Heart Failure

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Giving patients a beta-blocker after a myocardial infarction is standard of care. It’s in the guidelines. It’s one of the performance measures used by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA). If you aren’t putting your post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients on a beta-blocker, the ACC and the AHA both think you suck. 

They are very disappointed in you, just like your mother was when you told her you didn’t want to become a surgeon because you don’t like waking up early, your hands shake when you get nervous, it’s not your fault, there’s nothing you can do about it, so just leave me alone!

The data on beta-blockers are decades old. In the time before stents, statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and dual antiplatelet therapy, when patients either died or got better on their own, beta-blockers showed major benefits. Studies like the Norwegian Multicenter Study Group, the BHAT trial, and the ISIS-1 trial proved the benefits of beta blockade. These studies date back to the 1980s, when you could call a study ISIS without controversy. 

It was a simpler time, when all you had to worry about was the Cold War, apartheid, and the global AIDS pandemic. It was a time when doctors smoked in their offices, and patients had bigger infarcts that caused large scars and systolic dysfunction. That world is no longer our world, except for the war, the global pandemic, and the out-of-control gas prices. 

The reality is that, before troponins, we probably missed most small heart attacks. Now, most infarcts are small, and most patients walk away from their heart attacks with essentially normal hearts. Do beta-blockers still matter? If you’re a fan of Cochrane reviews, the answer is yes. 

In 2021, Cochrane published a review of beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction (MI). The authors of that analysis concluded, after the usual caveats about heterogeneity, potential bias, and the whims of a random universe, that, yes, beta-blockers do reduce mortality. The risk ratio for max all-cause mortality was 0.81. 

What does that mean practically? The absolute risk was reduced from 10.9% to 8.7%, a 2.2–percentage point absolute decrease and about a 20% relative drop. A little math gives us a third number: 46. That’s the number needed to treat. If you think about how many patients you admit during a typical week of critical care unit with an MI, a number needed to treat of 46 is a pretty good trade-off for a fairly inexpensive medication with fairly minimal side effects. 

Of course, these are the same people who claim that masks don’t stop the spread of COVID-19. Sure, were they the only people who thought that handwashing was the best way to stop a respiratory virus? No. We all believed that fantasy for far longer than we should have. Not everybody can bat a thousand, if by batting a thousand, you mean reflecting on how your words will impact on a broader population primed to believe misinformation because of the increasingly toxic social media environment and worsening politicization and radicalization of our politics. 

By the way, if any of you want to come to Canada, you can stay with me. Things are incrementally better here. In this day and age, incrementally better is the best we can hope for. 

Here’s the wrinkle with the Cochrane beta-blocker review: Many of the studies took place before early revascularization became the norm and before our current armamentarium of drugs became standard of care. 

Back in the day, bed rest and the power of positive thinking were the mainstays of cardiac treatment. Also, many of these studies mixed together ST-segment MI (STEMI) and non-STEMI patients, so you’re obviously going to see more benefits in STEMI patients who are at higher risk. Some of them used intravenous (IV) beta-blockers right away, whereas some were looking only at oral beta-blockers started days after the infarct. 

We don’t use IV beta-blockers that much anymore because of the risk for shock. 

Also, some studies had short-term follow-up where the benefits were less pronounced, and some studies used doses and types of beta-blockers rarely used today. Some of the studies had a mix of coronary and heart failure patients, which muddies the water because the heart failure patients would clearly benefit from being on a beta-blocker. 

Basically, the data are not definitive because they are old and don’t reflect our current standard of care. The data contain a heterogeneous mix of patients that aren’t really relevant to the question that we’re asking. The question we’re asking is, should you put all your post-MI patients on a beta-blocker routinely, even if they don’t have heart failure? 

The REDUCE-AMI trial is the first of a few trials testing, or to be more accurate, retesting, whether beta-blockers are useful after an MI. BETAMI, REBOOT, DANBLOCK— you’ll be hearing these names in the next few years, either because the studies get published or because they’re the Twitter handles of people harassing you online. Either/or. (By the way, I’ll be cold in my grave before I call it X.) 

For now, REDUCE-AMI is the first across the finish line, and at least in cardiology, finishing first is a good thing. This study enrolled patients with ACS, both STEMI and non-STEMI, with a post-MI ejection fraction ≥ 50%, and the result was nothing. The risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.94 and was not statistically significant. 

In absolute terms, that’s a reduction from 4.1% to 3.9%, or a 0.2–percentage point decrease; this translates into a number needed to treat of 500, which is 10 times higher than what the Cochrane review found. That’s if you assume that there is, in fact, a small benefit amidst all the statistical noise, which there probably isn’t. 

Now, studies like this can never rule out small effects, either positive or negative, so maybe there is a small benefit from using beta-blockers. If it’s there, it’s really small. Do beta-blockers work? Well, yes, obviously, for heart failure and atrial fibrillation — which, let’s face it, are not exactly rare and often coexist in patients with heart disease. They probably aren’t that great as blood pressure pills, but that’s a story for another day and another video. 

Yes, beta-blockers are useful pills, and they are standard of care, just maybe not for post-MI patients with normal ejection fractions because they probably don’t really need them. They worked in the pre-stent, pre-aspirin, pre-anything era. 

That’s not our world anymore. Things change. It’s not the 1980s. That’s why I don’t have a mullet, and that’s why you need to update your kitchen. 
 

Dr. Labos, a cardiologist at Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Giving patients a beta-blocker after a myocardial infarction is standard of care. It’s in the guidelines. It’s one of the performance measures used by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA). If you aren’t putting your post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients on a beta-blocker, the ACC and the AHA both think you suck. 

They are very disappointed in you, just like your mother was when you told her you didn’t want to become a surgeon because you don’t like waking up early, your hands shake when you get nervous, it’s not your fault, there’s nothing you can do about it, so just leave me alone!

The data on beta-blockers are decades old. In the time before stents, statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and dual antiplatelet therapy, when patients either died or got better on their own, beta-blockers showed major benefits. Studies like the Norwegian Multicenter Study Group, the BHAT trial, and the ISIS-1 trial proved the benefits of beta blockade. These studies date back to the 1980s, when you could call a study ISIS without controversy. 

It was a simpler time, when all you had to worry about was the Cold War, apartheid, and the global AIDS pandemic. It was a time when doctors smoked in their offices, and patients had bigger infarcts that caused large scars and systolic dysfunction. That world is no longer our world, except for the war, the global pandemic, and the out-of-control gas prices. 

The reality is that, before troponins, we probably missed most small heart attacks. Now, most infarcts are small, and most patients walk away from their heart attacks with essentially normal hearts. Do beta-blockers still matter? If you’re a fan of Cochrane reviews, the answer is yes. 

In 2021, Cochrane published a review of beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction (MI). The authors of that analysis concluded, after the usual caveats about heterogeneity, potential bias, and the whims of a random universe, that, yes, beta-blockers do reduce mortality. The risk ratio for max all-cause mortality was 0.81. 

What does that mean practically? The absolute risk was reduced from 10.9% to 8.7%, a 2.2–percentage point absolute decrease and about a 20% relative drop. A little math gives us a third number: 46. That’s the number needed to treat. If you think about how many patients you admit during a typical week of critical care unit with an MI, a number needed to treat of 46 is a pretty good trade-off for a fairly inexpensive medication with fairly minimal side effects. 

Of course, these are the same people who claim that masks don’t stop the spread of COVID-19. Sure, were they the only people who thought that handwashing was the best way to stop a respiratory virus? No. We all believed that fantasy for far longer than we should have. Not everybody can bat a thousand, if by batting a thousand, you mean reflecting on how your words will impact on a broader population primed to believe misinformation because of the increasingly toxic social media environment and worsening politicization and radicalization of our politics. 

By the way, if any of you want to come to Canada, you can stay with me. Things are incrementally better here. In this day and age, incrementally better is the best we can hope for. 

Here’s the wrinkle with the Cochrane beta-blocker review: Many of the studies took place before early revascularization became the norm and before our current armamentarium of drugs became standard of care. 

Back in the day, bed rest and the power of positive thinking were the mainstays of cardiac treatment. Also, many of these studies mixed together ST-segment MI (STEMI) and non-STEMI patients, so you’re obviously going to see more benefits in STEMI patients who are at higher risk. Some of them used intravenous (IV) beta-blockers right away, whereas some were looking only at oral beta-blockers started days after the infarct. 

We don’t use IV beta-blockers that much anymore because of the risk for shock. 

Also, some studies had short-term follow-up where the benefits were less pronounced, and some studies used doses and types of beta-blockers rarely used today. Some of the studies had a mix of coronary and heart failure patients, which muddies the water because the heart failure patients would clearly benefit from being on a beta-blocker. 

Basically, the data are not definitive because they are old and don’t reflect our current standard of care. The data contain a heterogeneous mix of patients that aren’t really relevant to the question that we’re asking. The question we’re asking is, should you put all your post-MI patients on a beta-blocker routinely, even if they don’t have heart failure? 

The REDUCE-AMI trial is the first of a few trials testing, or to be more accurate, retesting, whether beta-blockers are useful after an MI. BETAMI, REBOOT, DANBLOCK— you’ll be hearing these names in the next few years, either because the studies get published or because they’re the Twitter handles of people harassing you online. Either/or. (By the way, I’ll be cold in my grave before I call it X.) 

For now, REDUCE-AMI is the first across the finish line, and at least in cardiology, finishing first is a good thing. This study enrolled patients with ACS, both STEMI and non-STEMI, with a post-MI ejection fraction ≥ 50%, and the result was nothing. The risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.94 and was not statistically significant. 

In absolute terms, that’s a reduction from 4.1% to 3.9%, or a 0.2–percentage point decrease; this translates into a number needed to treat of 500, which is 10 times higher than what the Cochrane review found. That’s if you assume that there is, in fact, a small benefit amidst all the statistical noise, which there probably isn’t. 

Now, studies like this can never rule out small effects, either positive or negative, so maybe there is a small benefit from using beta-blockers. If it’s there, it’s really small. Do beta-blockers work? Well, yes, obviously, for heart failure and atrial fibrillation — which, let’s face it, are not exactly rare and often coexist in patients with heart disease. They probably aren’t that great as blood pressure pills, but that’s a story for another day and another video. 

Yes, beta-blockers are useful pills, and they are standard of care, just maybe not for post-MI patients with normal ejection fractions because they probably don’t really need them. They worked in the pre-stent, pre-aspirin, pre-anything era. 

That’s not our world anymore. Things change. It’s not the 1980s. That’s why I don’t have a mullet, and that’s why you need to update your kitchen. 
 

Dr. Labos, a cardiologist at Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Giving patients a beta-blocker after a myocardial infarction is standard of care. It’s in the guidelines. It’s one of the performance measures used by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA). If you aren’t putting your post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients on a beta-blocker, the ACC and the AHA both think you suck. 

They are very disappointed in you, just like your mother was when you told her you didn’t want to become a surgeon because you don’t like waking up early, your hands shake when you get nervous, it’s not your fault, there’s nothing you can do about it, so just leave me alone!

The data on beta-blockers are decades old. In the time before stents, statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and dual antiplatelet therapy, when patients either died or got better on their own, beta-blockers showed major benefits. Studies like the Norwegian Multicenter Study Group, the BHAT trial, and the ISIS-1 trial proved the benefits of beta blockade. These studies date back to the 1980s, when you could call a study ISIS without controversy. 

It was a simpler time, when all you had to worry about was the Cold War, apartheid, and the global AIDS pandemic. It was a time when doctors smoked in their offices, and patients had bigger infarcts that caused large scars and systolic dysfunction. That world is no longer our world, except for the war, the global pandemic, and the out-of-control gas prices. 

The reality is that, before troponins, we probably missed most small heart attacks. Now, most infarcts are small, and most patients walk away from their heart attacks with essentially normal hearts. Do beta-blockers still matter? If you’re a fan of Cochrane reviews, the answer is yes. 

In 2021, Cochrane published a review of beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction (MI). The authors of that analysis concluded, after the usual caveats about heterogeneity, potential bias, and the whims of a random universe, that, yes, beta-blockers do reduce mortality. The risk ratio for max all-cause mortality was 0.81. 

What does that mean practically? The absolute risk was reduced from 10.9% to 8.7%, a 2.2–percentage point absolute decrease and about a 20% relative drop. A little math gives us a third number: 46. That’s the number needed to treat. If you think about how many patients you admit during a typical week of critical care unit with an MI, a number needed to treat of 46 is a pretty good trade-off for a fairly inexpensive medication with fairly minimal side effects. 

Of course, these are the same people who claim that masks don’t stop the spread of COVID-19. Sure, were they the only people who thought that handwashing was the best way to stop a respiratory virus? No. We all believed that fantasy for far longer than we should have. Not everybody can bat a thousand, if by batting a thousand, you mean reflecting on how your words will impact on a broader population primed to believe misinformation because of the increasingly toxic social media environment and worsening politicization and radicalization of our politics. 

By the way, if any of you want to come to Canada, you can stay with me. Things are incrementally better here. In this day and age, incrementally better is the best we can hope for. 

Here’s the wrinkle with the Cochrane beta-blocker review: Many of the studies took place before early revascularization became the norm and before our current armamentarium of drugs became standard of care. 

Back in the day, bed rest and the power of positive thinking were the mainstays of cardiac treatment. Also, many of these studies mixed together ST-segment MI (STEMI) and non-STEMI patients, so you’re obviously going to see more benefits in STEMI patients who are at higher risk. Some of them used intravenous (IV) beta-blockers right away, whereas some were looking only at oral beta-blockers started days after the infarct. 

We don’t use IV beta-blockers that much anymore because of the risk for shock. 

Also, some studies had short-term follow-up where the benefits were less pronounced, and some studies used doses and types of beta-blockers rarely used today. Some of the studies had a mix of coronary and heart failure patients, which muddies the water because the heart failure patients would clearly benefit from being on a beta-blocker. 

Basically, the data are not definitive because they are old and don’t reflect our current standard of care. The data contain a heterogeneous mix of patients that aren’t really relevant to the question that we’re asking. The question we’re asking is, should you put all your post-MI patients on a beta-blocker routinely, even if they don’t have heart failure? 

The REDUCE-AMI trial is the first of a few trials testing, or to be more accurate, retesting, whether beta-blockers are useful after an MI. BETAMI, REBOOT, DANBLOCK— you’ll be hearing these names in the next few years, either because the studies get published or because they’re the Twitter handles of people harassing you online. Either/or. (By the way, I’ll be cold in my grave before I call it X.) 

For now, REDUCE-AMI is the first across the finish line, and at least in cardiology, finishing first is a good thing. This study enrolled patients with ACS, both STEMI and non-STEMI, with a post-MI ejection fraction ≥ 50%, and the result was nothing. The risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.94 and was not statistically significant. 

In absolute terms, that’s a reduction from 4.1% to 3.9%, or a 0.2–percentage point decrease; this translates into a number needed to treat of 500, which is 10 times higher than what the Cochrane review found. That’s if you assume that there is, in fact, a small benefit amidst all the statistical noise, which there probably isn’t. 

Now, studies like this can never rule out small effects, either positive or negative, so maybe there is a small benefit from using beta-blockers. If it’s there, it’s really small. Do beta-blockers work? Well, yes, obviously, for heart failure and atrial fibrillation — which, let’s face it, are not exactly rare and often coexist in patients with heart disease. They probably aren’t that great as blood pressure pills, but that’s a story for another day and another video. 

Yes, beta-blockers are useful pills, and they are standard of care, just maybe not for post-MI patients with normal ejection fractions because they probably don’t really need them. They worked in the pre-stent, pre-aspirin, pre-anything era. 

That’s not our world anymore. Things change. It’s not the 1980s. That’s why I don’t have a mullet, and that’s why you need to update your kitchen. 
 

Dr. Labos, a cardiologist at Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Jordan Stohler, a 42-year-old nurse in Knoxville, Tennessee, was readmitted to Fort Sanders Medical Center in June 2023 with sepsis after a double mastectomy. 

She spent 5 days in the hospital after surgery to clear up the infection. Then she was offered a choice: She could either stay in the hospital while she received IV antibiotics, or she could go home and have the antibiotics given to her there under the Advanced Care at Home program of Covenant Health, the nine-hospital system to which Fort Sanders belongs.

She opted to go home, where she knew she’d be more comfortable and would be close to her beloved dog. In the end, she was very glad she did. 

“I received great care in the hospital, but to be allowed to be in the comfort of your own home, to be around my dog, who I think is therapeutic, to be able to cook my own meals, and to have the same one-on-one nursing care that I would have gotten in the hospital was great,” Ms. Stohler said. “

Being cared for at home helped her heal, she said. “I probably would have gotten a little stir crazy if I’d stayed in the hospital any longer. I received excellent care at home.”

Covenant’s Advanced Care at Home program is an example of the hospital-at-home trend that has been growing rapidly since Medicare began reimbursing hospitals for this approach during the COVID pandemic. Currently, 322 hospitals in 37 states have Medicare waivers for these kinds of programs, although not all of them are currently functioning.

A recent survey published in JAMA found that nearly half of consumers would accept hospital-at-home, and more than a third were neutral on it. Only 17% said they’d rather be cared for in a brick-and-mortar hospital. 

The findings of the JAMA survey confirm those of earlier studies, said Bruce Leff, MD, a professor at Johns Hopkins Medical School in Baltimore, who has researched hospital-at-home since the 1990s. Like the new study, those trials found that the results had no relationship to individual traits, such as socioeconomic status, medical conditions, age, gender, or race. 

Whether a person felt comfortable with the idea of hospital-at-home boiled down “to a preference for receiving care at home or in the hospital,” he said. Some people distrust hospitals, and others feel insecure about receiving care at home, even if it is provided by qualified health care professionals.
 

How Patients Are Selected 

While the details of hospital-at-home vary from program to program, the basic scenario is that patients who need certain kinds of acute care can be sent home from hospitals, emergency departments, or clinics to receive that care at home. Among the kinds of conditions that make stable patients eligible are heart failure, COPD, pneumonia, cellulitis, and COVID-19, said John Busigin, MD, a hospitalist and medical director of Covenant Advanced Care at Home. 

When a patient is admitted to hospital-at-home, the hospital will send along whatever equipment and medications that person needs. In some cases, this may include a hospital bed, although Ms. Stohler used her own. An IV line was put into her arm, and the IV stand was placed next to the bed. 

Ms. Stohler received a computer tablet that she used to communicate with doctors and nurses in Covenant’s “command center” in Knoxville. She also wore a watch with a button she could push in case of an emergency. And she had a telephone line that went directly to her medical team, in case she had an issue and the tablet didn’t work.

Twice a day, or as needed, specially trained paramedics came to Ms. Stohler’s home. They checked on the IV line, changed the IV bag, performed tests, and uploaded vital signs from monitoring equipment to Ms. Stohler’s tablet so it could be transmitted to the command center. A physician assistant came in on the second and fourth days of her weeklong stay in the program, and she saw a hospitalist remotely every day.

While some hospital-at-home programs have registered nurses visit patients at home, RNs are in short supply. To fill this gap, Covenant’s program uses community paramedics who have been in the field for at least 5 years, doing everything from intubating patients and placing them on ventilators to providing advanced cardiac life support, Dr. Busigin said. To get certified as community paramedics, they go through a 3-month training program.

Shortly after Ms. Stohler went into hospital-at-home, she had another crisis. Excess fluid had built up in her body because of all the IV fluids she’d received in the hospital while fighting the sepsis. As a result, she became short of breath. If she had been discharged to home rather than hospital-at-home, she said, she would have had to go to the emergency room. Instead, she sent out a distress call. One of the paramedics rushed to her house and gave her an IV diuretic medication, which helped her urinate to get rid of the excess fluid.

A small number of the estimated 300 people who have gone through the program had to be admitted to the hospital, Dr. Busigin said. Nationally, he said, about 5%-10% are admitted. But readmissions among the patients in the Covenant program have been 25% lower than for patients who received conventional hospital care and had the same conditions as those in hospital-at-home.

Studies have shown that these programs not only reduce readmissions, but also cost less, on average, and create a better patient experience than traditional hospital care does. And, according to the JAMA survey, most consumers like the idea. Fifty-six percent of people who took the survey agreed with the statement that people recover faster at home than in the hospital. Fifty-nine percent agreed they’d feel safe being treated at home, and 49% said they’d be more comfortable if treated at home. 

The 1134 people who took the survey were also asked about their comfort level with providing various kinds of care to their loved ones during a hospital-at-home episode. The results varied with the type of task: For example, 82% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed they could manage a patient’s medications, while just 41% said they’d be willing to change a feeding tube. Smaller percentages were willing to change an IV bag or a catheter or do wound care.

However, hospital-at-home programs don’t allow caregivers to take part in clinical care, which is prohibited by Medicare waivers and state licensing regulations. None of the 22 health systems that use the hospital-at-home services of Medically Home, including Covenant, ask caregivers to do anything along this line, said Pippa Shulman, DO, medical director of the company, which provides equipment, technology, and protocols for hospital programs

The only exception at Covenant, Dr. Busigin said, is that the hospital may train family members to do wound care when a patient is discharged from the hospital to Advanced Care at Home. They may also prepare meals for their loved ones, although the program provides balanced meals to patients if they want them. Ms. Stohler had some of these meals, which just had to be heated up, for the first few days of hospital-at-home, and later her relatives brought meals to her house.
 

Challenges for the Future

The number of Medicare hospital-at-home waivers has nearly doubled since 2021. A year earlier, when Medicare began reimbursing hospitals for acute care at home to help them cope with the overflow of COVID patients, there were only about 15-20 programs in the United States, said Dr. Leff of Johns Hopkins.

A big reason for the lack of use before the pandemic, Dr. Leff said, is that there was no payment system for hospitals that offered hospital-at-home. Now, they can get paid by Medicare and 10 state Medicaid programs, and a number of private payers are also coming on board. Ms. Stohler’s private insurer covered her hospital-at-home stay, and Dr. Busigin said several plans that contract with Covenant will pay for it.

Dr. Leff said he’s cautiously optimistic Congress will extend the Medicare waiver program, which is scheduled to end in December, for another 5 years. A couple of key House committees have signed off on a bill to do that, he said, and a Congressional Budget Office report found that the program did not cost Medicare more money. 

But even if the waiver is renewed, some health systems may find it tough to deliver the service. The current version of this model depends a lot on technology, because telemedicine is used and reliable communication is needed for patients in hospital-at-home. That’s why many of the hospitals hire outside vendors like Medically Home to provide the infrastructure they need.

Medically Home manages the tablets given to patients and all connection and networking services, including internet and cellphone connections. It also provides technical services in the command centers that hospitals set up for the doctors and nurses who provide care remotely. 

And the firm figures out how to deliver the standard care for each condition in each hospital-at-home. “We need to make sure that the patient is going to get what they need in the time frame it needs to be delivered in, and that it’s safe and effective for the patient,” Dr. Shulman said. “So we’ve developed logistical protocols for a multitude of disease states that allow us to provide high-acuity care in the home to a variety of complex patients.”

The health care workers use the hospital electronic health record for hospital-at-home patients, and vital signs uploaded from patient tablets flow directly into the electronic health record, she said.
 

Rural Areas Need Help

The use of hospital-at-home in rural areas holds a lot of promise, Dr. Leff said. 

“A lot of rural hospitals have been closing, and hospital-at-home could be a mechanism to create hospital-level care where facilities have closed down. It’s easier to do this in urban areas, but it can be done in rural environments as well.”

Rami Karjian, CEO of Medically Home, agreed. The firm services hospital-at-home programs in rural areas of Oklahoma and California, using cellphones and paramedics in areas that lack broadband connections and nurses, he pointed out. 

“Hospital-at-home can’t just be available to people who live in big cities,” he said. “The access problems in health care are pervasive, and this is part of how we solve access problems in rural areas.”
 

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

Jordan Stohler, a 42-year-old nurse in Knoxville, Tennessee, was readmitted to Fort Sanders Medical Center in June 2023 with sepsis after a double mastectomy. 

She spent 5 days in the hospital after surgery to clear up the infection. Then she was offered a choice: She could either stay in the hospital while she received IV antibiotics, or she could go home and have the antibiotics given to her there under the Advanced Care at Home program of Covenant Health, the nine-hospital system to which Fort Sanders belongs.

She opted to go home, where she knew she’d be more comfortable and would be close to her beloved dog. In the end, she was very glad she did. 

“I received great care in the hospital, but to be allowed to be in the comfort of your own home, to be around my dog, who I think is therapeutic, to be able to cook my own meals, and to have the same one-on-one nursing care that I would have gotten in the hospital was great,” Ms. Stohler said. “

Being cared for at home helped her heal, she said. “I probably would have gotten a little stir crazy if I’d stayed in the hospital any longer. I received excellent care at home.”

Covenant’s Advanced Care at Home program is an example of the hospital-at-home trend that has been growing rapidly since Medicare began reimbursing hospitals for this approach during the COVID pandemic. Currently, 322 hospitals in 37 states have Medicare waivers for these kinds of programs, although not all of them are currently functioning.

A recent survey published in JAMA found that nearly half of consumers would accept hospital-at-home, and more than a third were neutral on it. Only 17% said they’d rather be cared for in a brick-and-mortar hospital. 

The findings of the JAMA survey confirm those of earlier studies, said Bruce Leff, MD, a professor at Johns Hopkins Medical School in Baltimore, who has researched hospital-at-home since the 1990s. Like the new study, those trials found that the results had no relationship to individual traits, such as socioeconomic status, medical conditions, age, gender, or race. 

Whether a person felt comfortable with the idea of hospital-at-home boiled down “to a preference for receiving care at home or in the hospital,” he said. Some people distrust hospitals, and others feel insecure about receiving care at home, even if it is provided by qualified health care professionals.
 

How Patients Are Selected 

While the details of hospital-at-home vary from program to program, the basic scenario is that patients who need certain kinds of acute care can be sent home from hospitals, emergency departments, or clinics to receive that care at home. Among the kinds of conditions that make stable patients eligible are heart failure, COPD, pneumonia, cellulitis, and COVID-19, said John Busigin, MD, a hospitalist and medical director of Covenant Advanced Care at Home. 

When a patient is admitted to hospital-at-home, the hospital will send along whatever equipment and medications that person needs. In some cases, this may include a hospital bed, although Ms. Stohler used her own. An IV line was put into her arm, and the IV stand was placed next to the bed. 

Ms. Stohler received a computer tablet that she used to communicate with doctors and nurses in Covenant’s “command center” in Knoxville. She also wore a watch with a button she could push in case of an emergency. And she had a telephone line that went directly to her medical team, in case she had an issue and the tablet didn’t work.

Twice a day, or as needed, specially trained paramedics came to Ms. Stohler’s home. They checked on the IV line, changed the IV bag, performed tests, and uploaded vital signs from monitoring equipment to Ms. Stohler’s tablet so it could be transmitted to the command center. A physician assistant came in on the second and fourth days of her weeklong stay in the program, and she saw a hospitalist remotely every day.

While some hospital-at-home programs have registered nurses visit patients at home, RNs are in short supply. To fill this gap, Covenant’s program uses community paramedics who have been in the field for at least 5 years, doing everything from intubating patients and placing them on ventilators to providing advanced cardiac life support, Dr. Busigin said. To get certified as community paramedics, they go through a 3-month training program.

Shortly after Ms. Stohler went into hospital-at-home, she had another crisis. Excess fluid had built up in her body because of all the IV fluids she’d received in the hospital while fighting the sepsis. As a result, she became short of breath. If she had been discharged to home rather than hospital-at-home, she said, she would have had to go to the emergency room. Instead, she sent out a distress call. One of the paramedics rushed to her house and gave her an IV diuretic medication, which helped her urinate to get rid of the excess fluid.

A small number of the estimated 300 people who have gone through the program had to be admitted to the hospital, Dr. Busigin said. Nationally, he said, about 5%-10% are admitted. But readmissions among the patients in the Covenant program have been 25% lower than for patients who received conventional hospital care and had the same conditions as those in hospital-at-home.

Studies have shown that these programs not only reduce readmissions, but also cost less, on average, and create a better patient experience than traditional hospital care does. And, according to the JAMA survey, most consumers like the idea. Fifty-six percent of people who took the survey agreed with the statement that people recover faster at home than in the hospital. Fifty-nine percent agreed they’d feel safe being treated at home, and 49% said they’d be more comfortable if treated at home. 

The 1134 people who took the survey were also asked about their comfort level with providing various kinds of care to their loved ones during a hospital-at-home episode. The results varied with the type of task: For example, 82% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed they could manage a patient’s medications, while just 41% said they’d be willing to change a feeding tube. Smaller percentages were willing to change an IV bag or a catheter or do wound care.

However, hospital-at-home programs don’t allow caregivers to take part in clinical care, which is prohibited by Medicare waivers and state licensing regulations. None of the 22 health systems that use the hospital-at-home services of Medically Home, including Covenant, ask caregivers to do anything along this line, said Pippa Shulman, DO, medical director of the company, which provides equipment, technology, and protocols for hospital programs

The only exception at Covenant, Dr. Busigin said, is that the hospital may train family members to do wound care when a patient is discharged from the hospital to Advanced Care at Home. They may also prepare meals for their loved ones, although the program provides balanced meals to patients if they want them. Ms. Stohler had some of these meals, which just had to be heated up, for the first few days of hospital-at-home, and later her relatives brought meals to her house.
 

Challenges for the Future

The number of Medicare hospital-at-home waivers has nearly doubled since 2021. A year earlier, when Medicare began reimbursing hospitals for acute care at home to help them cope with the overflow of COVID patients, there were only about 15-20 programs in the United States, said Dr. Leff of Johns Hopkins.

A big reason for the lack of use before the pandemic, Dr. Leff said, is that there was no payment system for hospitals that offered hospital-at-home. Now, they can get paid by Medicare and 10 state Medicaid programs, and a number of private payers are also coming on board. Ms. Stohler’s private insurer covered her hospital-at-home stay, and Dr. Busigin said several plans that contract with Covenant will pay for it.

Dr. Leff said he’s cautiously optimistic Congress will extend the Medicare waiver program, which is scheduled to end in December, for another 5 years. A couple of key House committees have signed off on a bill to do that, he said, and a Congressional Budget Office report found that the program did not cost Medicare more money. 

But even if the waiver is renewed, some health systems may find it tough to deliver the service. The current version of this model depends a lot on technology, because telemedicine is used and reliable communication is needed for patients in hospital-at-home. That’s why many of the hospitals hire outside vendors like Medically Home to provide the infrastructure they need.

Medically Home manages the tablets given to patients and all connection and networking services, including internet and cellphone connections. It also provides technical services in the command centers that hospitals set up for the doctors and nurses who provide care remotely. 

And the firm figures out how to deliver the standard care for each condition in each hospital-at-home. “We need to make sure that the patient is going to get what they need in the time frame it needs to be delivered in, and that it’s safe and effective for the patient,” Dr. Shulman said. “So we’ve developed logistical protocols for a multitude of disease states that allow us to provide high-acuity care in the home to a variety of complex patients.”

The health care workers use the hospital electronic health record for hospital-at-home patients, and vital signs uploaded from patient tablets flow directly into the electronic health record, she said.
 

Rural Areas Need Help

The use of hospital-at-home in rural areas holds a lot of promise, Dr. Leff said. 

“A lot of rural hospitals have been closing, and hospital-at-home could be a mechanism to create hospital-level care where facilities have closed down. It’s easier to do this in urban areas, but it can be done in rural environments as well.”

Rami Karjian, CEO of Medically Home, agreed. The firm services hospital-at-home programs in rural areas of Oklahoma and California, using cellphones and paramedics in areas that lack broadband connections and nurses, he pointed out. 

“Hospital-at-home can’t just be available to people who live in big cities,” he said. “The access problems in health care are pervasive, and this is part of how we solve access problems in rural areas.”
 

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

Jordan Stohler, a 42-year-old nurse in Knoxville, Tennessee, was readmitted to Fort Sanders Medical Center in June 2023 with sepsis after a double mastectomy. 

She spent 5 days in the hospital after surgery to clear up the infection. Then she was offered a choice: She could either stay in the hospital while she received IV antibiotics, or she could go home and have the antibiotics given to her there under the Advanced Care at Home program of Covenant Health, the nine-hospital system to which Fort Sanders belongs.

She opted to go home, where she knew she’d be more comfortable and would be close to her beloved dog. In the end, she was very glad she did. 

“I received great care in the hospital, but to be allowed to be in the comfort of your own home, to be around my dog, who I think is therapeutic, to be able to cook my own meals, and to have the same one-on-one nursing care that I would have gotten in the hospital was great,” Ms. Stohler said. “

Being cared for at home helped her heal, she said. “I probably would have gotten a little stir crazy if I’d stayed in the hospital any longer. I received excellent care at home.”

Covenant’s Advanced Care at Home program is an example of the hospital-at-home trend that has been growing rapidly since Medicare began reimbursing hospitals for this approach during the COVID pandemic. Currently, 322 hospitals in 37 states have Medicare waivers for these kinds of programs, although not all of them are currently functioning.

A recent survey published in JAMA found that nearly half of consumers would accept hospital-at-home, and more than a third were neutral on it. Only 17% said they’d rather be cared for in a brick-and-mortar hospital. 

The findings of the JAMA survey confirm those of earlier studies, said Bruce Leff, MD, a professor at Johns Hopkins Medical School in Baltimore, who has researched hospital-at-home since the 1990s. Like the new study, those trials found that the results had no relationship to individual traits, such as socioeconomic status, medical conditions, age, gender, or race. 

Whether a person felt comfortable with the idea of hospital-at-home boiled down “to a preference for receiving care at home or in the hospital,” he said. Some people distrust hospitals, and others feel insecure about receiving care at home, even if it is provided by qualified health care professionals.
 

How Patients Are Selected 

While the details of hospital-at-home vary from program to program, the basic scenario is that patients who need certain kinds of acute care can be sent home from hospitals, emergency departments, or clinics to receive that care at home. Among the kinds of conditions that make stable patients eligible are heart failure, COPD, pneumonia, cellulitis, and COVID-19, said John Busigin, MD, a hospitalist and medical director of Covenant Advanced Care at Home. 

When a patient is admitted to hospital-at-home, the hospital will send along whatever equipment and medications that person needs. In some cases, this may include a hospital bed, although Ms. Stohler used her own. An IV line was put into her arm, and the IV stand was placed next to the bed. 

Ms. Stohler received a computer tablet that she used to communicate with doctors and nurses in Covenant’s “command center” in Knoxville. She also wore a watch with a button she could push in case of an emergency. And she had a telephone line that went directly to her medical team, in case she had an issue and the tablet didn’t work.

Twice a day, or as needed, specially trained paramedics came to Ms. Stohler’s home. They checked on the IV line, changed the IV bag, performed tests, and uploaded vital signs from monitoring equipment to Ms. Stohler’s tablet so it could be transmitted to the command center. A physician assistant came in on the second and fourth days of her weeklong stay in the program, and she saw a hospitalist remotely every day.

While some hospital-at-home programs have registered nurses visit patients at home, RNs are in short supply. To fill this gap, Covenant’s program uses community paramedics who have been in the field for at least 5 years, doing everything from intubating patients and placing them on ventilators to providing advanced cardiac life support, Dr. Busigin said. To get certified as community paramedics, they go through a 3-month training program.

Shortly after Ms. Stohler went into hospital-at-home, she had another crisis. Excess fluid had built up in her body because of all the IV fluids she’d received in the hospital while fighting the sepsis. As a result, she became short of breath. If she had been discharged to home rather than hospital-at-home, she said, she would have had to go to the emergency room. Instead, she sent out a distress call. One of the paramedics rushed to her house and gave her an IV diuretic medication, which helped her urinate to get rid of the excess fluid.

A small number of the estimated 300 people who have gone through the program had to be admitted to the hospital, Dr. Busigin said. Nationally, he said, about 5%-10% are admitted. But readmissions among the patients in the Covenant program have been 25% lower than for patients who received conventional hospital care and had the same conditions as those in hospital-at-home.

Studies have shown that these programs not only reduce readmissions, but also cost less, on average, and create a better patient experience than traditional hospital care does. And, according to the JAMA survey, most consumers like the idea. Fifty-six percent of people who took the survey agreed with the statement that people recover faster at home than in the hospital. Fifty-nine percent agreed they’d feel safe being treated at home, and 49% said they’d be more comfortable if treated at home. 

The 1134 people who took the survey were also asked about their comfort level with providing various kinds of care to their loved ones during a hospital-at-home episode. The results varied with the type of task: For example, 82% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed they could manage a patient’s medications, while just 41% said they’d be willing to change a feeding tube. Smaller percentages were willing to change an IV bag or a catheter or do wound care.

However, hospital-at-home programs don’t allow caregivers to take part in clinical care, which is prohibited by Medicare waivers and state licensing regulations. None of the 22 health systems that use the hospital-at-home services of Medically Home, including Covenant, ask caregivers to do anything along this line, said Pippa Shulman, DO, medical director of the company, which provides equipment, technology, and protocols for hospital programs

The only exception at Covenant, Dr. Busigin said, is that the hospital may train family members to do wound care when a patient is discharged from the hospital to Advanced Care at Home. They may also prepare meals for their loved ones, although the program provides balanced meals to patients if they want them. Ms. Stohler had some of these meals, which just had to be heated up, for the first few days of hospital-at-home, and later her relatives brought meals to her house.
 

Challenges for the Future

The number of Medicare hospital-at-home waivers has nearly doubled since 2021. A year earlier, when Medicare began reimbursing hospitals for acute care at home to help them cope with the overflow of COVID patients, there were only about 15-20 programs in the United States, said Dr. Leff of Johns Hopkins.

A big reason for the lack of use before the pandemic, Dr. Leff said, is that there was no payment system for hospitals that offered hospital-at-home. Now, they can get paid by Medicare and 10 state Medicaid programs, and a number of private payers are also coming on board. Ms. Stohler’s private insurer covered her hospital-at-home stay, and Dr. Busigin said several plans that contract with Covenant will pay for it.

Dr. Leff said he’s cautiously optimistic Congress will extend the Medicare waiver program, which is scheduled to end in December, for another 5 years. A couple of key House committees have signed off on a bill to do that, he said, and a Congressional Budget Office report found that the program did not cost Medicare more money. 

But even if the waiver is renewed, some health systems may find it tough to deliver the service. The current version of this model depends a lot on technology, because telemedicine is used and reliable communication is needed for patients in hospital-at-home. That’s why many of the hospitals hire outside vendors like Medically Home to provide the infrastructure they need.

Medically Home manages the tablets given to patients and all connection and networking services, including internet and cellphone connections. It also provides technical services in the command centers that hospitals set up for the doctors and nurses who provide care remotely. 

And the firm figures out how to deliver the standard care for each condition in each hospital-at-home. “We need to make sure that the patient is going to get what they need in the time frame it needs to be delivered in, and that it’s safe and effective for the patient,” Dr. Shulman said. “So we’ve developed logistical protocols for a multitude of disease states that allow us to provide high-acuity care in the home to a variety of complex patients.”

The health care workers use the hospital electronic health record for hospital-at-home patients, and vital signs uploaded from patient tablets flow directly into the electronic health record, she said.
 

Rural Areas Need Help

The use of hospital-at-home in rural areas holds a lot of promise, Dr. Leff said. 

“A lot of rural hospitals have been closing, and hospital-at-home could be a mechanism to create hospital-level care where facilities have closed down. It’s easier to do this in urban areas, but it can be done in rural environments as well.”

Rami Karjian, CEO of Medically Home, agreed. The firm services hospital-at-home programs in rural areas of Oklahoma and California, using cellphones and paramedics in areas that lack broadband connections and nurses, he pointed out. 

“Hospital-at-home can’t just be available to people who live in big cities,” he said. “The access problems in health care are pervasive, and this is part of how we solve access problems in rural areas.”
 

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

TOPLINE:

Rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) do not differ significantly among individual biologics used for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA), a database analysis finds. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Data from the TriNetX health records database included 32,758 patients treated with TNF inhibitors (TNFi, 62.9%), interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i, 15.4%), IL-23i (10.7%), and IL-12i/IL-23i (10.7%).
• The researchers calculated time-dependent risk for MACE using multinomial Cox proportional hazard ratios. The reference was TNFi exposure.
• Subset analyses compared MACE in patients with and without existing cardiovascular disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with TNFi use, there was no difference in the incidence of MACE events in the IL-17i, IL-23i, or IL-12i/IL-23i group.
• There were also no significant differences between biologic groups in the incidence of congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, or cerebral vascular accident/stroke.

IN PRACTICE:

Despite some concern about increased risk for MACE with TNFi use, this study suggests no special risk for patients with psoriasis or PsA associated with TNFi vs other biologics. “Given our results, as it pertains to MACE, prescribers shouldn’t favor any one biologic class over another,” said lead investigator Shikha Singla, MD, medical director of the Psoriatic Arthritis Program at Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

SOURCE:

Bonit Gill, MD, a second-year fellow at Medical College of Wisconsin, presented the study as a poster at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective nature makes it impossible to prove causation and the patients included in the study were from Wisconsin, which may limit generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Gill had no relevant financial disclosures. Other study authors participated in trials or consulted for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB.

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

TOPLINE:

Rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) do not differ significantly among individual biologics used for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA), a database analysis finds. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Data from the TriNetX health records database included 32,758 patients treated with TNF inhibitors (TNFi, 62.9%), interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i, 15.4%), IL-23i (10.7%), and IL-12i/IL-23i (10.7%).
• The researchers calculated time-dependent risk for MACE using multinomial Cox proportional hazard ratios. The reference was TNFi exposure.
• Subset analyses compared MACE in patients with and without existing cardiovascular disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with TNFi use, there was no difference in the incidence of MACE events in the IL-17i, IL-23i, or IL-12i/IL-23i group.
• There were also no significant differences between biologic groups in the incidence of congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, or cerebral vascular accident/stroke.

IN PRACTICE:

Despite some concern about increased risk for MACE with TNFi use, this study suggests no special risk for patients with psoriasis or PsA associated with TNFi vs other biologics. “Given our results, as it pertains to MACE, prescribers shouldn’t favor any one biologic class over another,” said lead investigator Shikha Singla, MD, medical director of the Psoriatic Arthritis Program at Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

SOURCE:

Bonit Gill, MD, a second-year fellow at Medical College of Wisconsin, presented the study as a poster at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective nature makes it impossible to prove causation and the patients included in the study were from Wisconsin, which may limit generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Gill had no relevant financial disclosures. Other study authors participated in trials or consulted for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB.

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

TOPLINE:

Rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) do not differ significantly among individual biologics used for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA), a database analysis finds. 

METHODOLOGY:

• Data from the TriNetX health records database included 32,758 patients treated with TNF inhibitors (TNFi, 62.9%), interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i, 15.4%), IL-23i (10.7%), and IL-12i/IL-23i (10.7%).
• The researchers calculated time-dependent risk for MACE using multinomial Cox proportional hazard ratios. The reference was TNFi exposure.
• Subset analyses compared MACE in patients with and without existing cardiovascular disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with TNFi use, there was no difference in the incidence of MACE events in the IL-17i, IL-23i, or IL-12i/IL-23i group.
• There were also no significant differences between biologic groups in the incidence of congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, or cerebral vascular accident/stroke.

IN PRACTICE:

Despite some concern about increased risk for MACE with TNFi use, this study suggests no special risk for patients with psoriasis or PsA associated with TNFi vs other biologics. “Given our results, as it pertains to MACE, prescribers shouldn’t favor any one biologic class over another,” said lead investigator Shikha Singla, MD, medical director of the Psoriatic Arthritis Program at Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

SOURCE:

Bonit Gill, MD, a second-year fellow at Medical College of Wisconsin, presented the study as a poster at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis. 

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective nature makes it impossible to prove causation and the patients included in the study were from Wisconsin, which may limit generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Gill had no relevant financial disclosures. Other study authors participated in trials or consulted for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and UCB.

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

Strict sodium intake — with or without restrictions on fluid intake — is unlikely to confer clinical benefits on patients with heart failure, reported investigators.

Their review of studies showed sodium should only be moderately restricted because “patients are more likely to follow instructions that are not too draconian, and there is no evidence that severe sodium restriction saves lives or delays hospital admissions.”

In fact, moderate daily intake of sodium (3.0-4.5 g) may improve the quality of life and functional status of these patients, even if it will not improve life expectancy or the hospitalization rate, Paolo Raggi, MD, from the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, explained in his narrative review published online in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation.

“It is always a little hard to give up long-held beliefs, and you try to find fault in the new evidence before your eyes,” he said.

Dr. Raggi, who is also coeditor of Atherosclerosis, explained this work was prompted in part by the large, multicenter SODIUM-HF study, which showed that sodium restriction did not reduce the composite outcome of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular hospitalization, and cardiovascular-related emergency department visits, although it did improve quality of life and New York Heart Association class.

And “excessive fluid restriction — typically we were taught to restrict fluid intake to 1 L/d or, at the most, 1.5 L — does not reduce mortality or hospitalization rates and inflicts unnecessary strain and pain on patients,” he said. “Clinicians need to get on board with this novel information.”
 

Examining the Evidence

For the narrative review, the researchers conducted a literature search for the terms heart failure, salt, sodium, and fluid intake to identify relevant reports.

Most randomized trials were small and examined widely heterogeneous interventions. The identified trials published from 2000 to 2021 had populations that ranged from 12 to 203 participants, had inpatients and outpatients, and included people with reduced and preserved ejection fraction. Sodium interventions varied from extreme reductions (< 800 mg/d) to more moderate approaches (2-3 g/d). No study, regardless of the level of restriction, showed a reduction in mortality or hospitalization rates.

Notably, SODIUM-HF — the randomized clinical trial of sodium restriction to a target of 1.5 g/d — was stopped early after an interim analysis demonstrated the futility of the intervention, and the COVID pandemic made it difficult to continue the trial.

Although a moderate sodium intake of 3-4.5 g/d “seems prudent” for patients with recurrent hospital admissions and fluid overload, an intake of 2-3 g/d may be a more acceptable level. “A more aggressive sodium restriction may be necessary in the presence of chronic kidney disease, where the handling of sodium by the kidneys is hampered,” Dr. Raggi reported.

“The debate on tight sodium restriction in heart failure continues to appear in major medical journals, yet it would seem that after many years of controversy, the time has come to close it,” he said.
 

‘One Approach Does Not Fit All’

Sodium restriction is difficult to quantify in a large cohort of patients because many studies are based on recall questionnaires and qualitative measurements, said Johanna Contreras, MD, an advanced heart failure and transplant cardiologist at the Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital in New York City.

“Many patients are not aware that processed and precooked foods are very high in sodium and don’t count them as sodium-rich foods,” she said.

Nevertheless, heart failure has many etiologies and stages, so “one approach does not fit all,” she said. For example, patients with stage C heart failure “will clearly get more decompensated when they consume sodium-rich diets, which will increase water absorption.” And patients with heart failure secondary to hypertension are “particularly susceptible” and are likely to become more symptomatic and acutely congestive on diets high in sodium and water, which can increase both morbidity and mortality.

“It is important to understand the kinds of patients we are referring to, how advanced they are, and what comorbidities the patients have,” she said. “We also know that there are race, ethnicity, and gender differences in sensitivity to sodium.”

We should aim for a moderate sodium intake, she said, but patients with high sensitivity, multiple comorbidities, kidney disease, and certain demographic characteristics “need to be more careful.”

Overall, “patients should aim to consume fresh fruits and vegetables and [be aware of] processed foods and adding salt at the table when they are eating,” Dr. Contreras said.

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

Strict sodium intake — with or without restrictions on fluid intake — is unlikely to confer clinical benefits on patients with heart failure, reported investigators.

Their review of studies showed sodium should only be moderately restricted because “patients are more likely to follow instructions that are not too draconian, and there is no evidence that severe sodium restriction saves lives or delays hospital admissions.”

In fact, moderate daily intake of sodium (3.0-4.5 g) may improve the quality of life and functional status of these patients, even if it will not improve life expectancy or the hospitalization rate, Paolo Raggi, MD, from the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, explained in his narrative review published online in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation.

“It is always a little hard to give up long-held beliefs, and you try to find fault in the new evidence before your eyes,” he said.

Dr. Raggi, who is also coeditor of Atherosclerosis, explained this work was prompted in part by the large, multicenter SODIUM-HF study, which showed that sodium restriction did not reduce the composite outcome of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular hospitalization, and cardiovascular-related emergency department visits, although it did improve quality of life and New York Heart Association class.

And “excessive fluid restriction — typically we were taught to restrict fluid intake to 1 L/d or, at the most, 1.5 L — does not reduce mortality or hospitalization rates and inflicts unnecessary strain and pain on patients,” he said. “Clinicians need to get on board with this novel information.”
 

Examining the Evidence

For the narrative review, the researchers conducted a literature search for the terms heart failure, salt, sodium, and fluid intake to identify relevant reports.

Most randomized trials were small and examined widely heterogeneous interventions. The identified trials published from 2000 to 2021 had populations that ranged from 12 to 203 participants, had inpatients and outpatients, and included people with reduced and preserved ejection fraction. Sodium interventions varied from extreme reductions (< 800 mg/d) to more moderate approaches (2-3 g/d). No study, regardless of the level of restriction, showed a reduction in mortality or hospitalization rates.

Notably, SODIUM-HF — the randomized clinical trial of sodium restriction to a target of 1.5 g/d — was stopped early after an interim analysis demonstrated the futility of the intervention, and the COVID pandemic made it difficult to continue the trial.

Although a moderate sodium intake of 3-4.5 g/d “seems prudent” for patients with recurrent hospital admissions and fluid overload, an intake of 2-3 g/d may be a more acceptable level. “A more aggressive sodium restriction may be necessary in the presence of chronic kidney disease, where the handling of sodium by the kidneys is hampered,” Dr. Raggi reported.

“The debate on tight sodium restriction in heart failure continues to appear in major medical journals, yet it would seem that after many years of controversy, the time has come to close it,” he said.
 

‘One Approach Does Not Fit All’

Sodium restriction is difficult to quantify in a large cohort of patients because many studies are based on recall questionnaires and qualitative measurements, said Johanna Contreras, MD, an advanced heart failure and transplant cardiologist at the Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital in New York City.

“Many patients are not aware that processed and precooked foods are very high in sodium and don’t count them as sodium-rich foods,” she said.

Nevertheless, heart failure has many etiologies and stages, so “one approach does not fit all,” she said. For example, patients with stage C heart failure “will clearly get more decompensated when they consume sodium-rich diets, which will increase water absorption.” And patients with heart failure secondary to hypertension are “particularly susceptible” and are likely to become more symptomatic and acutely congestive on diets high in sodium and water, which can increase both morbidity and mortality.

“It is important to understand the kinds of patients we are referring to, how advanced they are, and what comorbidities the patients have,” she said. “We also know that there are race, ethnicity, and gender differences in sensitivity to sodium.”

We should aim for a moderate sodium intake, she said, but patients with high sensitivity, multiple comorbidities, kidney disease, and certain demographic characteristics “need to be more careful.”

Overall, “patients should aim to consume fresh fruits and vegetables and [be aware of] processed foods and adding salt at the table when they are eating,” Dr. Contreras said.

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

Strict sodium intake — with or without restrictions on fluid intake — is unlikely to confer clinical benefits on patients with heart failure, reported investigators.

Their review of studies showed sodium should only be moderately restricted because “patients are more likely to follow instructions that are not too draconian, and there is no evidence that severe sodium restriction saves lives or delays hospital admissions.”

In fact, moderate daily intake of sodium (3.0-4.5 g) may improve the quality of life and functional status of these patients, even if it will not improve life expectancy or the hospitalization rate, Paolo Raggi, MD, from the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, explained in his narrative review published online in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation.

“It is always a little hard to give up long-held beliefs, and you try to find fault in the new evidence before your eyes,” he said.

Dr. Raggi, who is also coeditor of Atherosclerosis, explained this work was prompted in part by the large, multicenter SODIUM-HF study, which showed that sodium restriction did not reduce the composite outcome of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular hospitalization, and cardiovascular-related emergency department visits, although it did improve quality of life and New York Heart Association class.

And “excessive fluid restriction — typically we were taught to restrict fluid intake to 1 L/d or, at the most, 1.5 L — does not reduce mortality or hospitalization rates and inflicts unnecessary strain and pain on patients,” he said. “Clinicians need to get on board with this novel information.”
 

Examining the Evidence

For the narrative review, the researchers conducted a literature search for the terms heart failure, salt, sodium, and fluid intake to identify relevant reports.

Most randomized trials were small and examined widely heterogeneous interventions. The identified trials published from 2000 to 2021 had populations that ranged from 12 to 203 participants, had inpatients and outpatients, and included people with reduced and preserved ejection fraction. Sodium interventions varied from extreme reductions (< 800 mg/d) to more moderate approaches (2-3 g/d). No study, regardless of the level of restriction, showed a reduction in mortality or hospitalization rates.

Notably, SODIUM-HF — the randomized clinical trial of sodium restriction to a target of 1.5 g/d — was stopped early after an interim analysis demonstrated the futility of the intervention, and the COVID pandemic made it difficult to continue the trial.

Although a moderate sodium intake of 3-4.5 g/d “seems prudent” for patients with recurrent hospital admissions and fluid overload, an intake of 2-3 g/d may be a more acceptable level. “A more aggressive sodium restriction may be necessary in the presence of chronic kidney disease, where the handling of sodium by the kidneys is hampered,” Dr. Raggi reported.

“The debate on tight sodium restriction in heart failure continues to appear in major medical journals, yet it would seem that after many years of controversy, the time has come to close it,” he said.
 

‘One Approach Does Not Fit All’

Sodium restriction is difficult to quantify in a large cohort of patients because many studies are based on recall questionnaires and qualitative measurements, said Johanna Contreras, MD, an advanced heart failure and transplant cardiologist at the Mount Sinai Fuster Heart Hospital in New York City.

“Many patients are not aware that processed and precooked foods are very high in sodium and don’t count them as sodium-rich foods,” she said.

Nevertheless, heart failure has many etiologies and stages, so “one approach does not fit all,” she said. For example, patients with stage C heart failure “will clearly get more decompensated when they consume sodium-rich diets, which will increase water absorption.” And patients with heart failure secondary to hypertension are “particularly susceptible” and are likely to become more symptomatic and acutely congestive on diets high in sodium and water, which can increase both morbidity and mortality.

“It is important to understand the kinds of patients we are referring to, how advanced they are, and what comorbidities the patients have,” she said. “We also know that there are race, ethnicity, and gender differences in sensitivity to sodium.”

We should aim for a moderate sodium intake, she said, but patients with high sensitivity, multiple comorbidities, kidney disease, and certain demographic characteristics “need to be more careful.”

Overall, “patients should aim to consume fresh fruits and vegetables and [be aware of] processed foods and adding salt at the table when they are eating,” Dr. Contreras said.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Dr Eileen Hsich. I’m the medical director for heart transplantation at the Cleveland Clinic, and my specialty is sex differences in heart failure. I’m excited to talk to you about heart failure treatment in women, addressing the differences in managing heart failure in women as well as practical tips for clinicians. You think that I’m going to be starting off by telling you about the differences in how we’re going to manage the patients, but I’m not. The reason I’m not going to do that is because our national guidelines are not sex specific.

What I’m really going to discuss with you today are the data so that you can decide for yourself what we should do and whether there really are differences. As we begin, I always think about the prevalence of the disease. Currently, there are 6.7 million Americans with heart failure, and approximately 45% of them are women. Globally, our best research shows that there are over 56 million people living with heart failure, and half of them are women.

We also know that there are different underlying causes in women and men. For women, the four risk factors are hypertension, diabetes, atrial fibrillation (AFib), and left bundle branch block. I know you knew about hypertension. Diabetes may not have been right up there in your mind. You see many women with AFib, so I know that you were thinking about it. We’re going to come back to left bundle branch block; it really is very interesting.

For men, it is the risk for heart failure development after a myocardial infarction. Men are more likely to have an ischemic cardiomyopathy. It is also important to state that when women have heart failure, it is often with more preserved ejection fraction. We know that heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is more common in women and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is more common in men.

Now we’re going to talk about the four pillars in medical management, and we’re going to start out with the easy medications that show no sex differences in benefit. The mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) show that there are no sex differences in regard to benefit. Women benefit as much as men, based on two of the largest studies, which were the RALES study, which studied heart failure that was ischemic and nonischemic, and then the EPHESUS study, which was specific to patients who had myocardial infarction. There was a mortality benefit in the women.

The next set of drugs that we’re going to mention are the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. The combined endpoint for women and men was a combined endpoint of death and heart failure hospitalization. No matter what the ejection fraction was, women benefited like men for this drug.

The third class of agents that I want to discuss is the beta-blockers, which are really very interesting because they’re so powerful. The studies for these drugs were stopped prematurely. When you take into consideration that women are underenrolled in clinical trials, remember that the studies for these drugs were stopped, so there weren’t that many women. The fact that we showed a mortality benefit is really important.

The first drug that we’re going to refer to is bisoprolol because CIBIS II was the first trial for this drug to demonstrate a mortality benefit in women and men. The second drug that I want to mention is metoprolol XL, which did not demonstrate a mortality benefit in the MERIT-HF study, but did demonstrate a benefit in reduced heart failure hospitalizations, which is also very important.

The third drug is carvedilol, which had been shown to reduce a combined endpoint of mortality and heart failure hospitalizations for patients with moderate symptoms. When I talk about these studies, they have anywhere from 250 to 1000 women enrolled, so these are relatively small studies and they still did demonstrate a benefit.

When we talk about angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI), I think that’s when it gets a little complex. The data are not very clear because ARNI is a combination pill — sacubitril combined with valsartan. When you have an ideal control for a study and you want to know what your magic ingredient is, which is the sacubitril, you really want to compare valsartan with ARNI so that you can find out what your magic little ingredient is doing.

When we had the PARAGON-HF study, which was for HFpEF patients who had an ejection fraction greater than 45%, there was a benefit in the women and not in the men, and that really was in the women with the lower ejection fractions. That’s very interesting because the control was valsartan.

When we had the PARADIGM-HF study, that was more complex. The control was an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, which is not an ideal control for women since, even in a meta-analysis that had over 1000 women, there has not been a proven benefit. The confidence intervals remain wide. Therefore, it’s not quite a fair comparison to randomize women to ARNI versus an ACE inhibitor. Comparing ARNI to valsartan would be better in order to determine the additional benefit of sacubitril since valsartan alone has already been shown, in the Val-HeFT study, to reduce heart failure hospitalizations in women — although not mortality. There was a benefit.

When you look at the PARADIGM-HF study, which was for HFrEF patients, and you see that there is a benefit in the women, where the combined endpoint was heart failure hospitalization and mortality, you then see that there’s a figure that shows what happens when we look at mortality alone. The benefit is not driven by mortality; it’s driven by heart failure hospitalizations for the women, for which valsartan already had been shown to do this. Therefore, I don’t know if sacubitril/valsartan is more powerful because we didn’t have the right control in studies. From my standpoint, the data really are not there. We can all have our own biased opinions.

When we talk about devices, that gets really interesting because it goes back to those risk factors. We’re going to start with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). We have shown in many ICD trials that women and men had similar survival. There were very few women in these device trials. If you think the medical trials had only a few women, just imagine what the ICD trials had.

Santangeli and colleagues hypothesized that an ICD only saves you from sudden death. It doesn›t really save you from anything else. In heart failure, women do live longer than men. Is this device really saving you? They weren’t interested in all-cause mortality; they were interested in whether the device fired appropriately for ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. They demonstrated in that meta-analysis that it was not very clear that women had the benefit. The rationale behind that comes from the MADIT studies that showed that men were more likely than women to have ventricular arrhythmias.

This is also true based on the Seattle Heart Failure Model. The derivation cohort had very few ICDs at that time, and women were less likely than men to have ventricular arrhythmias as the cause of death. It’s not that we shouldn’t put them in — I very strongly believe that we should — but we don’t have that data.

In fact, in the Santangeli and colleagues study, women were more likely to have inappropriate firing for AFib. Remember that we talked about how one of the risk factors for heart failure was AFib. Women are more likely to have AFib and the ICD firing for AFib and not ventricular arrhythmias. This may be dependent on the type of cardiomyopathy.

Next, we’re going to talk about biventricular pacemakers. Women tend to benefit more so that there is an improvement in symptoms and survival. What is fascinating is that left bundle branch block is a risk factor for the development of heart failure in women, which makes this next statement even more fascinating.

The FDA does their own analysis when they are reviewing devices and everything else, and they published one of them in JAMA Internal Medicine, taking three studies and seeing the benefit in women and men. They found that everybody benefits when the left bundle branch block has a QRS greater than 150 milliseconds. But with a QRS between 130 and 149 milliseconds, only the women benefited. That›s fascinating because that is a risk factor — the development of the left bundle branch block causing heart failure in women. It makes you wonder whether you are correcting something that actually was responsible for their heart failure.

In advanced heart failure, we have left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and heart transplantation. For years, we couldn’t get LVADs small enough to fit in women. When they were larger, there were complications that were more common in women, such as stroke. With the newer devices — the HeartMate 3 is small, for instance — complications for everyone are very infrequent, and women and men benefit. I’m going to encourage clinicians to use them.

For heart transplantation, as I mentioned before, women tend to get HFpEF. I didn’t mention that they get heart failure when they’re older, for the most part. There are fewer women who are transplanted than men and eligible at younger ages. What we had for decades was that women were dying while they were on the waitlist for heart transplantation at a faster rate than men but living longer after transplantation. As LVADs became more appropriately sized for women, the complication rates went down; and we did see an improvement on the waitlist mortality rate before we changed the allocation system. But it really wasn’t until after we changed the allocation system in 2018 that we saw great success. Now, women have similar survival while on the waitlist. They’re transplanted at a faster rate despite the fact that they’re less likely to receive the temporary mechanical support, and they tend to still do very well.

I’ll leave you with the thought that women and men are different. We have different underlying diseases, different onset for the development of heart failure, and different ejection fractions in instances when heart failure develops. We have some differences in therapy response. Thank you.

Dr. Hsich disclosed ties with Natera, DEFINE steering committee (no money), and MEDCAC (Medicare/Medicaid) committee. She received research grant from the National Institutes of Health.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Dr Eileen Hsich. I’m the medical director for heart transplantation at the Cleveland Clinic, and my specialty is sex differences in heart failure. I’m excited to talk to you about heart failure treatment in women, addressing the differences in managing heart failure in women as well as practical tips for clinicians. You think that I’m going to be starting off by telling you about the differences in how we’re going to manage the patients, but I’m not. The reason I’m not going to do that is because our national guidelines are not sex specific.

What I’m really going to discuss with you today are the data so that you can decide for yourself what we should do and whether there really are differences. As we begin, I always think about the prevalence of the disease. Currently, there are 6.7 million Americans with heart failure, and approximately 45% of them are women. Globally, our best research shows that there are over 56 million people living with heart failure, and half of them are women.

We also know that there are different underlying causes in women and men. For women, the four risk factors are hypertension, diabetes, atrial fibrillation (AFib), and left bundle branch block. I know you knew about hypertension. Diabetes may not have been right up there in your mind. You see many women with AFib, so I know that you were thinking about it. We’re going to come back to left bundle branch block; it really is very interesting.

For men, it is the risk for heart failure development after a myocardial infarction. Men are more likely to have an ischemic cardiomyopathy. It is also important to state that when women have heart failure, it is often with more preserved ejection fraction. We know that heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is more common in women and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is more common in men.

Now we’re going to talk about the four pillars in medical management, and we’re going to start out with the easy medications that show no sex differences in benefit. The mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) show that there are no sex differences in regard to benefit. Women benefit as much as men, based on two of the largest studies, which were the RALES study, which studied heart failure that was ischemic and nonischemic, and then the EPHESUS study, which was specific to patients who had myocardial infarction. There was a mortality benefit in the women.

The next set of drugs that we’re going to mention are the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. The combined endpoint for women and men was a combined endpoint of death and heart failure hospitalization. No matter what the ejection fraction was, women benefited like men for this drug.

The third class of agents that I want to discuss is the beta-blockers, which are really very interesting because they’re so powerful. The studies for these drugs were stopped prematurely. When you take into consideration that women are underenrolled in clinical trials, remember that the studies for these drugs were stopped, so there weren’t that many women. The fact that we showed a mortality benefit is really important.

The first drug that we’re going to refer to is bisoprolol because CIBIS II was the first trial for this drug to demonstrate a mortality benefit in women and men. The second drug that I want to mention is metoprolol XL, which did not demonstrate a mortality benefit in the MERIT-HF study, but did demonstrate a benefit in reduced heart failure hospitalizations, which is also very important.

The third drug is carvedilol, which had been shown to reduce a combined endpoint of mortality and heart failure hospitalizations for patients with moderate symptoms. When I talk about these studies, they have anywhere from 250 to 1000 women enrolled, so these are relatively small studies and they still did demonstrate a benefit.

When we talk about angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI), I think that’s when it gets a little complex. The data are not very clear because ARNI is a combination pill — sacubitril combined with valsartan. When you have an ideal control for a study and you want to know what your magic ingredient is, which is the sacubitril, you really want to compare valsartan with ARNI so that you can find out what your magic little ingredient is doing.

When we had the PARAGON-HF study, which was for HFpEF patients who had an ejection fraction greater than 45%, there was a benefit in the women and not in the men, and that really was in the women with the lower ejection fractions. That’s very interesting because the control was valsartan.

When we had the PARADIGM-HF study, that was more complex. The control was an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, which is not an ideal control for women since, even in a meta-analysis that had over 1000 women, there has not been a proven benefit. The confidence intervals remain wide. Therefore, it’s not quite a fair comparison to randomize women to ARNI versus an ACE inhibitor. Comparing ARNI to valsartan would be better in order to determine the additional benefit of sacubitril since valsartan alone has already been shown, in the Val-HeFT study, to reduce heart failure hospitalizations in women — although not mortality. There was a benefit.

When you look at the PARADIGM-HF study, which was for HFrEF patients, and you see that there is a benefit in the women, where the combined endpoint was heart failure hospitalization and mortality, you then see that there’s a figure that shows what happens when we look at mortality alone. The benefit is not driven by mortality; it’s driven by heart failure hospitalizations for the women, for which valsartan already had been shown to do this. Therefore, I don’t know if sacubitril/valsartan is more powerful because we didn’t have the right control in studies. From my standpoint, the data really are not there. We can all have our own biased opinions.

When we talk about devices, that gets really interesting because it goes back to those risk factors. We’re going to start with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). We have shown in many ICD trials that women and men had similar survival. There were very few women in these device trials. If you think the medical trials had only a few women, just imagine what the ICD trials had.

Santangeli and colleagues hypothesized that an ICD only saves you from sudden death. It doesn›t really save you from anything else. In heart failure, women do live longer than men. Is this device really saving you? They weren’t interested in all-cause mortality; they were interested in whether the device fired appropriately for ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. They demonstrated in that meta-analysis that it was not very clear that women had the benefit. The rationale behind that comes from the MADIT studies that showed that men were more likely than women to have ventricular arrhythmias.

This is also true based on the Seattle Heart Failure Model. The derivation cohort had very few ICDs at that time, and women were less likely than men to have ventricular arrhythmias as the cause of death. It’s not that we shouldn’t put them in — I very strongly believe that we should — but we don’t have that data.

In fact, in the Santangeli and colleagues study, women were more likely to have inappropriate firing for AFib. Remember that we talked about how one of the risk factors for heart failure was AFib. Women are more likely to have AFib and the ICD firing for AFib and not ventricular arrhythmias. This may be dependent on the type of cardiomyopathy.

Next, we’re going to talk about biventricular pacemakers. Women tend to benefit more so that there is an improvement in symptoms and survival. What is fascinating is that left bundle branch block is a risk factor for the development of heart failure in women, which makes this next statement even more fascinating.

The FDA does their own analysis when they are reviewing devices and everything else, and they published one of them in JAMA Internal Medicine, taking three studies and seeing the benefit in women and men. They found that everybody benefits when the left bundle branch block has a QRS greater than 150 milliseconds. But with a QRS between 130 and 149 milliseconds, only the women benefited. That›s fascinating because that is a risk factor — the development of the left bundle branch block causing heart failure in women. It makes you wonder whether you are correcting something that actually was responsible for their heart failure.

In advanced heart failure, we have left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and heart transplantation. For years, we couldn’t get LVADs small enough to fit in women. When they were larger, there were complications that were more common in women, such as stroke. With the newer devices — the HeartMate 3 is small, for instance — complications for everyone are very infrequent, and women and men benefit. I’m going to encourage clinicians to use them.

For heart transplantation, as I mentioned before, women tend to get HFpEF. I didn’t mention that they get heart failure when they’re older, for the most part. There are fewer women who are transplanted than men and eligible at younger ages. What we had for decades was that women were dying while they were on the waitlist for heart transplantation at a faster rate than men but living longer after transplantation. As LVADs became more appropriately sized for women, the complication rates went down; and we did see an improvement on the waitlist mortality rate before we changed the allocation system. But it really wasn’t until after we changed the allocation system in 2018 that we saw great success. Now, women have similar survival while on the waitlist. They’re transplanted at a faster rate despite the fact that they’re less likely to receive the temporary mechanical support, and they tend to still do very well.

I’ll leave you with the thought that women and men are different. We have different underlying diseases, different onset for the development of heart failure, and different ejection fractions in instances when heart failure develops. We have some differences in therapy response. Thank you.

Dr. Hsich disclosed ties with Natera, DEFINE steering committee (no money), and MEDCAC (Medicare/Medicaid) committee. She received research grant from the National Institutes of Health.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Hi. I’m Dr Eileen Hsich. I’m the medical director for heart transplantation at the Cleveland Clinic, and my specialty is sex differences in heart failure. I’m excited to talk to you about heart failure treatment in women, addressing the differences in managing heart failure in women as well as practical tips for clinicians. You think that I’m going to be starting off by telling you about the differences in how we’re going to manage the patients, but I’m not. The reason I’m not going to do that is because our national guidelines are not sex specific.

What I’m really going to discuss with you today are the data so that you can decide for yourself what we should do and whether there really are differences. As we begin, I always think about the prevalence of the disease. Currently, there are 6.7 million Americans with heart failure, and approximately 45% of them are women. Globally, our best research shows that there are over 56 million people living with heart failure, and half of them are women.

We also know that there are different underlying causes in women and men. For women, the four risk factors are hypertension, diabetes, atrial fibrillation (AFib), and left bundle branch block. I know you knew about hypertension. Diabetes may not have been right up there in your mind. You see many women with AFib, so I know that you were thinking about it. We’re going to come back to left bundle branch block; it really is very interesting.

For men, it is the risk for heart failure development after a myocardial infarction. Men are more likely to have an ischemic cardiomyopathy. It is also important to state that when women have heart failure, it is often with more preserved ejection fraction. We know that heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is more common in women and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is more common in men.

Now we’re going to talk about the four pillars in medical management, and we’re going to start out with the easy medications that show no sex differences in benefit. The mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) show that there are no sex differences in regard to benefit. Women benefit as much as men, based on two of the largest studies, which were the RALES study, which studied heart failure that was ischemic and nonischemic, and then the EPHESUS study, which was specific to patients who had myocardial infarction. There was a mortality benefit in the women.

The next set of drugs that we’re going to mention are the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors. The combined endpoint for women and men was a combined endpoint of death and heart failure hospitalization. No matter what the ejection fraction was, women benefited like men for this drug.

The third class of agents that I want to discuss is the beta-blockers, which are really very interesting because they’re so powerful. The studies for these drugs were stopped prematurely. When you take into consideration that women are underenrolled in clinical trials, remember that the studies for these drugs were stopped, so there weren’t that many women. The fact that we showed a mortality benefit is really important.

The first drug that we’re going to refer to is bisoprolol because CIBIS II was the first trial for this drug to demonstrate a mortality benefit in women and men. The second drug that I want to mention is metoprolol XL, which did not demonstrate a mortality benefit in the MERIT-HF study, but did demonstrate a benefit in reduced heart failure hospitalizations, which is also very important.

The third drug is carvedilol, which had been shown to reduce a combined endpoint of mortality and heart failure hospitalizations for patients with moderate symptoms. When I talk about these studies, they have anywhere from 250 to 1000 women enrolled, so these are relatively small studies and they still did demonstrate a benefit.

When we talk about angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI), I think that’s when it gets a little complex. The data are not very clear because ARNI is a combination pill — sacubitril combined with valsartan. When you have an ideal control for a study and you want to know what your magic ingredient is, which is the sacubitril, you really want to compare valsartan with ARNI so that you can find out what your magic little ingredient is doing.

When we had the PARAGON-HF study, which was for HFpEF patients who had an ejection fraction greater than 45%, there was a benefit in the women and not in the men, and that really was in the women with the lower ejection fractions. That’s very interesting because the control was valsartan.

When we had the PARADIGM-HF study, that was more complex. The control was an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, which is not an ideal control for women since, even in a meta-analysis that had over 1000 women, there has not been a proven benefit. The confidence intervals remain wide. Therefore, it’s not quite a fair comparison to randomize women to ARNI versus an ACE inhibitor. Comparing ARNI to valsartan would be better in order to determine the additional benefit of sacubitril since valsartan alone has already been shown, in the Val-HeFT study, to reduce heart failure hospitalizations in women — although not mortality. There was a benefit.

When you look at the PARADIGM-HF study, which was for HFrEF patients, and you see that there is a benefit in the women, where the combined endpoint was heart failure hospitalization and mortality, you then see that there’s a figure that shows what happens when we look at mortality alone. The benefit is not driven by mortality; it’s driven by heart failure hospitalizations for the women, for which valsartan already had been shown to do this. Therefore, I don’t know if sacubitril/valsartan is more powerful because we didn’t have the right control in studies. From my standpoint, the data really are not there. We can all have our own biased opinions.

When we talk about devices, that gets really interesting because it goes back to those risk factors. We’re going to start with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). We have shown in many ICD trials that women and men had similar survival. There were very few women in these device trials. If you think the medical trials had only a few women, just imagine what the ICD trials had.

Santangeli and colleagues hypothesized that an ICD only saves you from sudden death. It doesn›t really save you from anything else. In heart failure, women do live longer than men. Is this device really saving you? They weren’t interested in all-cause mortality; they were interested in whether the device fired appropriately for ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. They demonstrated in that meta-analysis that it was not very clear that women had the benefit. The rationale behind that comes from the MADIT studies that showed that men were more likely than women to have ventricular arrhythmias.

This is also true based on the Seattle Heart Failure Model. The derivation cohort had very few ICDs at that time, and women were less likely than men to have ventricular arrhythmias as the cause of death. It’s not that we shouldn’t put them in — I very strongly believe that we should — but we don’t have that data.

In fact, in the Santangeli and colleagues study, women were more likely to have inappropriate firing for AFib. Remember that we talked about how one of the risk factors for heart failure was AFib. Women are more likely to have AFib and the ICD firing for AFib and not ventricular arrhythmias. This may be dependent on the type of cardiomyopathy.

Next, we’re going to talk about biventricular pacemakers. Women tend to benefit more so that there is an improvement in symptoms and survival. What is fascinating is that left bundle branch block is a risk factor for the development of heart failure in women, which makes this next statement even more fascinating.

The FDA does their own analysis when they are reviewing devices and everything else, and they published one of them in JAMA Internal Medicine, taking three studies and seeing the benefit in women and men. They found that everybody benefits when the left bundle branch block has a QRS greater than 150 milliseconds. But with a QRS between 130 and 149 milliseconds, only the women benefited. That›s fascinating because that is a risk factor — the development of the left bundle branch block causing heart failure in women. It makes you wonder whether you are correcting something that actually was responsible for their heart failure.

In advanced heart failure, we have left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) and heart transplantation. For years, we couldn’t get LVADs small enough to fit in women. When they were larger, there were complications that were more common in women, such as stroke. With the newer devices — the HeartMate 3 is small, for instance — complications for everyone are very infrequent, and women and men benefit. I’m going to encourage clinicians to use them.

For heart transplantation, as I mentioned before, women tend to get HFpEF. I didn’t mention that they get heart failure when they’re older, for the most part. There are fewer women who are transplanted than men and eligible at younger ages. What we had for decades was that women were dying while they were on the waitlist for heart transplantation at a faster rate than men but living longer after transplantation. As LVADs became more appropriately sized for women, the complication rates went down; and we did see an improvement on the waitlist mortality rate before we changed the allocation system. But it really wasn’t until after we changed the allocation system in 2018 that we saw great success. Now, women have similar survival while on the waitlist. They’re transplanted at a faster rate despite the fact that they’re less likely to receive the temporary mechanical support, and they tend to still do very well.

I’ll leave you with the thought that women and men are different. We have different underlying diseases, different onset for the development of heart failure, and different ejection fractions in instances when heart failure develops. We have some differences in therapy response. Thank you.

Dr. Hsich disclosed ties with Natera, DEFINE steering committee (no money), and MEDCAC (Medicare/Medicaid) committee. She received research grant from the National Institutes of Health.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LISBON, PORTUGAL — Few people with suspected heart failure and elevated N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels are receiving a diagnosis after a year, reported investigators, who say high rates of hospitalization are common.

Presenting here at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2024, researchers shared results from the REVOLUTION-HF study involving almost 8000 people who consulted outpatient primary and secondary care over a 5-year period.

About two thirds of the patients had suspected heart failure; however, less than 30% of the people received a diagnosis within a year.

Yet hospitalization was eight times higher in the suspected heart failure group than in the control group, and all-cause mortality was nearly doubled. The outcomes were even worse in patients with high NT-proBNP levels.

Patients with suspected heart failure are “waiting far too long to see a specialist, and that results in a delay to guideline-directed medical therapy, despite the fact that we’re perfectly happy to slap them all on diuretics,” said study presenter Lisa Anderson, MD, PhD, Cardiovascular Clinical Academic Group, Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George’s Hospital, University of London, England.

“We need to rethink our management of heart failure patients presenting in the community,” she said.

A big gap exists internationally between presentation with heart failure, an elevated NT-proBNP, and confirmatory specialist assessment, she explained.

“It’s a scandal that patients are coming to the GP with signs and symptoms of heart failure, they get tested for natriuretic peptides, and nothing happens,” said co-author Antoni Bayés-Genís, MD, PhD, Heart Institute director, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol Catedràtic, Barcelona, Spain.

“These patients may receive an echo, or not, in the coming 12 months,” and “during these 12 months, there is a huge number of heart failure hospitalizations and deaths that could probably be prevented.”
 

Why the Reluctance to Diagnose?

Many issues get in the way of early diagnosis, Dr. Bayés-Genís said. “Inertia, comorbidities, ageism.”

A lot of patients with heart failure are elderly women with some degree of weight gain, he said. “And they come to the clinic with fatigue, so we tell them, ‘Well, that’s normal.”

But “it may not be normal,” he added. “This is a very important topic that we, as a society, need to address.”

There are several “misconceptions” about heart failure, said Ileana L. Piña, MD, MPH, the Robert Stein Chair for Quality and Safety, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study.

For example, “we’re all convinced that guideline-directed medical therapy works,” but the evidence is only for patients “with a diagnosis.” In addition, “millions of patients get tested” for heart failure, but they already have a “known diagnosis.”

“When we study these drugs, we’re studying them on patients with manifest disease,” who are only then randomized, Dr. Piña said. “But we seldom see them while they’re developing heart failure. And it’s a process; it doesn’t happen overnight.”

Patients initially often think they may have asthma, and so what follows is an extended period of “uncertainty” and “important time lost” before they finally undergo the assessments that show that they have heart failure, she said.

However, “uncertainty” often lands a patient “in the emergency room or with an unscheduled office visit, where NT-proBNP might get ordered and there’s a long lineup for an echo.”

There are several strengths of the current study, Dr. Piña said, including the fact that 50% of the study population were women, and they were older than a typical trial population. Nevertheless, the results were “eye-opening but not surprising” and, in the end, “disappointing.”

“I agree, we need a revolution, Dr. Anderson,” Dr. Piña said. “The revolution of paying attention to the NT-proBNP when you get it and it’s elevated” and then following through with echocardiography and starting “guideline-directed medical therapy early.”

The diagnosis of heart failure “relies on the presentation of patients with nonspecific signs and symptoms,” such as dyspnea and peripheral edema, “but initiation of guideline-directed medical therapy — life-saving treatment — has to wait until we have a formal echocardiography and specialist clinician assessment,” Dr. Anderson said.

The latest clinical consensus statement from the Heart Failure Association “proposes both rule-in and rule-out NT-proBNP levels for heart failure diagnosis, and obviously we all recognize that it’s important to treat patients as soon as they’re diagnosed,” she explained.
 

REVOLUTION-HF

To examine the risk profile for patients presenting to outpatient care with suspected heart failure, the researchers conducted REVOLUTION-HF, which leveraged nationwide Swedish linked data from general practices, specialists, pharmacies, hospitals, and cause of death registers.

“Really impressively, most of these NT-proBNP tests were coming back within a day,” Dr. Anderson said, “so a really, really good turnaround.”

Individuals were excluded if they had an inpatient admission, echocardiography, or heart failure diagnosis between presentation and the NT-proBNP measurement.

These people were then compared with those presenting to primary or secondary outpatient care for any reason and matched for age, sex, care level, and index year. Both groups were followed up for 1 year.

“Despite this really impressive, almost immediate NT-proBNP testing,” the waiting times to undergo echocardiography were “really disappointing,” Dr. Anderson said.

The median time to first registered echocardiography was 40 days, and only 29% of patients with suspected heart failure received a diagnosis within a year of the index presentation date, which she described as “inadequately slow.”

“And how does this translate to medical therapy?” she asked.
 

Heart Failure Drugs

After the index presentation, the rate of loop diuretic use quadrupled among individuals suspected of having heart failure, but there was a “muted response” when it came to the prescribing of beta-blockers and the other pillars of heart failure therapy, which Dr. Anderson called “very disappointing.”

For outcomes after the index presentation, the rate of hospitalization was much higher in the group with suspected heart failure than in the control group (16.1 vs 2.2 events per 100 person-years). And all-cause mortality occurred more often in the group with suspected heart failure than in the control group (10.3 vs 6.5 events per 100 person-years).

Among patients with NT-proBNP levels of 2000 ng/L, there was a “rapid” onset of hospitalization “within the first few days” of the index presentation, which was tracked by a more linear rise in all-cause deaths, Dr. Anderson reported.

In the United Kingdom, “we are very proud of our 2- and 6-week pathways,” which stipulate that suspected heart failure patients with NT-proBNP levels between 400 and 2000 ng/L are to have a specialist assessment and transthoracic echocardiography within 6 weeks; for those with levels > 2000 ng/L, that interval is accelerated to 2 weeks, she said.

The current results show that “2 weeks is too slow.” And looking at the rest of the cohort with lower NT-proBNP levels, “patients have already been admitted and died” by 6 weeks, she said.

When patients are stratified by age, “you get exactly what you would expect,” Dr. Anderson said. “The older patients are the most at risk” for both hospitalization and all-cause mortality.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LISBON, PORTUGAL — Few people with suspected heart failure and elevated N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels are receiving a diagnosis after a year, reported investigators, who say high rates of hospitalization are common.

Presenting here at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2024, researchers shared results from the REVOLUTION-HF study involving almost 8000 people who consulted outpatient primary and secondary care over a 5-year period.

About two thirds of the patients had suspected heart failure; however, less than 30% of the people received a diagnosis within a year.

Yet hospitalization was eight times higher in the suspected heart failure group than in the control group, and all-cause mortality was nearly doubled. The outcomes were even worse in patients with high NT-proBNP levels.

Patients with suspected heart failure are “waiting far too long to see a specialist, and that results in a delay to guideline-directed medical therapy, despite the fact that we’re perfectly happy to slap them all on diuretics,” said study presenter Lisa Anderson, MD, PhD, Cardiovascular Clinical Academic Group, Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George’s Hospital, University of London, England.

“We need to rethink our management of heart failure patients presenting in the community,” she said.

A big gap exists internationally between presentation with heart failure, an elevated NT-proBNP, and confirmatory specialist assessment, she explained.

“It’s a scandal that patients are coming to the GP with signs and symptoms of heart failure, they get tested for natriuretic peptides, and nothing happens,” said co-author Antoni Bayés-Genís, MD, PhD, Heart Institute director, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol Catedràtic, Barcelona, Spain.

“These patients may receive an echo, or not, in the coming 12 months,” and “during these 12 months, there is a huge number of heart failure hospitalizations and deaths that could probably be prevented.”
 

Why the Reluctance to Diagnose?

Many issues get in the way of early diagnosis, Dr. Bayés-Genís said. “Inertia, comorbidities, ageism.”

A lot of patients with heart failure are elderly women with some degree of weight gain, he said. “And they come to the clinic with fatigue, so we tell them, ‘Well, that’s normal.”

But “it may not be normal,” he added. “This is a very important topic that we, as a society, need to address.”

There are several “misconceptions” about heart failure, said Ileana L. Piña, MD, MPH, the Robert Stein Chair for Quality and Safety, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study.

For example, “we’re all convinced that guideline-directed medical therapy works,” but the evidence is only for patients “with a diagnosis.” In addition, “millions of patients get tested” for heart failure, but they already have a “known diagnosis.”

“When we study these drugs, we’re studying them on patients with manifest disease,” who are only then randomized, Dr. Piña said. “But we seldom see them while they’re developing heart failure. And it’s a process; it doesn’t happen overnight.”

Patients initially often think they may have asthma, and so what follows is an extended period of “uncertainty” and “important time lost” before they finally undergo the assessments that show that they have heart failure, she said.

However, “uncertainty” often lands a patient “in the emergency room or with an unscheduled office visit, where NT-proBNP might get ordered and there’s a long lineup for an echo.”

There are several strengths of the current study, Dr. Piña said, including the fact that 50% of the study population were women, and they were older than a typical trial population. Nevertheless, the results were “eye-opening but not surprising” and, in the end, “disappointing.”

“I agree, we need a revolution, Dr. Anderson,” Dr. Piña said. “The revolution of paying attention to the NT-proBNP when you get it and it’s elevated” and then following through with echocardiography and starting “guideline-directed medical therapy early.”

The diagnosis of heart failure “relies on the presentation of patients with nonspecific signs and symptoms,” such as dyspnea and peripheral edema, “but initiation of guideline-directed medical therapy — life-saving treatment — has to wait until we have a formal echocardiography and specialist clinician assessment,” Dr. Anderson said.

The latest clinical consensus statement from the Heart Failure Association “proposes both rule-in and rule-out NT-proBNP levels for heart failure diagnosis, and obviously we all recognize that it’s important to treat patients as soon as they’re diagnosed,” she explained.
 

REVOLUTION-HF

To examine the risk profile for patients presenting to outpatient care with suspected heart failure, the researchers conducted REVOLUTION-HF, which leveraged nationwide Swedish linked data from general practices, specialists, pharmacies, hospitals, and cause of death registers.

“Really impressively, most of these NT-proBNP tests were coming back within a day,” Dr. Anderson said, “so a really, really good turnaround.”

Individuals were excluded if they had an inpatient admission, echocardiography, or heart failure diagnosis between presentation and the NT-proBNP measurement.

These people were then compared with those presenting to primary or secondary outpatient care for any reason and matched for age, sex, care level, and index year. Both groups were followed up for 1 year.

“Despite this really impressive, almost immediate NT-proBNP testing,” the waiting times to undergo echocardiography were “really disappointing,” Dr. Anderson said.

The median time to first registered echocardiography was 40 days, and only 29% of patients with suspected heart failure received a diagnosis within a year of the index presentation date, which she described as “inadequately slow.”

“And how does this translate to medical therapy?” she asked.
 

Heart Failure Drugs

After the index presentation, the rate of loop diuretic use quadrupled among individuals suspected of having heart failure, but there was a “muted response” when it came to the prescribing of beta-blockers and the other pillars of heart failure therapy, which Dr. Anderson called “very disappointing.”

For outcomes after the index presentation, the rate of hospitalization was much higher in the group with suspected heart failure than in the control group (16.1 vs 2.2 events per 100 person-years). And all-cause mortality occurred more often in the group with suspected heart failure than in the control group (10.3 vs 6.5 events per 100 person-years).

Among patients with NT-proBNP levels of 2000 ng/L, there was a “rapid” onset of hospitalization “within the first few days” of the index presentation, which was tracked by a more linear rise in all-cause deaths, Dr. Anderson reported.

In the United Kingdom, “we are very proud of our 2- and 6-week pathways,” which stipulate that suspected heart failure patients with NT-proBNP levels between 400 and 2000 ng/L are to have a specialist assessment and transthoracic echocardiography within 6 weeks; for those with levels > 2000 ng/L, that interval is accelerated to 2 weeks, she said.

The current results show that “2 weeks is too slow.” And looking at the rest of the cohort with lower NT-proBNP levels, “patients have already been admitted and died” by 6 weeks, she said.

When patients are stratified by age, “you get exactly what you would expect,” Dr. Anderson said. “The older patients are the most at risk” for both hospitalization and all-cause mortality.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LISBON, PORTUGAL — Few people with suspected heart failure and elevated N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels are receiving a diagnosis after a year, reported investigators, who say high rates of hospitalization are common.

Presenting here at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2024, researchers shared results from the REVOLUTION-HF study involving almost 8000 people who consulted outpatient primary and secondary care over a 5-year period.

About two thirds of the patients had suspected heart failure; however, less than 30% of the people received a diagnosis within a year.

Yet hospitalization was eight times higher in the suspected heart failure group than in the control group, and all-cause mortality was nearly doubled. The outcomes were even worse in patients with high NT-proBNP levels.

Patients with suspected heart failure are “waiting far too long to see a specialist, and that results in a delay to guideline-directed medical therapy, despite the fact that we’re perfectly happy to slap them all on diuretics,” said study presenter Lisa Anderson, MD, PhD, Cardiovascular Clinical Academic Group, Molecular and Clinical Sciences Research Institute, St George’s Hospital, University of London, England.

“We need to rethink our management of heart failure patients presenting in the community,” she said.

A big gap exists internationally between presentation with heart failure, an elevated NT-proBNP, and confirmatory specialist assessment, she explained.

“It’s a scandal that patients are coming to the GP with signs and symptoms of heart failure, they get tested for natriuretic peptides, and nothing happens,” said co-author Antoni Bayés-Genís, MD, PhD, Heart Institute director, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol Catedràtic, Barcelona, Spain.

“These patients may receive an echo, or not, in the coming 12 months,” and “during these 12 months, there is a huge number of heart failure hospitalizations and deaths that could probably be prevented.”
 

Why the Reluctance to Diagnose?

Many issues get in the way of early diagnosis, Dr. Bayés-Genís said. “Inertia, comorbidities, ageism.”

A lot of patients with heart failure are elderly women with some degree of weight gain, he said. “And they come to the clinic with fatigue, so we tell them, ‘Well, that’s normal.”

But “it may not be normal,” he added. “This is a very important topic that we, as a society, need to address.”

There are several “misconceptions” about heart failure, said Ileana L. Piña, MD, MPH, the Robert Stein Chair for Quality and Safety, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study.

For example, “we’re all convinced that guideline-directed medical therapy works,” but the evidence is only for patients “with a diagnosis.” In addition, “millions of patients get tested” for heart failure, but they already have a “known diagnosis.”

“When we study these drugs, we’re studying them on patients with manifest disease,” who are only then randomized, Dr. Piña said. “But we seldom see them while they’re developing heart failure. And it’s a process; it doesn’t happen overnight.”

Patients initially often think they may have asthma, and so what follows is an extended period of “uncertainty” and “important time lost” before they finally undergo the assessments that show that they have heart failure, she said.

However, “uncertainty” often lands a patient “in the emergency room or with an unscheduled office visit, where NT-proBNP might get ordered and there’s a long lineup for an echo.”

There are several strengths of the current study, Dr. Piña said, including the fact that 50% of the study population were women, and they were older than a typical trial population. Nevertheless, the results were “eye-opening but not surprising” and, in the end, “disappointing.”

“I agree, we need a revolution, Dr. Anderson,” Dr. Piña said. “The revolution of paying attention to the NT-proBNP when you get it and it’s elevated” and then following through with echocardiography and starting “guideline-directed medical therapy early.”

The diagnosis of heart failure “relies on the presentation of patients with nonspecific signs and symptoms,” such as dyspnea and peripheral edema, “but initiation of guideline-directed medical therapy — life-saving treatment — has to wait until we have a formal echocardiography and specialist clinician assessment,” Dr. Anderson said.

The latest clinical consensus statement from the Heart Failure Association “proposes both rule-in and rule-out NT-proBNP levels for heart failure diagnosis, and obviously we all recognize that it’s important to treat patients as soon as they’re diagnosed,” she explained.
 

REVOLUTION-HF

To examine the risk profile for patients presenting to outpatient care with suspected heart failure, the researchers conducted REVOLUTION-HF, which leveraged nationwide Swedish linked data from general practices, specialists, pharmacies, hospitals, and cause of death registers.

“Really impressively, most of these NT-proBNP tests were coming back within a day,” Dr. Anderson said, “so a really, really good turnaround.”

Individuals were excluded if they had an inpatient admission, echocardiography, or heart failure diagnosis between presentation and the NT-proBNP measurement.

These people were then compared with those presenting to primary or secondary outpatient care for any reason and matched for age, sex, care level, and index year. Both groups were followed up for 1 year.

“Despite this really impressive, almost immediate NT-proBNP testing,” the waiting times to undergo echocardiography were “really disappointing,” Dr. Anderson said.

The median time to first registered echocardiography was 40 days, and only 29% of patients with suspected heart failure received a diagnosis within a year of the index presentation date, which she described as “inadequately slow.”

“And how does this translate to medical therapy?” she asked.
 

Heart Failure Drugs

After the index presentation, the rate of loop diuretic use quadrupled among individuals suspected of having heart failure, but there was a “muted response” when it came to the prescribing of beta-blockers and the other pillars of heart failure therapy, which Dr. Anderson called “very disappointing.”

For outcomes after the index presentation, the rate of hospitalization was much higher in the group with suspected heart failure than in the control group (16.1 vs 2.2 events per 100 person-years). And all-cause mortality occurred more often in the group with suspected heart failure than in the control group (10.3 vs 6.5 events per 100 person-years).

Among patients with NT-proBNP levels of 2000 ng/L, there was a “rapid” onset of hospitalization “within the first few days” of the index presentation, which was tracked by a more linear rise in all-cause deaths, Dr. Anderson reported.

In the United Kingdom, “we are very proud of our 2- and 6-week pathways,” which stipulate that suspected heart failure patients with NT-proBNP levels between 400 and 2000 ng/L are to have a specialist assessment and transthoracic echocardiography within 6 weeks; for those with levels > 2000 ng/L, that interval is accelerated to 2 weeks, she said.

The current results show that “2 weeks is too slow.” And looking at the rest of the cohort with lower NT-proBNP levels, “patients have already been admitted and died” by 6 weeks, she said.

When patients are stratified by age, “you get exactly what you would expect,” Dr. Anderson said. “The older patients are the most at risk” for both hospitalization and all-cause mortality.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LISBON, PORTUGAL — The addition of a yearlong customized yoga therapy intervention to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) appears to significantly improve heart failure measures associated with long-term prognosis, findings from an Indian study suggested.

The research, presented at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2024 congress, involved 105 patients assigned to yoga plus GDMT or GDMT alone and demonstrated that there was a large shift in the New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class from baseline to the 52-week follow-up.

“Yoga therapy has a beneficial impact on heart failure patients on optimal medical management,” said study presenter Ajit Singh, MD, Department of Medicine, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Karnataka, India, and the study “demonstrated an overall improvement in left ventricle dimensions and function.”

However, because patients were followed every day and almost a quarter had dropped out by 6 months, the study was “a challenge,” he noted. Nevertheless, the addition of yoga to GDMT could be a “game changer if we try for longer duration.”

For yoga therapy to be considered in clinical practice, a randomized study is required, said session cochair Dana Dawson, MD, PhD, professor of cardiovascular medicine and lead of the Cardiology and Cardiovascular Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Scotland.

Patients in the current analysis, however, were not randomly allocated to treatment group, which resulted in baseline discrepancies that made the groups “incomparable,” Dr. Dawson explained.

Still, the study showed that yoga is feasible in this patient group and that, even just comparing baseline and follow-up outcomes in the yoga group, there were some significant results.

“It is effective in implementing a change,” she said, “and whether that change is clinically effective needs to be tested in a clinic in a randomized study.”
 

Why Yoga May Be Particularly Effective

Yoga may be different from other exercise and lifestyle interventions because it is “also about meditation and meeting with your own self,” which corresponds to a form of cognitive behavioral therapy, albeit “conducted in singular manner,” she added.

“It’s not going to be everyone’s cup of tea, and not everyone is going to be inclined to do it,” but it could be suitable in countries where yoga is more commonly practiced as a behavioral, as opposed to lifestyle, intervention, said Dr. Dawson.

Heart failure is a “complex chronic disease” that is a “prime cause of concern for healthcare sectors worldwide,” not least in India, where there is a “very high prevalence” of the disease, Dr. Singh noted.

Evidence from the literature indicates that yoga and other lifestyle modifications can improve the quality of life of patients with heart failure, alongside measures such as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and NYHA functional class, he said. However, the researchers did not find any study that looked at yoga therapy as an adjunct to standard-of-care treatment.
 

How Yoga Was Applied

They recruited patients aged 30-70 years with persistent heart failure symptoms, an LVEF of < 45%, and NYHA class III or lower heart failure. All participants had undergone a cardiac procedure 6-12 months previously, and all were receiving optimal GDMT.

Patients were assigned in a nonrandomized fashion to GDMT with or without a customized yoga program. Eight forms of pranayama breath work, meditation, and relaxation techniques were taught to patients in the yoga group by experienced hospital faculty.

They were supervised for 1 week and then advised to continue self-administered yoga at home once a week for 45 minutes. After each home session, an instructor followed up with each study participant to monitor progress.

All participants were assessed with echocardiography and other measures, including physical activities, to determine NYHA functional status at baseline, 6 months, and 1 year.

Of the 110 patients recruited, 25 had dropped out by 6 months. Of the remaining 85 patients included in the analysis, 40 were assigned to the yoga group. The average age was 49 years, and 70 (82%) of the participants were men. The lack of women in the study is a “major drawback,” Dr. Singh noted.

Women did not want to participate, he explained, “because they were afraid to get the follow-up,” saying, “We will not be able to follow this yoga therapy for 1 year.”

After 52 weeks, patients in the yoga group had significantly greater reductions from baseline in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, and body mass index than those in the GDMT-alone group (P < .05 for all).

Patients in the yoga group also experienced significantly greater improvements in ejection fraction, increasing from an average of 41.5% to 44.4% over the course of the study. In contrast, ejection fraction decreased from 42.3% to 41.6% in the GDMT-alone group (P < .05).

Crucially, there was a marked improvement in the NYHA class in the yoga group.

With yoga, the proportion of patients with class I heart failure increased from 12% to 47% over the 52 weeks of the study, whereas the proportion with class II heart failure decreased from 57% to 30%, and the proportion with class III heart failure decreased from 30% to 12% (P <  .001). In both the yoga and GDMT-alone groups, the proportion of patients with class IV disease increased from 0% to about 10%.

No funding was declared. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LISBON, PORTUGAL — The addition of a yearlong customized yoga therapy intervention to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) appears to significantly improve heart failure measures associated with long-term prognosis, findings from an Indian study suggested.

The research, presented at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2024 congress, involved 105 patients assigned to yoga plus GDMT or GDMT alone and demonstrated that there was a large shift in the New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class from baseline to the 52-week follow-up.

“Yoga therapy has a beneficial impact on heart failure patients on optimal medical management,” said study presenter Ajit Singh, MD, Department of Medicine, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Karnataka, India, and the study “demonstrated an overall improvement in left ventricle dimensions and function.”

However, because patients were followed every day and almost a quarter had dropped out by 6 months, the study was “a challenge,” he noted. Nevertheless, the addition of yoga to GDMT could be a “game changer if we try for longer duration.”

For yoga therapy to be considered in clinical practice, a randomized study is required, said session cochair Dana Dawson, MD, PhD, professor of cardiovascular medicine and lead of the Cardiology and Cardiovascular Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Scotland.

Patients in the current analysis, however, were not randomly allocated to treatment group, which resulted in baseline discrepancies that made the groups “incomparable,” Dr. Dawson explained.

Still, the study showed that yoga is feasible in this patient group and that, even just comparing baseline and follow-up outcomes in the yoga group, there were some significant results.

“It is effective in implementing a change,” she said, “and whether that change is clinically effective needs to be tested in a clinic in a randomized study.”
 

Why Yoga May Be Particularly Effective

Yoga may be different from other exercise and lifestyle interventions because it is “also about meditation and meeting with your own self,” which corresponds to a form of cognitive behavioral therapy, albeit “conducted in singular manner,” she added.

“It’s not going to be everyone’s cup of tea, and not everyone is going to be inclined to do it,” but it could be suitable in countries where yoga is more commonly practiced as a behavioral, as opposed to lifestyle, intervention, said Dr. Dawson.

Heart failure is a “complex chronic disease” that is a “prime cause of concern for healthcare sectors worldwide,” not least in India, where there is a “very high prevalence” of the disease, Dr. Singh noted.

Evidence from the literature indicates that yoga and other lifestyle modifications can improve the quality of life of patients with heart failure, alongside measures such as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and NYHA functional class, he said. However, the researchers did not find any study that looked at yoga therapy as an adjunct to standard-of-care treatment.
 

How Yoga Was Applied

They recruited patients aged 30-70 years with persistent heart failure symptoms, an LVEF of < 45%, and NYHA class III or lower heart failure. All participants had undergone a cardiac procedure 6-12 months previously, and all were receiving optimal GDMT.

Patients were assigned in a nonrandomized fashion to GDMT with or without a customized yoga program. Eight forms of pranayama breath work, meditation, and relaxation techniques were taught to patients in the yoga group by experienced hospital faculty.

They were supervised for 1 week and then advised to continue self-administered yoga at home once a week for 45 minutes. After each home session, an instructor followed up with each study participant to monitor progress.

All participants were assessed with echocardiography and other measures, including physical activities, to determine NYHA functional status at baseline, 6 months, and 1 year.

Of the 110 patients recruited, 25 had dropped out by 6 months. Of the remaining 85 patients included in the analysis, 40 were assigned to the yoga group. The average age was 49 years, and 70 (82%) of the participants were men. The lack of women in the study is a “major drawback,” Dr. Singh noted.

Women did not want to participate, he explained, “because they were afraid to get the follow-up,” saying, “We will not be able to follow this yoga therapy for 1 year.”

After 52 weeks, patients in the yoga group had significantly greater reductions from baseline in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, and body mass index than those in the GDMT-alone group (P < .05 for all).

Patients in the yoga group also experienced significantly greater improvements in ejection fraction, increasing from an average of 41.5% to 44.4% over the course of the study. In contrast, ejection fraction decreased from 42.3% to 41.6% in the GDMT-alone group (P < .05).

Crucially, there was a marked improvement in the NYHA class in the yoga group.

With yoga, the proportion of patients with class I heart failure increased from 12% to 47% over the 52 weeks of the study, whereas the proportion with class II heart failure decreased from 57% to 30%, and the proportion with class III heart failure decreased from 30% to 12% (P <  .001). In both the yoga and GDMT-alone groups, the proportion of patients with class IV disease increased from 0% to about 10%.

No funding was declared. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LISBON, PORTUGAL — The addition of a yearlong customized yoga therapy intervention to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) appears to significantly improve heart failure measures associated with long-term prognosis, findings from an Indian study suggested.

The research, presented at the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology (HFA-ESC) 2024 congress, involved 105 patients assigned to yoga plus GDMT or GDMT alone and demonstrated that there was a large shift in the New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class from baseline to the 52-week follow-up.

“Yoga therapy has a beneficial impact on heart failure patients on optimal medical management,” said study presenter Ajit Singh, MD, Department of Medicine, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Karnataka, India, and the study “demonstrated an overall improvement in left ventricle dimensions and function.”

However, because patients were followed every day and almost a quarter had dropped out by 6 months, the study was “a challenge,” he noted. Nevertheless, the addition of yoga to GDMT could be a “game changer if we try for longer duration.”

For yoga therapy to be considered in clinical practice, a randomized study is required, said session cochair Dana Dawson, MD, PhD, professor of cardiovascular medicine and lead of the Cardiology and Cardiovascular Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Scotland.

Patients in the current analysis, however, were not randomly allocated to treatment group, which resulted in baseline discrepancies that made the groups “incomparable,” Dr. Dawson explained.

Still, the study showed that yoga is feasible in this patient group and that, even just comparing baseline and follow-up outcomes in the yoga group, there were some significant results.

“It is effective in implementing a change,” she said, “and whether that change is clinically effective needs to be tested in a clinic in a randomized study.”
 

Why Yoga May Be Particularly Effective

Yoga may be different from other exercise and lifestyle interventions because it is “also about meditation and meeting with your own self,” which corresponds to a form of cognitive behavioral therapy, albeit “conducted in singular manner,” she added.

“It’s not going to be everyone’s cup of tea, and not everyone is going to be inclined to do it,” but it could be suitable in countries where yoga is more commonly practiced as a behavioral, as opposed to lifestyle, intervention, said Dr. Dawson.

Heart failure is a “complex chronic disease” that is a “prime cause of concern for healthcare sectors worldwide,” not least in India, where there is a “very high prevalence” of the disease, Dr. Singh noted.

Evidence from the literature indicates that yoga and other lifestyle modifications can improve the quality of life of patients with heart failure, alongside measures such as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and NYHA functional class, he said. However, the researchers did not find any study that looked at yoga therapy as an adjunct to standard-of-care treatment.
 

How Yoga Was Applied

They recruited patients aged 30-70 years with persistent heart failure symptoms, an LVEF of < 45%, and NYHA class III or lower heart failure. All participants had undergone a cardiac procedure 6-12 months previously, and all were receiving optimal GDMT.

Patients were assigned in a nonrandomized fashion to GDMT with or without a customized yoga program. Eight forms of pranayama breath work, meditation, and relaxation techniques were taught to patients in the yoga group by experienced hospital faculty.

They were supervised for 1 week and then advised to continue self-administered yoga at home once a week for 45 minutes. After each home session, an instructor followed up with each study participant to monitor progress.

All participants were assessed with echocardiography and other measures, including physical activities, to determine NYHA functional status at baseline, 6 months, and 1 year.

Of the 110 patients recruited, 25 had dropped out by 6 months. Of the remaining 85 patients included in the analysis, 40 were assigned to the yoga group. The average age was 49 years, and 70 (82%) of the participants were men. The lack of women in the study is a “major drawback,” Dr. Singh noted.

Women did not want to participate, he explained, “because they were afraid to get the follow-up,” saying, “We will not be able to follow this yoga therapy for 1 year.”

After 52 weeks, patients in the yoga group had significantly greater reductions from baseline in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, and body mass index than those in the GDMT-alone group (P < .05 for all).

Patients in the yoga group also experienced significantly greater improvements in ejection fraction, increasing from an average of 41.5% to 44.4% over the course of the study. In contrast, ejection fraction decreased from 42.3% to 41.6% in the GDMT-alone group (P < .05).

Crucially, there was a marked improvement in the NYHA class in the yoga group.

With yoga, the proportion of patients with class I heart failure increased from 12% to 47% over the 52 weeks of the study, whereas the proportion with class II heart failure decreased from 57% to 30%, and the proportion with class III heart failure decreased from 30% to 12% (P <  .001). In both the yoga and GDMT-alone groups, the proportion of patients with class IV disease increased from 0% to about 10%.

No funding was declared. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Beta-blockers are excellent drugs. They’re cheap and effective; feature prominently in hypertension guidelines; and remain a sine qua non for coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, and heart failure treatment. They’ve been around forever, and we know they work. Good luck finding an adult medicine patient who isn’t on one.

Beta-blockers act by slowing resting heart rate (and blunting the heart rate response to exercise. The latter is a pernicious cause of activity intolerance that often goes unchecked. Even when the adverse effects of beta-blockers are appreciated, providers are loath to alter dosing, much less stop the drug. After all, beta-blockers are an integral part of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), and GDMT saves lives.

Balancing Heart Rate and Stroke Volume Effects

The pulmonologist sees beta-blockers differently. To augment cardiac output and optimize oxygen uptake (VO₂) during exercise, we need the heart rate response. In fact, the heart rate response contributes more to cardiac output than augmenting stroke volume (SV) and more to VO₂ than the increase in arteriovenous (AV) oxygen difference. An inability to increase the heart rate commensurate with physiologic work is called chronotropic incompetence (CI). That’s what beta-blockers do ─ they cause CI.

Physiology dictates that CI will cause activity intolerance. That said, it’s hard to quantify the impact from beta-blockers at the individual patient level. Data suggest the heart rate effect is profound. A study in patients without heart failure found that 22% of participants on beta-blockers had CI, and the investigators used a conservative CI definition (≤ 62% of heart rate reserve used). A recent report published in JAMA Cardiology found that stopping beta-blockers in patients with heart failure allowed for an extra 30 beats/min at max exercise.

Wasserman and Whipp’s textbook, the last word on all things exercise, presents a sample subject who undergoes two separate cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPETs). Before the first, he’s given a placebo, and before the second, he gets an intravenous beta-blocker. He’s a 23-year-old otherwise healthy male — the perfect test case for isolating beta-blocker impact without confounding by comorbid diseases, other medications, or deconditioning. His max heart rate dropped by 30 beats/min after the beta-blocker, identical to what we saw in the JAMA Cardiology study (with the heart rate increasing by 30 beats/min following withdrawal). Case closed. Stop the beta-blockers on your patients so they can meet their exercise goals and get healthy!

Such pithy enthusiasm discounts physiology’s complexities. When blunting our patient’s heart rate response with beta-blockers, we also increase diastolic filling time, which increases SV. For the 23-year-old in Wasserman and Whipp’s physiology textbook, the beta-blocker increased O₂ pulse (the product of SV and AV difference). Presumably, this is mediated by the increased SV. There was a net reduction in VO₂ peak, but it was nominal, suggesting that the drop in heart rate was largely offset by the increase in O₂ pulse. For the patients in the JAMA Cardiology study, the entire group had a small increase in VO2 peak with beta-blocker withdrawal, but the effect differed by left ventricular function. Across different studies, the beta-blocker effect on heart rate is consistent but the change in overall exercise capacity is not. 

Patient Variability in Beta-Blocker Response

In addition to left ventricular function, there are other factors likely to drive variability at the patient level. We’ve treated the response to beta-blockers as a class effect — an obvious oversimplification. The impact on exercise and the heart will vary by dose and drug (eg, atenolol vs metoprolol vs carvedilol, and so on). Beta-blockers can also affect the lungs, and we’re still debating how cautious to be in the presence of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 

In a world of infinite time, resources, and expertise, we’d CPET everyone before and after beta-blocker use. Our current reality requires the unthinkable: We’ll have to talk to each other and our patients. For example, heart failure guidelines recommend titrating drugs to match the dose from trials that proved efficacy. These doses are quite high. Simple discussion with the cardiologist and the patient may allow for an adjustment back down with careful monitoring and close attention to activity tolerance. With any luck, you’ll preserve the benefits from GDMT while optimizing your patient›s ability to meet their exercise goals.
 

Dr. Holley, professor in the department of medicine, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland, and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, disclosed ties with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Beta-blockers are excellent drugs. They’re cheap and effective; feature prominently in hypertension guidelines; and remain a sine qua non for coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, and heart failure treatment. They’ve been around forever, and we know they work. Good luck finding an adult medicine patient who isn’t on one.

Beta-blockers act by slowing resting heart rate (and blunting the heart rate response to exercise. The latter is a pernicious cause of activity intolerance that often goes unchecked. Even when the adverse effects of beta-blockers are appreciated, providers are loath to alter dosing, much less stop the drug. After all, beta-blockers are an integral part of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), and GDMT saves lives.

Balancing Heart Rate and Stroke Volume Effects

The pulmonologist sees beta-blockers differently. To augment cardiac output and optimize oxygen uptake (VO₂) during exercise, we need the heart rate response. In fact, the heart rate response contributes more to cardiac output than augmenting stroke volume (SV) and more to VO₂ than the increase in arteriovenous (AV) oxygen difference. An inability to increase the heart rate commensurate with physiologic work is called chronotropic incompetence (CI). That’s what beta-blockers do ─ they cause CI.

Physiology dictates that CI will cause activity intolerance. That said, it’s hard to quantify the impact from beta-blockers at the individual patient level. Data suggest the heart rate effect is profound. A study in patients without heart failure found that 22% of participants on beta-blockers had CI, and the investigators used a conservative CI definition (≤ 62% of heart rate reserve used). A recent report published in JAMA Cardiology found that stopping beta-blockers in patients with heart failure allowed for an extra 30 beats/min at max exercise.

Wasserman and Whipp’s textbook, the last word on all things exercise, presents a sample subject who undergoes two separate cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPETs). Before the first, he’s given a placebo, and before the second, he gets an intravenous beta-blocker. He’s a 23-year-old otherwise healthy male — the perfect test case for isolating beta-blocker impact without confounding by comorbid diseases, other medications, or deconditioning. His max heart rate dropped by 30 beats/min after the beta-blocker, identical to what we saw in the JAMA Cardiology study (with the heart rate increasing by 30 beats/min following withdrawal). Case closed. Stop the beta-blockers on your patients so they can meet their exercise goals and get healthy!

Such pithy enthusiasm discounts physiology’s complexities. When blunting our patient’s heart rate response with beta-blockers, we also increase diastolic filling time, which increases SV. For the 23-year-old in Wasserman and Whipp’s physiology textbook, the beta-blocker increased O₂ pulse (the product of SV and AV difference). Presumably, this is mediated by the increased SV. There was a net reduction in VO₂ peak, but it was nominal, suggesting that the drop in heart rate was largely offset by the increase in O₂ pulse. For the patients in the JAMA Cardiology study, the entire group had a small increase in VO2 peak with beta-blocker withdrawal, but the effect differed by left ventricular function. Across different studies, the beta-blocker effect on heart rate is consistent but the change in overall exercise capacity is not. 

Patient Variability in Beta-Blocker Response

In addition to left ventricular function, there are other factors likely to drive variability at the patient level. We’ve treated the response to beta-blockers as a class effect — an obvious oversimplification. The impact on exercise and the heart will vary by dose and drug (eg, atenolol vs metoprolol vs carvedilol, and so on). Beta-blockers can also affect the lungs, and we’re still debating how cautious to be in the presence of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 

In a world of infinite time, resources, and expertise, we’d CPET everyone before and after beta-blocker use. Our current reality requires the unthinkable: We’ll have to talk to each other and our patients. For example, heart failure guidelines recommend titrating drugs to match the dose from trials that proved efficacy. These doses are quite high. Simple discussion with the cardiologist and the patient may allow for an adjustment back down with careful monitoring and close attention to activity tolerance. With any luck, you’ll preserve the benefits from GDMT while optimizing your patient›s ability to meet their exercise goals.
 

Dr. Holley, professor in the department of medicine, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland, and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, disclosed ties with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Beta-blockers are excellent drugs. They’re cheap and effective; feature prominently in hypertension guidelines; and remain a sine qua non for coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, and heart failure treatment. They’ve been around forever, and we know they work. Good luck finding an adult medicine patient who isn’t on one.

Beta-blockers act by slowing resting heart rate (and blunting the heart rate response to exercise. The latter is a pernicious cause of activity intolerance that often goes unchecked. Even when the adverse effects of beta-blockers are appreciated, providers are loath to alter dosing, much less stop the drug. After all, beta-blockers are an integral part of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), and GDMT saves lives.

Balancing Heart Rate and Stroke Volume Effects

The pulmonologist sees beta-blockers differently. To augment cardiac output and optimize oxygen uptake (VO₂) during exercise, we need the heart rate response. In fact, the heart rate response contributes more to cardiac output than augmenting stroke volume (SV) and more to VO₂ than the increase in arteriovenous (AV) oxygen difference. An inability to increase the heart rate commensurate with physiologic work is called chronotropic incompetence (CI). That’s what beta-blockers do ─ they cause CI.

Physiology dictates that CI will cause activity intolerance. That said, it’s hard to quantify the impact from beta-blockers at the individual patient level. Data suggest the heart rate effect is profound. A study in patients without heart failure found that 22% of participants on beta-blockers had CI, and the investigators used a conservative CI definition (≤ 62% of heart rate reserve used). A recent report published in JAMA Cardiology found that stopping beta-blockers in patients with heart failure allowed for an extra 30 beats/min at max exercise.

Wasserman and Whipp’s textbook, the last word on all things exercise, presents a sample subject who undergoes two separate cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPETs). Before the first, he’s given a placebo, and before the second, he gets an intravenous beta-blocker. He’s a 23-year-old otherwise healthy male — the perfect test case for isolating beta-blocker impact without confounding by comorbid diseases, other medications, or deconditioning. His max heart rate dropped by 30 beats/min after the beta-blocker, identical to what we saw in the JAMA Cardiology study (with the heart rate increasing by 30 beats/min following withdrawal). Case closed. Stop the beta-blockers on your patients so they can meet their exercise goals and get healthy!

Such pithy enthusiasm discounts physiology’s complexities. When blunting our patient’s heart rate response with beta-blockers, we also increase diastolic filling time, which increases SV. For the 23-year-old in Wasserman and Whipp’s physiology textbook, the beta-blocker increased O₂ pulse (the product of SV and AV difference). Presumably, this is mediated by the increased SV. There was a net reduction in VO₂ peak, but it was nominal, suggesting that the drop in heart rate was largely offset by the increase in O₂ pulse. For the patients in the JAMA Cardiology study, the entire group had a small increase in VO2 peak with beta-blocker withdrawal, but the effect differed by left ventricular function. Across different studies, the beta-blocker effect on heart rate is consistent but the change in overall exercise capacity is not. 

Patient Variability in Beta-Blocker Response

In addition to left ventricular function, there are other factors likely to drive variability at the patient level. We’ve treated the response to beta-blockers as a class effect — an obvious oversimplification. The impact on exercise and the heart will vary by dose and drug (eg, atenolol vs metoprolol vs carvedilol, and so on). Beta-blockers can also affect the lungs, and we’re still debating how cautious to be in the presence of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 

In a world of infinite time, resources, and expertise, we’d CPET everyone before and after beta-blocker use. Our current reality requires the unthinkable: We’ll have to talk to each other and our patients. For example, heart failure guidelines recommend titrating drugs to match the dose from trials that proved efficacy. These doses are quite high. Simple discussion with the cardiologist and the patient may allow for an adjustment back down with careful monitoring and close attention to activity tolerance. With any luck, you’ll preserve the benefits from GDMT while optimizing your patient›s ability to meet their exercise goals.
 

Dr. Holley, professor in the department of medicine, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland, and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, disclosed ties with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher doses of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) increase the risk for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) such as ischemic heart disease, stroke, and congestive heart failure in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) compared with lower doses.

METHODOLOGY:

• NSAIDs can suppress inflammation and relieve pain in patients with AS, but long-term treatment with NSAIDs poses concerns regarding gastrointestinal and renal toxicities and increased CVD risk.
• This nationwide cohort study used data from the Korean National Health Insurance database to investigate the risk for CVD associated with an increasing NSAID dosage in a real-world AS cohort.
• Investigators recruited 19,775 patients (mean age, 36.1 years; 75% men) with newly diagnosed AS and without any prior CVD between January 2010 and December 2018, among whom 99.7% received NSAID treatment and 30.2% received tumor necrosis factor inhibitor treatment.
• A time-varying approach was used to assess the NSAID exposure, wherein periods of NSAID use were defined as “NSAID-exposed” and periods longer than 1 month without NSAID use were defined as “NSAID-unexposed.”
• The primary outcome was the composite outcome of ischemic heart disease, stroke, or congestive heart failure.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the follow-up period of 98,290 person-years, 1663 cases of CVD were identified, which included 1157 cases of ischemic heart disease, 301 cases of stroke, and 613 cases of congestive heart failure.
• After adjusting for confounders, each defined daily dose increase in NSAIDs raised the risk for incident CVD by 10% (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.13).
• Similarly, increasing the dose of NSAIDs was associated with an increased risk for ischemic heart disease (aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.11), stroke (aHR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.04-1.15), and congestive heart failure (aHR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.08-1.16).
• The association between increasing NSAID dose and increased CVD risk was consistent across various subgroups, with NSAIDs posing a greater threat to cardiovascular health in women than in men.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote, “Taken together, these results suggest that increasing the dose of NSAIDs is associated with a higher cardiovascular risk in AS, but that the increased risk might be lower than that in the general population.”

SOURCE:

First author Ji-Won Kim, MD, PhD, of the Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Daegu Catholic University School of Medicine, Daegu, the Republic of Korea, and colleagues had their work published online on April 9 in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was of retrospective nature. The levels of acute phase reactants and AS disease activity could not be determined owing to a lack of data in the National Health Insurance database. The accuracy of the diagnosis of cardiovascular outcomes on the basis of the International Classification of Disease codes was also questionable.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher doses of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) increase the risk for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) such as ischemic heart disease, stroke, and congestive heart failure in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) compared with lower doses.

METHODOLOGY:

• NSAIDs can suppress inflammation and relieve pain in patients with AS, but long-term treatment with NSAIDs poses concerns regarding gastrointestinal and renal toxicities and increased CVD risk.
• This nationwide cohort study used data from the Korean National Health Insurance database to investigate the risk for CVD associated with an increasing NSAID dosage in a real-world AS cohort.
• Investigators recruited 19,775 patients (mean age, 36.1 years; 75% men) with newly diagnosed AS and without any prior CVD between January 2010 and December 2018, among whom 99.7% received NSAID treatment and 30.2% received tumor necrosis factor inhibitor treatment.
• A time-varying approach was used to assess the NSAID exposure, wherein periods of NSAID use were defined as “NSAID-exposed” and periods longer than 1 month without NSAID use were defined as “NSAID-unexposed.”
• The primary outcome was the composite outcome of ischemic heart disease, stroke, or congestive heart failure.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the follow-up period of 98,290 person-years, 1663 cases of CVD were identified, which included 1157 cases of ischemic heart disease, 301 cases of stroke, and 613 cases of congestive heart failure.
• After adjusting for confounders, each defined daily dose increase in NSAIDs raised the risk for incident CVD by 10% (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.13).
• Similarly, increasing the dose of NSAIDs was associated with an increased risk for ischemic heart disease (aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.11), stroke (aHR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.04-1.15), and congestive heart failure (aHR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.08-1.16).
• The association between increasing NSAID dose and increased CVD risk was consistent across various subgroups, with NSAIDs posing a greater threat to cardiovascular health in women than in men.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote, “Taken together, these results suggest that increasing the dose of NSAIDs is associated with a higher cardiovascular risk in AS, but that the increased risk might be lower than that in the general population.”

SOURCE:

First author Ji-Won Kim, MD, PhD, of the Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Daegu Catholic University School of Medicine, Daegu, the Republic of Korea, and colleagues had their work published online on April 9 in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was of retrospective nature. The levels of acute phase reactants and AS disease activity could not be determined owing to a lack of data in the National Health Insurance database. The accuracy of the diagnosis of cardiovascular outcomes on the basis of the International Classification of Disease codes was also questionable.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Higher doses of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) increase the risk for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) such as ischemic heart disease, stroke, and congestive heart failure in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) compared with lower doses.

METHODOLOGY:

• NSAIDs can suppress inflammation and relieve pain in patients with AS, but long-term treatment with NSAIDs poses concerns regarding gastrointestinal and renal toxicities and increased CVD risk.
• This nationwide cohort study used data from the Korean National Health Insurance database to investigate the risk for CVD associated with an increasing NSAID dosage in a real-world AS cohort.
• Investigators recruited 19,775 patients (mean age, 36.1 years; 75% men) with newly diagnosed AS and without any prior CVD between January 2010 and December 2018, among whom 99.7% received NSAID treatment and 30.2% received tumor necrosis factor inhibitor treatment.
• A time-varying approach was used to assess the NSAID exposure, wherein periods of NSAID use were defined as “NSAID-exposed” and periods longer than 1 month without NSAID use were defined as “NSAID-unexposed.”
• The primary outcome was the composite outcome of ischemic heart disease, stroke, or congestive heart failure.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the follow-up period of 98,290 person-years, 1663 cases of CVD were identified, which included 1157 cases of ischemic heart disease, 301 cases of stroke, and 613 cases of congestive heart failure.
• After adjusting for confounders, each defined daily dose increase in NSAIDs raised the risk for incident CVD by 10% (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.13).
• Similarly, increasing the dose of NSAIDs was associated with an increased risk for ischemic heart disease (aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.11), stroke (aHR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.04-1.15), and congestive heart failure (aHR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.08-1.16).
• The association between increasing NSAID dose and increased CVD risk was consistent across various subgroups, with NSAIDs posing a greater threat to cardiovascular health in women than in men.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote, “Taken together, these results suggest that increasing the dose of NSAIDs is associated with a higher cardiovascular risk in AS, but that the increased risk might be lower than that in the general population.”

SOURCE:

First author Ji-Won Kim, MD, PhD, of the Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Daegu Catholic University School of Medicine, Daegu, the Republic of Korea, and colleagues had their work published online on April 9 in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was of retrospective nature. The levels of acute phase reactants and AS disease activity could not be determined owing to a lack of data in the National Health Insurance database. The accuracy of the diagnosis of cardiovascular outcomes on the basis of the International Classification of Disease codes was also questionable.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New research by Thomas Münzel, MD, senior professor of cardiology at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz in Mainz, Germany, and colleagues again emphasized the harmful effects of noise on the heart and blood vessels. An analysis of current epidemiologic data provided strong indications that transportation noise is closely related to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, according to a statement on the data analysis. The results were published in Circulation Research.

Morbidity and Mortality

Epidemiologic studies have shown that road, rail, or air traffic noise increases the risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, with strong evidence for ischemic heart disease, heart failure, and stroke, according to the scientists. The World Health Organization reported that at least 1.6 million healthy life years are lost annually in Western Europe because of traffic-related noise. Nighttime traffic noise leads to sleep fragmentation and shortening, an increase in stress hormone levels, and increased oxidative stress in the vessels and brain. These factors could favor vascular (endothelial) dysfunction, inflammation, and hypertension, thereby increasing cardiovascular risk.

Consequences and Pathomechanisms

In the current publication, the authors provided an overview of epidemiologic research on the effects of transportation noise on cardiovascular risk factors and diseases, discussed mechanistic insights from the latest clinical and experimental studies, and proposed new risk markers to address noise-induced cardiovascular effects in the general population. An integrated analysis in the article demonstrated that for every 10 dB(A) increase, the risk for cardiovascular diseases such as heart attack, stroke, and heart failure significantly increases by 3.2%.

The authors also explained the possible effects of noise on changes in gene networks, epigenetic pathways, circadian rhythms, signal transmission along the neuronal-cardiovascular axis, oxidative stress, inflammation, and metabolism. Finally, current and future noise protection strategies are described, and the existing evidence on noise as a cardiovascular risk factor is discussed.

Confirmed Cardiovascular Risk Factor

“As an increasing proportion of the population is exposed to harmful traffic noise, efforts to reduce noise and laws for noise reduction are of great importance for future public health,” said Dr. Münzel. “It is also important for us that due to the strong evidence, traffic noise is finally recognized as a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases.”

Heart Attack Outcomes

Dr. Münzel and other researchers from Mainz have been studying the cardiovascular consequences of air pollution and traffic noise for several years. For example, they found that heart attacks in people and animals exposed to high noise levels earlier in life healed poorly. These results were published last year in Cardiovascular Research. According to the authors, the findings suggest that traffic noise may play a significant role in the development and course of coronary heart disease, such as after a heart attack.

The scientists initially found in animal experiments that exposure to aircraft noise for 4 days led to increased inflammation in the vessels. Compared with mice not exposed to aircraft noise, the noise-exposed animals showed an increase in free radicals; these animals exhibited a significant inflammatory response and had impaired vessel function.

The researchers explained that the experimental data showed aircraft noise alone triggers a proinflammatory transcription program that promotes the infiltration of immune cells into cardiovascular tissue in animals with acute myocardial infarction. They noted an increased infiltration of CD45+ cells into the vessels and heart, dominated by neutrophils in vessel tissue and Ly6Chigh monocytes in heart tissue. This infiltration creates a proinflammatory milieu that adversely affects the outcome after myocardial infarction by predisposing the heart tissue to greater ischemic damage and functional impairment. Exposure of animals to aircraft noise before induction of myocardial infarction by left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery ligation impaired left ventricular function and increased infarct size after cardiac ischemia. In addition, noise exposure exacerbated infarct-induced endothelial dysfunction of peripheral vessels as early as 24 hours after LAD ligation.

Clinical Confirmation

These experimental results were confirmed by observations in the population-based Gutenberg Health Study. The researchers analyzed data from 100 patients with heart attack. The lead and senior authors of the study Michael Molitor, MD, and Philip Wenzel, MD, of the University of Mainz, explained, “From our studies, we have learned that exposure to aircraft noise before a heart attack significantly amplifies subsequent cardiovascular inflammation and exacerbates ischemic heart failure, which is favored by inflammation-promoting vascular conditioning. Our translational results show that people who have been exposed to noise in the past have a worse course if they experience a heart attack later in life.”

Study participants who had experienced a heart attack in their medical history had elevated levels of C-reactive protein if they had been exposed to aircraft noise in the past and subsequently developed noise annoyance reactions (0.305 vs 1.5; P = .0094). In addition, left ventricular ejection fraction in these patients after a heart attack was worse than that in patients with infarction without noise exposure in their medical history (62.5 vs 65.6; P = .0053).

The results suggest that measures to reduce environmental noise could help improve the clinical outcomes of heart attack patients, according to the authors.

Mental Health Effects

Traffic noise also may be associated with an increased risk for depression and anxiety disorders, as reported 2 years ago by the German Society for Psychosomatic Medicine and Medical Psychotherapy. Evolution has programmed the human organism to perceive noises as indicators of potential sources of danger — even during sleep. “Noise puts the body on alert,” explained Manfred E. Beutel, MD, director of the Clinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy at the University of Mainz. As a result, the autonomic nervous system activates stress hormones such as adrenaline and cortisol, leading to an increase in heart rate and blood pressure. If noise becomes chronic, chronic diseases can develop. “Indeed, observational and experimental studies have shown that persistent noise annoyance promotes incident hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, and type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Beutel.

Depression Risk Doubled

Among the negative effects of noise annoyance are also mental illnesses, as has become increasingly clear. “Noise annoyance disrupts daily activities and interferes with feelings and thoughts, sleep, and recovery,” said Dr. Beutel. The interruptions trigger negative emotional reactions such as anger, distress, exhaustion, flight impulses, and stress symptoms. “Such conditions promote the development of depression over time,” said Dr. Beutel. This observation was confirmed by the large-scale Gutenberg Health Study using the example of the Mainz population, which suffers to a large extent from noise annoyance because of the nearby Frankfurt Airport. “With increasing noise annoyance, the rates of depression and anxiety disorders steadily increased, until the risks eventually doubled with extreme annoyance,” said Dr. Beutel. Other studies point in the same direction. For example, a meta-analysis found a 12% increase in the risk for depression per 10-dB increase in noise. Another study found an association between nocturnal noise annoyance and the use of antidepressants.

Fine Particulate Matter

According to an evaluation of the Gutenberg Study, people perceive noise annoyance from aircraft noise as the most pronounced, followed by road, neighborhood, industrial, and railway noise. Noise occurs most frequently in urban areas that also produce air pollution such as fine particulate matter. “Fine particulate matter is also suspected of promoting anxiety and depression,” said Dr. Beutel, “because the small particles of fine particulate matter can enter the bloodstream and trigger inflammatory processes there, which in turn are closely related to depression.”

This story was translated from Univadis Germany, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New research by Thomas Münzel, MD, senior professor of cardiology at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz in Mainz, Germany, and colleagues again emphasized the harmful effects of noise on the heart and blood vessels. An analysis of current epidemiologic data provided strong indications that transportation noise is closely related to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, according to a statement on the data analysis. The results were published in Circulation Research.

Morbidity and Mortality

Epidemiologic studies have shown that road, rail, or air traffic noise increases the risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, with strong evidence for ischemic heart disease, heart failure, and stroke, according to the scientists. The World Health Organization reported that at least 1.6 million healthy life years are lost annually in Western Europe because of traffic-related noise. Nighttime traffic noise leads to sleep fragmentation and shortening, an increase in stress hormone levels, and increased oxidative stress in the vessels and brain. These factors could favor vascular (endothelial) dysfunction, inflammation, and hypertension, thereby increasing cardiovascular risk.

Consequences and Pathomechanisms

In the current publication, the authors provided an overview of epidemiologic research on the effects of transportation noise on cardiovascular risk factors and diseases, discussed mechanistic insights from the latest clinical and experimental studies, and proposed new risk markers to address noise-induced cardiovascular effects in the general population. An integrated analysis in the article demonstrated that for every 10 dB(A) increase, the risk for cardiovascular diseases such as heart attack, stroke, and heart failure significantly increases by 3.2%.

The authors also explained the possible effects of noise on changes in gene networks, epigenetic pathways, circadian rhythms, signal transmission along the neuronal-cardiovascular axis, oxidative stress, inflammation, and metabolism. Finally, current and future noise protection strategies are described, and the existing evidence on noise as a cardiovascular risk factor is discussed.

Confirmed Cardiovascular Risk Factor

“As an increasing proportion of the population is exposed to harmful traffic noise, efforts to reduce noise and laws for noise reduction are of great importance for future public health,” said Dr. Münzel. “It is also important for us that due to the strong evidence, traffic noise is finally recognized as a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases.”

Heart Attack Outcomes

Dr. Münzel and other researchers from Mainz have been studying the cardiovascular consequences of air pollution and traffic noise for several years. For example, they found that heart attacks in people and animals exposed to high noise levels earlier in life healed poorly. These results were published last year in Cardiovascular Research. According to the authors, the findings suggest that traffic noise may play a significant role in the development and course of coronary heart disease, such as after a heart attack.

The scientists initially found in animal experiments that exposure to aircraft noise for 4 days led to increased inflammation in the vessels. Compared with mice not exposed to aircraft noise, the noise-exposed animals showed an increase in free radicals; these animals exhibited a significant inflammatory response and had impaired vessel function.

The researchers explained that the experimental data showed aircraft noise alone triggers a proinflammatory transcription program that promotes the infiltration of immune cells into cardiovascular tissue in animals with acute myocardial infarction. They noted an increased infiltration of CD45+ cells into the vessels and heart, dominated by neutrophils in vessel tissue and Ly6Chigh monocytes in heart tissue. This infiltration creates a proinflammatory milieu that adversely affects the outcome after myocardial infarction by predisposing the heart tissue to greater ischemic damage and functional impairment. Exposure of animals to aircraft noise before induction of myocardial infarction by left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery ligation impaired left ventricular function and increased infarct size after cardiac ischemia. In addition, noise exposure exacerbated infarct-induced endothelial dysfunction of peripheral vessels as early as 24 hours after LAD ligation.

Clinical Confirmation

These experimental results were confirmed by observations in the population-based Gutenberg Health Study. The researchers analyzed data from 100 patients with heart attack. The lead and senior authors of the study Michael Molitor, MD, and Philip Wenzel, MD, of the University of Mainz, explained, “From our studies, we have learned that exposure to aircraft noise before a heart attack significantly amplifies subsequent cardiovascular inflammation and exacerbates ischemic heart failure, which is favored by inflammation-promoting vascular conditioning. Our translational results show that people who have been exposed to noise in the past have a worse course if they experience a heart attack later in life.”

Study participants who had experienced a heart attack in their medical history had elevated levels of C-reactive protein if they had been exposed to aircraft noise in the past and subsequently developed noise annoyance reactions (0.305 vs 1.5; P = .0094). In addition, left ventricular ejection fraction in these patients after a heart attack was worse than that in patients with infarction without noise exposure in their medical history (62.5 vs 65.6; P = .0053).

The results suggest that measures to reduce environmental noise could help improve the clinical outcomes of heart attack patients, according to the authors.

Mental Health Effects

Traffic noise also may be associated with an increased risk for depression and anxiety disorders, as reported 2 years ago by the German Society for Psychosomatic Medicine and Medical Psychotherapy. Evolution has programmed the human organism to perceive noises as indicators of potential sources of danger — even during sleep. “Noise puts the body on alert,” explained Manfred E. Beutel, MD, director of the Clinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy at the University of Mainz. As a result, the autonomic nervous system activates stress hormones such as adrenaline and cortisol, leading to an increase in heart rate and blood pressure. If noise becomes chronic, chronic diseases can develop. “Indeed, observational and experimental studies have shown that persistent noise annoyance promotes incident hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, and type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Beutel.

Depression Risk Doubled

Among the negative effects of noise annoyance are also mental illnesses, as has become increasingly clear. “Noise annoyance disrupts daily activities and interferes with feelings and thoughts, sleep, and recovery,” said Dr. Beutel. The interruptions trigger negative emotional reactions such as anger, distress, exhaustion, flight impulses, and stress symptoms. “Such conditions promote the development of depression over time,” said Dr. Beutel. This observation was confirmed by the large-scale Gutenberg Health Study using the example of the Mainz population, which suffers to a large extent from noise annoyance because of the nearby Frankfurt Airport. “With increasing noise annoyance, the rates of depression and anxiety disorders steadily increased, until the risks eventually doubled with extreme annoyance,” said Dr. Beutel. Other studies point in the same direction. For example, a meta-analysis found a 12% increase in the risk for depression per 10-dB increase in noise. Another study found an association between nocturnal noise annoyance and the use of antidepressants.

Fine Particulate Matter

According to an evaluation of the Gutenberg Study, people perceive noise annoyance from aircraft noise as the most pronounced, followed by road, neighborhood, industrial, and railway noise. Noise occurs most frequently in urban areas that also produce air pollution such as fine particulate matter. “Fine particulate matter is also suspected of promoting anxiety and depression,” said Dr. Beutel, “because the small particles of fine particulate matter can enter the bloodstream and trigger inflammatory processes there, which in turn are closely related to depression.”

This story was translated from Univadis Germany, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New research by Thomas Münzel, MD, senior professor of cardiology at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz in Mainz, Germany, and colleagues again emphasized the harmful effects of noise on the heart and blood vessels. An analysis of current epidemiologic data provided strong indications that transportation noise is closely related to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, according to a statement on the data analysis. The results were published in Circulation Research.

Morbidity and Mortality

Epidemiologic studies have shown that road, rail, or air traffic noise increases the risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, with strong evidence for ischemic heart disease, heart failure, and stroke, according to the scientists. The World Health Organization reported that at least 1.6 million healthy life years are lost annually in Western Europe because of traffic-related noise. Nighttime traffic noise leads to sleep fragmentation and shortening, an increase in stress hormone levels, and increased oxidative stress in the vessels and brain. These factors could favor vascular (endothelial) dysfunction, inflammation, and hypertension, thereby increasing cardiovascular risk.

Consequences and Pathomechanisms

In the current publication, the authors provided an overview of epidemiologic research on the effects of transportation noise on cardiovascular risk factors and diseases, discussed mechanistic insights from the latest clinical and experimental studies, and proposed new risk markers to address noise-induced cardiovascular effects in the general population. An integrated analysis in the article demonstrated that for every 10 dB(A) increase, the risk for cardiovascular diseases such as heart attack, stroke, and heart failure significantly increases by 3.2%.

The authors also explained the possible effects of noise on changes in gene networks, epigenetic pathways, circadian rhythms, signal transmission along the neuronal-cardiovascular axis, oxidative stress, inflammation, and metabolism. Finally, current and future noise protection strategies are described, and the existing evidence on noise as a cardiovascular risk factor is discussed.

Confirmed Cardiovascular Risk Factor

“As an increasing proportion of the population is exposed to harmful traffic noise, efforts to reduce noise and laws for noise reduction are of great importance for future public health,” said Dr. Münzel. “It is also important for us that due to the strong evidence, traffic noise is finally recognized as a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases.”

Heart Attack Outcomes

Dr. Münzel and other researchers from Mainz have been studying the cardiovascular consequences of air pollution and traffic noise for several years. For example, they found that heart attacks in people and animals exposed to high noise levels earlier in life healed poorly. These results were published last year in Cardiovascular Research. According to the authors, the findings suggest that traffic noise may play a significant role in the development and course of coronary heart disease, such as after a heart attack.

The scientists initially found in animal experiments that exposure to aircraft noise for 4 days led to increased inflammation in the vessels. Compared with mice not exposed to aircraft noise, the noise-exposed animals showed an increase in free radicals; these animals exhibited a significant inflammatory response and had impaired vessel function.

The researchers explained that the experimental data showed aircraft noise alone triggers a proinflammatory transcription program that promotes the infiltration of immune cells into cardiovascular tissue in animals with acute myocardial infarction. They noted an increased infiltration of CD45+ cells into the vessels and heart, dominated by neutrophils in vessel tissue and Ly6Chigh monocytes in heart tissue. This infiltration creates a proinflammatory milieu that adversely affects the outcome after myocardial infarction by predisposing the heart tissue to greater ischemic damage and functional impairment. Exposure of animals to aircraft noise before induction of myocardial infarction by left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery ligation impaired left ventricular function and increased infarct size after cardiac ischemia. In addition, noise exposure exacerbated infarct-induced endothelial dysfunction of peripheral vessels as early as 24 hours after LAD ligation.

Clinical Confirmation

These experimental results were confirmed by observations in the population-based Gutenberg Health Study. The researchers analyzed data from 100 patients with heart attack. The lead and senior authors of the study Michael Molitor, MD, and Philip Wenzel, MD, of the University of Mainz, explained, “From our studies, we have learned that exposure to aircraft noise before a heart attack significantly amplifies subsequent cardiovascular inflammation and exacerbates ischemic heart failure, which is favored by inflammation-promoting vascular conditioning. Our translational results show that people who have been exposed to noise in the past have a worse course if they experience a heart attack later in life.”

Study participants who had experienced a heart attack in their medical history had elevated levels of C-reactive protein if they had been exposed to aircraft noise in the past and subsequently developed noise annoyance reactions (0.305 vs 1.5; P = .0094). In addition, left ventricular ejection fraction in these patients after a heart attack was worse than that in patients with infarction without noise exposure in their medical history (62.5 vs 65.6; P = .0053).

The results suggest that measures to reduce environmental noise could help improve the clinical outcomes of heart attack patients, according to the authors.

Mental Health Effects

Traffic noise also may be associated with an increased risk for depression and anxiety disorders, as reported 2 years ago by the German Society for Psychosomatic Medicine and Medical Psychotherapy. Evolution has programmed the human organism to perceive noises as indicators of potential sources of danger — even during sleep. “Noise puts the body on alert,” explained Manfred E. Beutel, MD, director of the Clinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy at the University of Mainz. As a result, the autonomic nervous system activates stress hormones such as adrenaline and cortisol, leading to an increase in heart rate and blood pressure. If noise becomes chronic, chronic diseases can develop. “Indeed, observational and experimental studies have shown that persistent noise annoyance promotes incident hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, and type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Beutel.

Depression Risk Doubled

Among the negative effects of noise annoyance are also mental illnesses, as has become increasingly clear. “Noise annoyance disrupts daily activities and interferes with feelings and thoughts, sleep, and recovery,” said Dr. Beutel. The interruptions trigger negative emotional reactions such as anger, distress, exhaustion, flight impulses, and stress symptoms. “Such conditions promote the development of depression over time,” said Dr. Beutel. This observation was confirmed by the large-scale Gutenberg Health Study using the example of the Mainz population, which suffers to a large extent from noise annoyance because of the nearby Frankfurt Airport. “With increasing noise annoyance, the rates of depression and anxiety disorders steadily increased, until the risks eventually doubled with extreme annoyance,” said Dr. Beutel. Other studies point in the same direction. For example, a meta-analysis found a 12% increase in the risk for depression per 10-dB increase in noise. Another study found an association between nocturnal noise annoyance and the use of antidepressants.

Fine Particulate Matter

According to an evaluation of the Gutenberg Study, people perceive noise annoyance from aircraft noise as the most pronounced, followed by road, neighborhood, industrial, and railway noise. Noise occurs most frequently in urban areas that also produce air pollution such as fine particulate matter. “Fine particulate matter is also suspected of promoting anxiety and depression,” said Dr. Beutel, “because the small particles of fine particulate matter can enter the bloodstream and trigger inflammatory processes there, which in turn are closely related to depression.”

This story was translated from Univadis Germany, which is part of the Medscape professional network, using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.