety and effectiveness using conventional ablation strategies such as radiofrequency or cryoablation,” lead author Mohit Turagam, MD, associate professor of medicine (cardiology), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, said in a press release.

In an accompanying commentary, Peter M. Kistler, MBBS, PhD, Department of Cardiology, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, and a colleague said that the study authors should be congratulated “for presenting much-needed data on sex-specific outcomes in catheter ablation,” which “reassuringly” suggest that success and safety for AFib ablation are comparable between the sexes, although the study does have “important limitations.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Turagam and colleagues. It was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

Researchers can’t rule out the possibility that treatment selection and unmeasured confounders between sexes affected the validity of the study findings. The median number of follow-up 24-hour Holter monitors used for AFib monitoring was only two, which may have resulted in inaccurate estimates of AFib recurrence rates and treatment effectiveness.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Boston Scientific Corporation, the PFA device manufacturer. Turagam has no relevant conflicts of interest; see paper for disclosures of other study authors. The commentary authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

There are no sex differences in the effectiveness and safety of pulsed field ablation (PFA), a novel modality that uses short, high-energy electrical pulses to treat atrial fibrillation (AFib), results of a large registry study show.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included all 1,568 patients (mean age 64.5 years and 35.3% women) in the MANIFEST-PF registry, which includes 24 European centers that began using PFA for treating AFib after regulatory approval in 2021.
• Researchers categorized patients by sex and evaluated them for clinical outcomes of PFA, including freedom from AFib and adverse events.
• All patients underwent pulmonary vein isolation (Farawave, Boston Scientific) and were followed up at 3, 6, and 12 months.
• The primary effectiveness outcome was freedom from atrial arrhythmia outside the 90-day blanking period lasting 30 seconds or longer.
• The primary safety outcome included the composite of acute (less than 7 days post-procedure) and chronic (more than 7 days post-procedure) major adverse events, including atrioesophageal fistula, symptomatic pulmonary vein stenosis, cardiac tamponade/perforation requiring intervention or surgery, stroke or systemic thromboembolism, persistent phrenic nerve injury, vascular access complications requiring surgery, coronary artery spasm, and death.

TAKEAWAY:

• There was no significant difference in 12-month recurrence of atrial arrhythmia between male and female patients (79.0% vs 76.3%; P = .28), with greater overall effectiveness in the paroxysmal AFib cohort (men, 82.5% vs women, 80.2%; P = .30) than in the persistent AF/long-standing persistent AFib cohort (men, 73.3% vs women, 67.3%; P = .40).
• Repeated ablation rates were similar between sexes (men, 8.3% vs women, 10.0%; P = .32).
• Among patients who underwent repeat ablation, pulmonary vein isolation durability was higher in female than in male patients (per vein, 82.6% vs 68.1%; P = .15 and per patient, 63.0% vs 37.8%; P = .005).
• Major adverse events occurred in 2.5% of women and 1.5% of men (P = .19), with such events mostly consisting of cardiac tamponade (women, 1.4% vs men, 1.0%; P = .46) and stroke (0.4% vs 0.4%, P > .99), and with no atrioesophageal fistulas or symptomatic pulmonary valve stenosis in either group.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results are important, as women are underrepresented in prior ablation studies and the results have been mixed with regards to both safety and effectiveness using conventional ablation strategies such as radiofrequency or cryoablation,” lead author Mohit Turagam, MD, associate professor of medicine (cardiology), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, said in a press release.

In an accompanying commentary, Peter M. Kistler, MBBS, PhD, Department of Cardiology, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, and a colleague said that the study authors should be congratulated “for presenting much-needed data on sex-specific outcomes in catheter ablation,” which “reassuringly” suggest that success and safety for AFib ablation are comparable between the sexes, although the study does have “important limitations.”

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Turagam and colleagues. It was published online in JAMA Cardiology.

LIMITATIONS:

Researchers can’t rule out the possibility that treatment selection and unmeasured confounders between sexes affected the validity of the study findings. The median number of follow-up 24-hour Holter monitors used for AFib monitoring was only two, which may have resulted in inaccurate estimates of AFib recurrence rates and treatment effectiveness.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by Boston Scientific Corporation, the PFA device manufacturer. Turagam has no relevant conflicts of interest; see paper for disclosures of other study authors. The commentary authors have no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with a 45% increased risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), an outcome that’s linked to cardiovascular risk factors and multi-comorbidity, results of a new study suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• From over 4.3 million people in the UK primary electronic health record (EHR) database, researchers identified 233,833 (5.4%) with AF (mean age, 74.2 years) and randomly selected one age- and sex-matched control person without AF for each AF case patient.
• The primary outcome was incidence of mild cognitive impairment (MCI).
• The authors adjusted for age, sex, year at study entry, socioeconomic status, smoking, and a number of comorbid conditions.
• During a median of 5.3 years of follow-up, there were 4,269 incident MCI cases among both AF and non-AF patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals with AF had a higher risk of MCI than that of those without AF (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35-1.56).
• Besides AF, older age (risk ratio [RR], 1.08) and history of depression (RR, 1.44) were associated with greater risk of MCI, as were female sex, greater socioeconomic deprivation, stroke, and multimorbidity, including, for example, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, and peripheral artery disease (all P < .001).
• Individuals with AF who received oral anticoagulants or amiodarone were not at increased risk of MCI, as was the case for those treated with digoxin.
• Individuals with AF and MCI were at greater risk of dementia (aHR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09-1.42). Sex, smoking, chronic kidney disease, and multi-comorbidity were among factors linked to elevated dementia risk.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings emphasize the association of multi-comorbidity and cardiovascular risk factors with development of MCI and progression to dementia in AF patients, the authors wrote. They noted that the data suggest combining anticoagulation and symptom and comorbidity management may prevent cognitive deterioration.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Sheng-Chia Chung, PhD, Institute of Health informatics Research, University College London, and colleagues. It was published online Oct. 25, 2023, as a research letter in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC): Advances. 

LIMITATIONS:

The EHR dataset may have lacked granularity and detail, and some risk factors or comorbidities may not have been measured. While those with AF receiving digoxin or amiodarone treatment had no higher risk of MCI than their non-AF peers, the study’s observational design and very wide confidence intervals for these subgroups prevent making solid inferences about causality or a potential protective role of these drugs.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Chung is supported by the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Author Rui Providencia, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Health informatics Research, University College London, is supported by the University College London British Heart Foundation and NIHR. All other authors report no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with a 45% increased risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), an outcome that’s linked to cardiovascular risk factors and multi-comorbidity, results of a new study suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• From over 4.3 million people in the UK primary electronic health record (EHR) database, researchers identified 233,833 (5.4%) with AF (mean age, 74.2 years) and randomly selected one age- and sex-matched control person without AF for each AF case patient.
• The primary outcome was incidence of mild cognitive impairment (MCI).
• The authors adjusted for age, sex, year at study entry, socioeconomic status, smoking, and a number of comorbid conditions.
• During a median of 5.3 years of follow-up, there were 4,269 incident MCI cases among both AF and non-AF patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals with AF had a higher risk of MCI than that of those without AF (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35-1.56).
• Besides AF, older age (risk ratio [RR], 1.08) and history of depression (RR, 1.44) were associated with greater risk of MCI, as were female sex, greater socioeconomic deprivation, stroke, and multimorbidity, including, for example, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, and peripheral artery disease (all P < .001).
• Individuals with AF who received oral anticoagulants or amiodarone were not at increased risk of MCI, as was the case for those treated with digoxin.
• Individuals with AF and MCI were at greater risk of dementia (aHR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09-1.42). Sex, smoking, chronic kidney disease, and multi-comorbidity were among factors linked to elevated dementia risk.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings emphasize the association of multi-comorbidity and cardiovascular risk factors with development of MCI and progression to dementia in AF patients, the authors wrote. They noted that the data suggest combining anticoagulation and symptom and comorbidity management may prevent cognitive deterioration.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Sheng-Chia Chung, PhD, Institute of Health informatics Research, University College London, and colleagues. It was published online Oct. 25, 2023, as a research letter in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC): Advances. 

LIMITATIONS:

The EHR dataset may have lacked granularity and detail, and some risk factors or comorbidities may not have been measured. While those with AF receiving digoxin or amiodarone treatment had no higher risk of MCI than their non-AF peers, the study’s observational design and very wide confidence intervals for these subgroups prevent making solid inferences about causality or a potential protective role of these drugs.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Chung is supported by the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Author Rui Providencia, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Health informatics Research, University College London, is supported by the University College London British Heart Foundation and NIHR. All other authors report no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with a 45% increased risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), an outcome that’s linked to cardiovascular risk factors and multi-comorbidity, results of a new study suggest.

METHODOLOGY:

• From over 4.3 million people in the UK primary electronic health record (EHR) database, researchers identified 233,833 (5.4%) with AF (mean age, 74.2 years) and randomly selected one age- and sex-matched control person without AF for each AF case patient.
• The primary outcome was incidence of mild cognitive impairment (MCI).
• The authors adjusted for age, sex, year at study entry, socioeconomic status, smoking, and a number of comorbid conditions.
• During a median of 5.3 years of follow-up, there were 4,269 incident MCI cases among both AF and non-AF patients.

TAKEAWAY:

• Individuals with AF had a higher risk of MCI than that of those without AF (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35-1.56).
• Besides AF, older age (risk ratio [RR], 1.08) and history of depression (RR, 1.44) were associated with greater risk of MCI, as were female sex, greater socioeconomic deprivation, stroke, and multimorbidity, including, for example, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, and peripheral artery disease (all P < .001).
• Individuals with AF who received oral anticoagulants or amiodarone were not at increased risk of MCI, as was the case for those treated with digoxin.
• Individuals with AF and MCI were at greater risk of dementia (aHR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09-1.42). Sex, smoking, chronic kidney disease, and multi-comorbidity were among factors linked to elevated dementia risk.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings emphasize the association of multi-comorbidity and cardiovascular risk factors with development of MCI and progression to dementia in AF patients, the authors wrote. They noted that the data suggest combining anticoagulation and symptom and comorbidity management may prevent cognitive deterioration.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Sheng-Chia Chung, PhD, Institute of Health informatics Research, University College London, and colleagues. It was published online Oct. 25, 2023, as a research letter in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC): Advances. 

LIMITATIONS:

The EHR dataset may have lacked granularity and detail, and some risk factors or comorbidities may not have been measured. While those with AF receiving digoxin or amiodarone treatment had no higher risk of MCI than their non-AF peers, the study’s observational design and very wide confidence intervals for these subgroups prevent making solid inferences about causality or a potential protective role of these drugs.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Chung is supported by the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Author Rui Providencia, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Health informatics Research, University College London, is supported by the University College London British Heart Foundation and NIHR. All other authors report no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A very long time ago, when I ran clinical labs, one of the most ordered tests was the “sed rate” (aka ESR, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate). Easy, quick, and low cost, with high sensitivity but very low specificity. If the sed rate was normal, the patient probably did not have an infectious or inflammatory disease. If it was elevated, they probably did, but no telling what. Later, the C-reactive protein (CRP) test came into common use. Same general inferences: If the CRP was low, the patient was unlikely to have an inflammatory process; if high, they were sick, but we didn’t know what with.

Could the heart rate variability (HRV) score come to be thought of similarly? Much as the sed rate and CRP are sensitivity indicators of infectious or inflammatory diseases, might the HRV score be a sensitivity indicator for nervous system (central and autonomic) and cardiovascular (especially heart rhythm) malfunctions?

A substantial and relatively old body of heart rhythm literature ties HRV alterations to posttraumatic stress disorder, physician occupational stress, sleep disorders, depression, autonomic nervous system derangements, various cardiac arrhythmias, fatigue, overexertion, medications, and age itself.

More than 100 million Americans are now believed to use smartwatches or personal fitness monitors. Some 30%-40% of these devices measure HRV. So what? Credible research about this huge mass of accumulating data from “wearables” is lacking.
 

What is HRV?

HRV is the variation in time between each heartbeat, in milliseconds. HRV is influenced by the autonomic nervous system, perhaps reflecting sympathetic-parasympathetic balance. Some devices measure HRV 24/7. My Fitbit Inspire 2 reports only nighttime measures during 3 hours of sustained sleep. Most trackers report averages; some calculate the root mean squares; others calculate standard deviations. All fitness trackers warn not to use the data for medical purposes.

Normal values (reference ranges) for HRV begin at an average of 100 msec in the first decade of life and decline by approximately 10 msec per decade lived. At age 30-40, the average is 70 msec; age 60-70, it’s 40 msec; and at age 90-100, it’s 10 msec.

As a long-time lab guy, I used to teach proper use of lab tests. Fitness trackers are “lab tests” of a sort. We taught never to do a lab test unless you know what you are going to do with the result, no matter what it is. We also taught “never do anything just because you can.” Curiosity, we know, is a frequent driver of lab test ordering.

That underlying philosophy gives me a hard time when it comes to wearables. I have been enamored of watching my step count, active zone minutes, resting heart rate, active heart rate, various sleep scores, and breathing rate (and, of course, a manually entered early morning daily body weight) for several years. I even check my “readiness score” (a calculation using resting heart rate, recent sleep, recent active zone minutes, and perhaps HRV) each morning and adjust my behaviors accordingly.
 

Why monitor HRV?

But what should we do with HRV scores? Ignore them? Try to understand them, perhaps as a screening tool? Or monitor HRV for consistency or change? “Monitoring” is a proper and common use of lab tests.

Some say we should improve the HRV score by managing stress, getting regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, getting enough sleep, and not smoking or consuming excess alcohol. Duh! I do all of that anyway.

The claims that HRV is a “simple but powerful tool that can be used to track overall health and well-being” might turn out to be true. Proper study and sharing of data will enable that determination.

To advance understanding, I offer an n-of-1, a real-world personal anecdote about HRV.

I did not request the HRV function on my Fitbit Inspire 2. It simply appeared, and I ignored it for some time.

A year or two ago, I started noticing my HRV score every morning. Initially, I did not like to see my “low” score, until I learned that the reference range was dramatically affected by age and I was in my late 80s at the time. The vast majority of my HRV readings were in the range of 17 msec to 27 msec.

Last week, I was administered the new Moderna COVID-19 Spikevax vaccine and the old folks’ influenza vaccine simultaneously. In my case, side effects from each vaccine have been modest in the past, but I never previously had both administered at the same time. My immune response was, shall we say, robust. Chills, muscle aches, headache, fatigue, deltoid swelling, fitful sleep, and increased resting heart rate.

My nightly average HRV had been running between 17 msec and 35 msec for many months. WHOA! After the shots, my overnight HRV score plummeted from 24 msec to 10 msec, my lowest ever. Instant worry. The next day, it rebounded to 28 msec, and it has been in the high teens or low 20s since then.

Off to PubMed. A recent study of HRV on the second and 10th days after administering the Pfizer mRNA vaccine to 75 healthy volunteers found that the HRV on day 2 was dramatically lower than prevaccination levels and by day 10, it had returned to prevaccination levels. Some comfort there.

Another review article has reported a rapid fall and rapid rebound of HRV after COVID-19 vaccination. A 2010 report demonstrated a significant but not dramatic short-term lowering of HRV after influenza A vaccination and correlated it with CRP changes.

Some believe that the decline in HRV after vaccination reflects an increased immune response and sympathetic nervous activity.

I don’t plan to receive my flu and COVID vaccines on the same day again.

So, I went back to review what happened to my HRV when I had COVID in 2023. My HRV was 14 msec and 12 msec on the first 2 days of symptoms, and then returned to the 20 msec range.

I received the RSV vaccine this year without adverse effects, and my HRV scores were 29 msec, 33 msec, and 32 msec on the first 3 days after vaccination. Finally, after receiving a pneumococcal vaccine in 2023, I had no adverse effects, and my HRV scores on the 5 days after vaccination were indeterminate: 19 msec, 14 msec, 18 msec, 13 msec, and 17 msec.

Of course, correlation is not causation. Cause and effect remain undetermined. But I find these observations interesting for a potentially useful screening test.

George D. Lundberg, MD, is the Editor in Chief of Cancer Commons.

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

A very long time ago, when I ran clinical labs, one of the most ordered tests was the “sed rate” (aka ESR, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate). Easy, quick, and low cost, with high sensitivity but very low specificity. If the sed rate was normal, the patient probably did not have an infectious or inflammatory disease. If it was elevated, they probably did, but no telling what. Later, the C-reactive protein (CRP) test came into common use. Same general inferences: If the CRP was low, the patient was unlikely to have an inflammatory process; if high, they were sick, but we didn’t know what with.

Could the heart rate variability (HRV) score come to be thought of similarly? Much as the sed rate and CRP are sensitivity indicators of infectious or inflammatory diseases, might the HRV score be a sensitivity indicator for nervous system (central and autonomic) and cardiovascular (especially heart rhythm) malfunctions?

A substantial and relatively old body of heart rhythm literature ties HRV alterations to posttraumatic stress disorder, physician occupational stress, sleep disorders, depression, autonomic nervous system derangements, various cardiac arrhythmias, fatigue, overexertion, medications, and age itself.

More than 100 million Americans are now believed to use smartwatches or personal fitness monitors. Some 30%-40% of these devices measure HRV. So what? Credible research about this huge mass of accumulating data from “wearables” is lacking.
 

What is HRV?

HRV is the variation in time between each heartbeat, in milliseconds. HRV is influenced by the autonomic nervous system, perhaps reflecting sympathetic-parasympathetic balance. Some devices measure HRV 24/7. My Fitbit Inspire 2 reports only nighttime measures during 3 hours of sustained sleep. Most trackers report averages; some calculate the root mean squares; others calculate standard deviations. All fitness trackers warn not to use the data for medical purposes.

Normal values (reference ranges) for HRV begin at an average of 100 msec in the first decade of life and decline by approximately 10 msec per decade lived. At age 30-40, the average is 70 msec; age 60-70, it’s 40 msec; and at age 90-100, it’s 10 msec.

As a long-time lab guy, I used to teach proper use of lab tests. Fitness trackers are “lab tests” of a sort. We taught never to do a lab test unless you know what you are going to do with the result, no matter what it is. We also taught “never do anything just because you can.” Curiosity, we know, is a frequent driver of lab test ordering.

That underlying philosophy gives me a hard time when it comes to wearables. I have been enamored of watching my step count, active zone minutes, resting heart rate, active heart rate, various sleep scores, and breathing rate (and, of course, a manually entered early morning daily body weight) for several years. I even check my “readiness score” (a calculation using resting heart rate, recent sleep, recent active zone minutes, and perhaps HRV) each morning and adjust my behaviors accordingly.
 

Why monitor HRV?

But what should we do with HRV scores? Ignore them? Try to understand them, perhaps as a screening tool? Or monitor HRV for consistency or change? “Monitoring” is a proper and common use of lab tests.

Some say we should improve the HRV score by managing stress, getting regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, getting enough sleep, and not smoking or consuming excess alcohol. Duh! I do all of that anyway.

The claims that HRV is a “simple but powerful tool that can be used to track overall health and well-being” might turn out to be true. Proper study and sharing of data will enable that determination.

To advance understanding, I offer an n-of-1, a real-world personal anecdote about HRV.

I did not request the HRV function on my Fitbit Inspire 2. It simply appeared, and I ignored it for some time.

A year or two ago, I started noticing my HRV score every morning. Initially, I did not like to see my “low” score, until I learned that the reference range was dramatically affected by age and I was in my late 80s at the time. The vast majority of my HRV readings were in the range of 17 msec to 27 msec.

Last week, I was administered the new Moderna COVID-19 Spikevax vaccine and the old folks’ influenza vaccine simultaneously. In my case, side effects from each vaccine have been modest in the past, but I never previously had both administered at the same time. My immune response was, shall we say, robust. Chills, muscle aches, headache, fatigue, deltoid swelling, fitful sleep, and increased resting heart rate.

My nightly average HRV had been running between 17 msec and 35 msec for many months. WHOA! After the shots, my overnight HRV score plummeted from 24 msec to 10 msec, my lowest ever. Instant worry. The next day, it rebounded to 28 msec, and it has been in the high teens or low 20s since then.

Off to PubMed. A recent study of HRV on the second and 10th days after administering the Pfizer mRNA vaccine to 75 healthy volunteers found that the HRV on day 2 was dramatically lower than prevaccination levels and by day 10, it had returned to prevaccination levels. Some comfort there.

Another review article has reported a rapid fall and rapid rebound of HRV after COVID-19 vaccination. A 2010 report demonstrated a significant but not dramatic short-term lowering of HRV after influenza A vaccination and correlated it with CRP changes.

Some believe that the decline in HRV after vaccination reflects an increased immune response and sympathetic nervous activity.

I don’t plan to receive my flu and COVID vaccines on the same day again.

So, I went back to review what happened to my HRV when I had COVID in 2023. My HRV was 14 msec and 12 msec on the first 2 days of symptoms, and then returned to the 20 msec range.

I received the RSV vaccine this year without adverse effects, and my HRV scores were 29 msec, 33 msec, and 32 msec on the first 3 days after vaccination. Finally, after receiving a pneumococcal vaccine in 2023, I had no adverse effects, and my HRV scores on the 5 days after vaccination were indeterminate: 19 msec, 14 msec, 18 msec, 13 msec, and 17 msec.

Of course, correlation is not causation. Cause and effect remain undetermined. But I find these observations interesting for a potentially useful screening test.

George D. Lundberg, MD, is the Editor in Chief of Cancer Commons.

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

A very long time ago, when I ran clinical labs, one of the most ordered tests was the “sed rate” (aka ESR, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate). Easy, quick, and low cost, with high sensitivity but very low specificity. If the sed rate was normal, the patient probably did not have an infectious or inflammatory disease. If it was elevated, they probably did, but no telling what. Later, the C-reactive protein (CRP) test came into common use. Same general inferences: If the CRP was low, the patient was unlikely to have an inflammatory process; if high, they were sick, but we didn’t know what with.

Could the heart rate variability (HRV) score come to be thought of similarly? Much as the sed rate and CRP are sensitivity indicators of infectious or inflammatory diseases, might the HRV score be a sensitivity indicator for nervous system (central and autonomic) and cardiovascular (especially heart rhythm) malfunctions?

A substantial and relatively old body of heart rhythm literature ties HRV alterations to posttraumatic stress disorder, physician occupational stress, sleep disorders, depression, autonomic nervous system derangements, various cardiac arrhythmias, fatigue, overexertion, medications, and age itself.

More than 100 million Americans are now believed to use smartwatches or personal fitness monitors. Some 30%-40% of these devices measure HRV. So what? Credible research about this huge mass of accumulating data from “wearables” is lacking.
 

What is HRV?

HRV is the variation in time between each heartbeat, in milliseconds. HRV is influenced by the autonomic nervous system, perhaps reflecting sympathetic-parasympathetic balance. Some devices measure HRV 24/7. My Fitbit Inspire 2 reports only nighttime measures during 3 hours of sustained sleep. Most trackers report averages; some calculate the root mean squares; others calculate standard deviations. All fitness trackers warn not to use the data for medical purposes.

Normal values (reference ranges) for HRV begin at an average of 100 msec in the first decade of life and decline by approximately 10 msec per decade lived. At age 30-40, the average is 70 msec; age 60-70, it’s 40 msec; and at age 90-100, it’s 10 msec.

As a long-time lab guy, I used to teach proper use of lab tests. Fitness trackers are “lab tests” of a sort. We taught never to do a lab test unless you know what you are going to do with the result, no matter what it is. We also taught “never do anything just because you can.” Curiosity, we know, is a frequent driver of lab test ordering.

That underlying philosophy gives me a hard time when it comes to wearables. I have been enamored of watching my step count, active zone minutes, resting heart rate, active heart rate, various sleep scores, and breathing rate (and, of course, a manually entered early morning daily body weight) for several years. I even check my “readiness score” (a calculation using resting heart rate, recent sleep, recent active zone minutes, and perhaps HRV) each morning and adjust my behaviors accordingly.
 

Why monitor HRV?

But what should we do with HRV scores? Ignore them? Try to understand them, perhaps as a screening tool? Or monitor HRV for consistency or change? “Monitoring” is a proper and common use of lab tests.

Some say we should improve the HRV score by managing stress, getting regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, getting enough sleep, and not smoking or consuming excess alcohol. Duh! I do all of that anyway.

The claims that HRV is a “simple but powerful tool that can be used to track overall health and well-being” might turn out to be true. Proper study and sharing of data will enable that determination.

To advance understanding, I offer an n-of-1, a real-world personal anecdote about HRV.

I did not request the HRV function on my Fitbit Inspire 2. It simply appeared, and I ignored it for some time.

A year or two ago, I started noticing my HRV score every morning. Initially, I did not like to see my “low” score, until I learned that the reference range was dramatically affected by age and I was in my late 80s at the time. The vast majority of my HRV readings were in the range of 17 msec to 27 msec.

Last week, I was administered the new Moderna COVID-19 Spikevax vaccine and the old folks’ influenza vaccine simultaneously. In my case, side effects from each vaccine have been modest in the past, but I never previously had both administered at the same time. My immune response was, shall we say, robust. Chills, muscle aches, headache, fatigue, deltoid swelling, fitful sleep, and increased resting heart rate.

My nightly average HRV had been running between 17 msec and 35 msec for many months. WHOA! After the shots, my overnight HRV score plummeted from 24 msec to 10 msec, my lowest ever. Instant worry. The next day, it rebounded to 28 msec, and it has been in the high teens or low 20s since then.

Off to PubMed. A recent study of HRV on the second and 10th days after administering the Pfizer mRNA vaccine to 75 healthy volunteers found that the HRV on day 2 was dramatically lower than prevaccination levels and by day 10, it had returned to prevaccination levels. Some comfort there.

Another review article has reported a rapid fall and rapid rebound of HRV after COVID-19 vaccination. A 2010 report demonstrated a significant but not dramatic short-term lowering of HRV after influenza A vaccination and correlated it with CRP changes.

Some believe that the decline in HRV after vaccination reflects an increased immune response and sympathetic nervous activity.

I don’t plan to receive my flu and COVID vaccines on the same day again.

So, I went back to review what happened to my HRV when I had COVID in 2023. My HRV was 14 msec and 12 msec on the first 2 days of symptoms, and then returned to the 20 msec range.

I received the RSV vaccine this year without adverse effects, and my HRV scores were 29 msec, 33 msec, and 32 msec on the first 3 days after vaccination. Finally, after receiving a pneumococcal vaccine in 2023, I had no adverse effects, and my HRV scores on the 5 days after vaccination were indeterminate: 19 msec, 14 msec, 18 msec, 13 msec, and 17 msec.

Of course, correlation is not causation. Cause and effect remain undetermined. But I find these observations interesting for a potentially useful screening test.

George D. Lundberg, MD, is the Editor in Chief of Cancer Commons.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved Medtronic’s novel “extravascular” implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (Aurora EV-ICD) system, which uses a single lead implanted substernally to allow antitachycardia pacing and low-energy defibrillation while avoiding the vascular space for lead placement.

Courtesy Medtronic

“The Aurora EV-ICD system is a tremendous step forward in implantable defibrillator technology,” Bradley P. Knight, MD, medical director of electrophysiology at Northwestern Medicine Bluhm Cardiovascular Institute, Chicago, said in a company news release.

“Placing the leads outside of the heart, rather than inside the heart and veins, reduces the risk of long-term complications, ultimately allowing us to further evolve safe and effective ICD technology,” said Dr. Knight, who was involved in the pivotal trial that led to U.S. approval.

The approval, which includes the system’s proprietary procedure implant tools, was supported by results from a global pivotal study that demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of the system.

Results of the study were presented at the annual meeting of the European Society of Cardiology in 2022.

The study enrolled 356 patients who were at risk of sudden cardiac death and who had a class I or IIa indication for ICD. Participants were enrolled at 46 sites in 17 countries.

The device’s effectiveness in delivering defibrillation therapy at implant (primary efficacy endpoint) was 98.7%, compared with a prespecified target of 88%.

There were no major intraprocedural complications, nor were any unique complications observed that were related to the EV ICD procedure or system, compared with transvenous and subcutaneous ICDs.

Additionally, 33 defibrillation shocks were avoided by having antitachycardia pacing programmed “on.”

At 6 months, 92.6% of patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate) were free from major system- and/or procedure-related major complications, such as hospitalization, system revision, or death.

The Aurora EV-ICD system is indicated for patients who are at risk of life-threatening arrhythmias, who have not previously undergone sternotomy, and who do not need long-term bradycardia pacing.

The Aurora EV-ICD system is similar in size, shape, and longevity to traditional transvenous ICDs.

Medtronic said the Aurora EV-ICD system will be commercially available on a limited basis in the United States in the coming weeks.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved Medtronic’s novel “extravascular” implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (Aurora EV-ICD) system, which uses a single lead implanted substernally to allow antitachycardia pacing and low-energy defibrillation while avoiding the vascular space for lead placement.

Courtesy Medtronic

“The Aurora EV-ICD system is a tremendous step forward in implantable defibrillator technology,” Bradley P. Knight, MD, medical director of electrophysiology at Northwestern Medicine Bluhm Cardiovascular Institute, Chicago, said in a company news release.

“Placing the leads outside of the heart, rather than inside the heart and veins, reduces the risk of long-term complications, ultimately allowing us to further evolve safe and effective ICD technology,” said Dr. Knight, who was involved in the pivotal trial that led to U.S. approval.

The approval, which includes the system’s proprietary procedure implant tools, was supported by results from a global pivotal study that demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of the system.

Results of the study were presented at the annual meeting of the European Society of Cardiology in 2022.

The study enrolled 356 patients who were at risk of sudden cardiac death and who had a class I or IIa indication for ICD. Participants were enrolled at 46 sites in 17 countries.

The device’s effectiveness in delivering defibrillation therapy at implant (primary efficacy endpoint) was 98.7%, compared with a prespecified target of 88%.

There were no major intraprocedural complications, nor were any unique complications observed that were related to the EV ICD procedure or system, compared with transvenous and subcutaneous ICDs.

Additionally, 33 defibrillation shocks were avoided by having antitachycardia pacing programmed “on.”

At 6 months, 92.6% of patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate) were free from major system- and/or procedure-related major complications, such as hospitalization, system revision, or death.

The Aurora EV-ICD system is indicated for patients who are at risk of life-threatening arrhythmias, who have not previously undergone sternotomy, and who do not need long-term bradycardia pacing.

The Aurora EV-ICD system is similar in size, shape, and longevity to traditional transvenous ICDs.

Medtronic said the Aurora EV-ICD system will be commercially available on a limited basis in the United States in the coming weeks.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved Medtronic’s novel “extravascular” implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (Aurora EV-ICD) system, which uses a single lead implanted substernally to allow antitachycardia pacing and low-energy defibrillation while avoiding the vascular space for lead placement.

Courtesy Medtronic

“The Aurora EV-ICD system is a tremendous step forward in implantable defibrillator technology,” Bradley P. Knight, MD, medical director of electrophysiology at Northwestern Medicine Bluhm Cardiovascular Institute, Chicago, said in a company news release.

“Placing the leads outside of the heart, rather than inside the heart and veins, reduces the risk of long-term complications, ultimately allowing us to further evolve safe and effective ICD technology,” said Dr. Knight, who was involved in the pivotal trial that led to U.S. approval.

The approval, which includes the system’s proprietary procedure implant tools, was supported by results from a global pivotal study that demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of the system.

Results of the study were presented at the annual meeting of the European Society of Cardiology in 2022.

The study enrolled 356 patients who were at risk of sudden cardiac death and who had a class I or IIa indication for ICD. Participants were enrolled at 46 sites in 17 countries.

The device’s effectiveness in delivering defibrillation therapy at implant (primary efficacy endpoint) was 98.7%, compared with a prespecified target of 88%.

There were no major intraprocedural complications, nor were any unique complications observed that were related to the EV ICD procedure or system, compared with transvenous and subcutaneous ICDs.

Additionally, 33 defibrillation shocks were avoided by having antitachycardia pacing programmed “on.”

At 6 months, 92.6% of patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate) were free from major system- and/or procedure-related major complications, such as hospitalization, system revision, or death.

The Aurora EV-ICD system is indicated for patients who are at risk of life-threatening arrhythmias, who have not previously undergone sternotomy, and who do not need long-term bradycardia pacing.

The Aurora EV-ICD system is similar in size, shape, and longevity to traditional transvenous ICDs.

Medtronic said the Aurora EV-ICD system will be commercially available on a limited basis in the United States in the coming weeks.

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