AHA FIT – Page 2 – The Early Career Voice

Scientific Sessions during the pandemic

May 28, 2020May 29, 2020 William Aitken, MD

I didn’t know what to expect when I logged in to the American Heart Association’s Quality of Care and Outcomes Research Scientific Sessions earlier this month but having attended I’m definitely a fan of this new virtual format. As a trainee, the largest barriers to attending conferences are usually finding the funding and arranging the time off from work. Not having to worry about missing work on Friday and the cost of a roundtrip flight and hotel for the weekend was a huge positive.

In the couple of weeks since the conference, it’s also been great having access to sessions I missed. With so much going on during the live scientific session, it’s easy to miss a lot of really interesting new research being presented. Being able to go back a couple of weeks later and look through the content has made it much more digestible and eased any fear of missing out I had.

It did take me a little bit to get comfortable navigating the HeartHub (https://www.hearthubs.org/qcor), but then again I usually get turned around at in-person conferences too. Once I was in virtual sessions, I was surprised by how interactive the chats were and how relaxed they felt. Not sure why it felt less formal than an in-person conference but “attending” while having a coffee in my living room, rather than wearing a suit in a conference room sure didn’t add any stress.

Looking forward to #AHA20 online!

“The views, opinions and positions expressed within this blog are those of the author(s) alone and do not represent those of the American Heart Association. The accuracy, completeness and validity of any statements made within this article are not guaranteed. We accept no liability for any errors, omissions or representations. The copyright of this content belongs to the author and any liability with regards to infringement of intellectual property rights remains with them. The Early Career Voice blog is not intended to provide medical advice or treatment. Only your healthcare provider can provide that. The American Heart Association recommends that you consult your healthcare provider regarding your personal health matters. If you think you are having a heart attack, stroke or another emergency, please call 911 immediately.”

The Importance of Maintaining the Public’s Trust in Science and Medicine

May 11, 2020May 11, 2020 Sasha Prisco, MD, PhD

Often, and especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a plethora of misinformation that is spread. We have all probably seen at least one scientific publication, news article, social media post, or YouTube video that is spreading information that is not accurate. Every day, I am bombarded by conspiracy theories or unfounded scientific claims while skimming through social media. During a time when information is rapidly disseminated through the internet, it is often difficult to extinguish a lie.

Sometimes, misinformation is inadvertently spread by well-meaning individuals who have not had the time or energy to confirm or critically appraise the information shared. “Liking”, “retweeting”, and/or sharing a post from a colleague/friend/relative is facile. We have all probably “retweeted” or shared certain articles and posts that we did not completely critically assess before sharing. Sometimes dissecting truth from fallacy is difficult, especially when information is disseminated widely. Our current technological advances with the internet and social media magnify opinions, good and bad. Occasionally, one may think, if multiple people I know and/or respect are sharing certain information and the number of posts about the false information outnumber those on the truth, then the misinformation must be true.

Occasionally, misinformation about science or medicine is shared by members of our own scientific and/or medical communities, which can sometimes be more damaging to our profession. For example, more assumed credibility may be given to a scientist or healthcare provider, even if his/her expertise is not in the area that is commented on. Conspiracy theorists may continually reference these “experts” to support their arguments. Sometimes, refuting incorrect information requires massive efforts but may never eliminate the long-lasting negative effects of the misinformation. For example, Andrew Wakefield’s infamous, now retracted scientific article that was published in The Lancet and falsely claimed an association between the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine with autism is unfortunately still being referenced to support arguments against vaccinations even though multiple studies have overwhelmingly refuted the claims made in the retracted article.

With less malicious intent, some misinformation may be spread by the media or others in reference to research articles. Certain conclusions of research papers are sometimes not justified by the data presented due to inadequate sample size, biases, issues with the experimental design, etc. During a pandemic, since rapid dissemination of scientific and medical information is needed, there is frequently a tradeoff with the scientific rigor and reproducibility of the results. Since access to papers in preprint servers are available to the public, the media and public figures may tout certain research findings as truth when they have not been vetted by the peer-review process. A fellow AHA early career blogger, Dr. Allison Webel (@allisonwebelPhD), recently wrote an outstanding blog discussing the importance of the peer-review process (https://earlycareervoice.professional.heart.org/in-defense-of-peer-review/). Of note, even peer-reviewed articles are not free from research misconduct and incorrect conclusions. There are many articles retracted from high impact journals. Before the development of the internet and social media, critiques and feedback of research findings were typically only discussed at scientific meetings or at other selective venues (e.g., local conferences/presentations, journals typically not viewed by lay people, etc.). Now, these debates occur in the public arena with beneficial and negative aspects and frequently with nonexperts. These public debates may dilute the truth when unfounded comments are perpetuated.

What should we do about the spread of misinformation? Propaganda and false information are always going to be spread but we should try to mitigate their breadth and potential damage. On an individual level, researchers should thoroughly assess their results and determine whether their data are valid and whether the claims they make in publications are justified by the data before presenting the findings to the public. Limit overreaching conclusions. Scrutiny of results by authors and the research community is essential to the scientific process. Developments and advances in science often occur when findings are reproduced either within a specific lab/group or by other labs/groups and this is especially important to realize during a time when a deluge of single-center, small sample size papers are published about the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Elizabeth Knight (@TheKnightNurse), another fellow AHA early career blogger, recently calls to attention the scientific lessons learned from the current pandemic (https://earlycareervoice.professional.heart.org/evidence-whats-good-whats-good-enough-whats-dangerous-lessons-for-now-and-later/).

How do we influence other people’s opinions? Internal changes are often easier to make than changing other people’s opinions. However, we are all likely an influential source of information within our own social circles and networks. We may feel more comfortable directly communicating with people we know to correct misinformation. Altering the opinions of people who we do not personally know is more challenging. At minimum, as researchers and healthcare providers, we should not intentionally try to deceive the public. Flagrant dishonesty from researchers and/or healthcare providers may erode the public’s trust in our profession, possibly to a greater extent than a nonexpert’s comments. We all make mistakes and honest misunderstandings and misinterpretations can affect all of us. However, deliberately lying and abusing the influence of one’s position as a scientist or healthcare professional is more offensive. I do not know how best to address colleagues who blatantly mislead the public. If an individual we personally know is deceiving others, we can directly communicate with him/her about the impact of the misinformation. Depending on the extent of the damage created by an individual in our professional community who is propagating false information, should we review his/her ability to maintain as a member of our profession?

What are your thoughts on how we can preserve the public’s trust in science and medicine?

Evidence: What’s good, What’s good enough, What’s dangerous? Lessons for now and later.

May 5, 2020May 5, 2020 Elizabeth Knight, PhD, DNP

COVID-19 has created a complex environment for health research. In an evidence vacuum with a clinical imperative to act, we have few choices. They include relying on analogues (such as SARS or MERS), trying treatments based on theoretical biological plausibility, relying on anecdotal evidence and case reports, and rushing evidence from small studies that may have significant limitations into print. There is a need for answers that are definitive but also rapid: a condition that science as we currently practice it can’t satisfy. Additionally, peer review relies on content-area experts, which are hard to find for a rapidly evolving area when potential experts are also stretched thin with clinical and research roles. The result is that evidence may look different from what we are accustomed to.

Some healthcare practitioners and scientists have reacted with alarm when low-quality studies have been published by normally meticulous journals. Are we abandoning the RCT, they ask? Is appropriate statistical analysis no longer required? Does the name of a prestige journal no longer guarantee rigor? Is low-quality evidence worse than no evidence at all? Is it wise to publish clinical observations in a newspaper rather than a medical journal? Who is responsible when a public (or public official) not equipped to recognize the limits of early evidence spreads misinformation? Are resulting adverse events or medication shortages partially the responsibility of the publication? The researcher?

These are debates worth having, and there will be compelling arguments on both sides. No matter your stance, though, there will be an impact on the future of science.

Lessons include:

Critically reading studies and understanding their strengths and limitations remains a valuable skill. Just because something is in print doesn’t mean it should be in practice. Scientific education in all disciplines needs to continue to focus on this skill.
Perhaps the standard glacial pace of evidence dissemination can, in fact, improve. Faced with undeniable urgency, the mechanisms of publication are adapting. Turnaround time measured in days or weeks rather than months or years is possible.
Lots of content related to COVID-19 from academic and lay publications alike is open-access— because it is seen as for the public good. Perhaps that perception can broaden, and alternative payment structures will make science more accessible.
The translation of basic science to clinical application (bench to bedside) can move rapidly when needed. As my fellow blogger Sasha Prisco has noted, there are currently administrative barriers that hinder this work, and their long-term necessity may need to be reevaluated.
Real-time information sharing and collaboration occurs through multiple channels beyond academic journals, including social media sites.

Have you considered the potential impact of this pandemic on the future of scientific publication and knowledge dissemination? Has it changed your ideas about publishing, research, evidence-based practice?

In defense of peer review

May 1, 2020May 1, 2020 Allison Webel, PhD

The generation of knowledge, through rigorous, established systematic methods has informed much of our progress in the past few centuries. Science guides all aspects of healthcare today including how we develop the new medications, therapeutic procedures, and non-pharmacological interventions that have improved the quality and duration of human life. Many of the crucial gates in the scientific journey- funding, ethical approval, and dissemination- are guarded by the process of peer review; a process that is increasing under attack in our current hyper-reactive, digital, media cycle.

Peer review is the critical appraisal of a scientific work by those who have requisite knowledge to evaluate one or more aspects of the work. It is a panel of experts in the related field who understand the importance and novelty of the questions under consideration and the rigor and trustworthiness of the methods proposed or employed to answer that question.

Peer review takes time. Time to find agreeable reviewers with the right expertise, time to review and think about the science, and time to determine how to weigh those critiques against the community’s need for information. From the early days of the novel coronavirus pandemic, this balance of time needed for peer review and unquenchable public thirst for rigorous information has been dominating the conversations at leading medical and scientific journals around the world. To better understand how these decisions are made and what we as clinicians, scientists, and health care consumers need to consider when reading and sharing emerging science, I spoke with Dr. Joseph Hill, the Editor in Chief of Circulation one of 12 AHA Journals.

Even though peer review is an established practice, it is important to start by questioning why we should even do it. Unquestionably, the value of thoughtful peer review is that it enhances the quality of the science. “We [the AHA journals)\] handle approximately 20,000 manuscripts a year and with extraordinarily rare exceptions, the paper always gets better with peer review”.

Having now published many of my own scientific manuscripts, I know the pain of peer review well. “They” missed that detail on line 176. “They” clearly lack the expertise to evaluate my work. “They” kept this manuscript for 8 months before sending their disposition! However, I also know that some of the best revisions to my papers have come from generous peer reviewers. Reviewers who volunteered to spend their time reading my papers and think deeply about my findings in the context of larger literature. While painful, the constant assessment and evaluation of our science is critical to improving the quality and impact of our work.

Prior to the coronavirus outbreak, up to 10 experts, including peer reviewers, statisticians, and editors, would review a manuscript for Circulation. But the need for up-to-date information about the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and treatment of COVID-19 challenged Circulation’s editorial team to move fast. While recognizing that it’s “hard to do good science in a war zone”, the quality of published science cannot be compromised in times of crisis. Dr. Hill continues, “We are walking a fine line between trying to get the information out as quickly as possible but we recognize that [in clinical science] we could make it worse and could do harm. So we have to maintain our high standards but function at a high velocity.”

High velocity seems an understatement. After an initial call for high-quality COVID-19 related papers, the editorial team has done over 300 fast track reviews, contributed to a curated coronavirus and cardiovascular disease collection, and conducted 17 interviews with experts working on the front line around the world. All in the past month. This work is exhausting but done with great energy by a team inspired to advance “cardiovascular science for the good of humanity, especially during these times of urgent challenge, anxiety, and forthright resolve.”

Peer review is the best process we have for evaluating science; but peer review is done by peers- busy, human, distractible peers- who will make mistakes. This is why many reputable journals require an editorial screen and at least two peer reviews before it can make a decision on a manuscript. Scientific volunteers do this work. Which brings us to what you, as an early career professional can do. Peer review relies on us—all of us—to sign up to review, accept the invitation to review, and spend the time carefully doing the review. You may wonder if you have the expertise to peer review for Circulation or another AHA Journal; you likely do and you should. Dr. Hill remarked that “some of the best reviews I’ve seen are from early-career scientists”. If you are interested in helping to contribute to peer review and the sharing of good cardiovascular science, considering signing up to be a journal reviewer in your AHA Science Volunteer Form or emailing Dr. Hill your interest in reviewing for Circulation.

COVID-19 Pandemic: 5 lessons about the way we (should) debate in medicine

April 28, 2020April 28, 2020 Amr Barakat, MD

In my previous blog, I shared five lessons about the way we practice medicine, which I believe were highlighted by the unprecedented circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. I would like to share five more COVID-19-inspired reflections, but this time it’s about the way we, as physicians, debate our medical opinions and the thought processes through which we form these opinions to begin with. While these thoughts came as a result of following scientific debates on social media, I believe they apply to all sorts of debates in other contexts as well:

Opinions are not principles. Principles are ethical codes we live by and cherish for our whole life. Opinions, on the other hand, are impressions and ideas that we make as we go, based on information that is available to us (with some emotional influences as well). That being said, while it might take a major life event for someone to change their principles; opinions can, and should, change quite often. There is nothing wrong about changing one’s opinion based on new information or on changing circumstances. In fact, this only reflects a healthy and dynamic thought process. Keeping that in mind makes it easy for us to admit when we’re wrong and to accept that others are allowed to change their position without being accused of hypocrisy.
Debate is not an aim. With the urge to prove our point and support our convictions, we often forget the real aim of any debate; reaching the truth through exploring alternative interpretations. Social media has opened unprecedented venues for endless debate, and the field of medicine has remarkably caught up to this. Unfortunately, we sometimes forget that proving our point often gets in the way of actually finding the truth.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. As physicians, we adopt a scientific thought process. We always strive to find evidence to support any medical claim. Nonetheless, it is important to remember that just because something is not supported by evidence, it does not necessarily mean that it’s not true. It often only means that “we don’t know”. In the midst of scientific debates, we tend to forget this simple fact and start to proclaim that a certain medical intervention doesn’t work simply because it hasn’t yet been assessed by clinical trials. The more accurate way to address this is to say that we don’t know if it works or not, otherwise, we would be committing the same error we were criticizing in the first place.
Bias is vulnerability. Bias and prejudice are human flaws. And we are all human. We tend to be a lot less rigorous in our scrutiny of the methodology and the validity of the results of an article (scientific or otherwise) when the findings are consistent with our own bias. We tend to drop our most important defense mechanism against gullibility—our ability to think systematically and to critically appraise the evidence. This becomes particularly obvious on social media where we are quick to enthusiastically share (and sometimes praise) studies that support our viewpoints, without properly examining the content. Eliminating this bias requires a conscious effort when assessing data that align with our opinions to be even more careful.
We know very little, so be humble. Every day, nature shows us that no matter how much our medical knowledge increases over time, we still know relatively very little about the world we live in. COVID-19 is just another reminder. It’s true that some of us know more than others, but in the big scheme of things, none of us is in a position to brag or be condescending. So no matter whom or what we’re debating, let’s remember to be humble, be kind, and be respectful.

How a Pandemic Worsens Overall Cardiovascular Health in the U.S.

April 21, 2020April 21, 2020 Dapo Iluyomade, MD

The novel coronavirus pandemic, currently holding the global population hostage in their homes, has killed over 150,000 people and infected over 2 million. The US leads all nations in both categories. One only needs to look out the window, or visit the local grocery store, to understand the overwhelming sentiment amongst the people.

Afraid.

Lonely.

Stressed.

In a pre-COVID blog post, I reviewed a paper by Brewer et al. that investigates the deleterious affects of chronic stress, minor stresses and major life events on one´s overall cardiovascular health, as determined by the AHA´s Life´s Simple 7 initiative.¹ In summary, the authors found that the study participants performed worst in diet, BMI, physical activity and smoking metrics. They reference research studies of depression, CVH and smoking when proposing a theory as to why this profound correlation exists. The studies identify binge eating and smoking to be adverse behavioral responses to psychosocial stress, as well as decrease in physical activity.

The current pandemic is an acute stressor, and major life event, for us all. Unemployment claims in the U.S. have topped 20 million, stock prices are 40% lower than their 2019 highs, one third of the world´s school-aged children are home, local and international businesses are closed, flights are grounded and this graduation/wedding season will be like none we´ve ever witnessed. Psychiatric telehealth consultations are at an all-time high because this is not our steady state; we are social by nature. The current pandemic´s acute stress on our society will inevitably affect its overall cardiovascular health.

I like this illustration of the effects of psychosocial stress on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, and how that translates to increased cortisol level and the subsequent worsening of many cardiovascular risk factors.²

When juxtaposed with the graphic below, illustrating AHA´s Life´s Simple 7, it is quite clear that our current state of stress is antithetic to our goals of reducing cardiovascular death and improving cardiovascular health by 20% by the end of 2020.

With no clear end in sight, but promising figures showing flattening of the disease curve, we must begin tackle the deleterious effects of this acute but soon to be chronic stress on our patient population. Otherwise, we will awake from this pandemic with clinics full of less healthy patients at higher risk of succumbing to an already deadly disease.

At home strategies for exercising, healthy eating, meditation etc will be discussed in my next blog post. For now, be safe, stay home and keep hope alive!

References:

1) Brewer LC, Redmond N, Slusser JP, Scott CG, Chamberlain AM, Djousse L, Patten CA, Roger VL, Sims M. Stress and Achievement of Cardiovascular Health Metrics: The American Heart Association Lifes Simple 7 in Blacks of the Jackson Heart Study. Journal of the American Heart Association, 7(11). doi:10.1161/jaha.118.008855

2) Iob, Eleonora & Steptoe, Andrew. (2019). Cardiovascular Disease and Hair Cortisol: a Novel Biomarker of Chronic Stress. Current Cardiology Reports. 21. 10.1007/s11886-019-1208-7.

Changes to CPR and Response to Cardiac Arrest with COVID-19

April 20, 2020April 15, 2023 Alyssa Vermeulen, DO, FAAP

When it comes to survival of out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), many advances have been made over the years,¹ early and high-quality chest compressions and defibrillation are key components of this. However, even prior to coronavirus and COVID-19, many bystanders are still hesitant to perform CPR for a variety of reasons; fear of litigation, fear of causing harm, or due to concerns about infectious disease transmission.² In the new age of social distancing and a highly infectious disease causing stress on our world, the hesitancy may increase. In addition, many programs who have been key in providing education, such as CPR training, have come to a halt during this time.

CPR is generally considered an “aerosolized” procedure,³ a procedure conveying high risk of transmission of disease via respiratory droplets. Resuscitation efforts in and out of hospital require multiple people in close proximity to each other to respond. In addition, COVID-19 has been reported to cause myocardial injury and ventricular arrhythmia that may predispose someone to cardiac arrest,¹ and despite a pandemic, sudden cardiac arrest and other causes of death do not decline. A concern rising in the medical community since shelter-in-place laws and changing stresses on our medical system, is a notable decrease in visits to the Emergency Departments for common complaints and concerns, such as chest pain, syncope and other things that may dispose someone to a cardiac arrest. We need to be aware of this happening in the community and the potential need for lay and EMS response in these situations.

Lay persons and dispatchers play a key role in survival efforts, such as initiating CPR and early defibrillation. There has been documented success with telephone CPR and CPR guidance by dispatchers. An important component of ensuring the best survival of the community and those with COVID-19 or potential COVID-19 is communication and a well-developed community plan to ensure timely and quality resuscitation to patients while protecting rescuers. Recently, Circulation has released Interim Guidance and Advanced life Support in Adults, Children, and Neonates with Suspected or Confirmed COVID-19,¹ a quick review is here. Resources from King County EMS in Washington are available for establishing a community response and plan here.

Overall, the common themes are aimed at adequate personal protective equipment (PPE), reducing the number of people responding to an event, and in the case of OHCA for lay people, focusing on hands-only CPR.

For lay persons, the majority of SCA occurs at home. The likelihood of already being exposed to a household contact is high and should be considered when responding to an arrest; for adults hands-only CPR with high-quality compressions is encouraged with early activation of EMS and defibrillation(not an aerosolizing procedure), if available. In the case of pediatric resuscitation, due to the high likelihood of respiratory arrest causing cardiac arrest, it is advised that if willing, after weighing the risk and benefit, that rescue breaths are provided along with compressions. You may use a cloth or mask covering over the victim’s mouth to help reduce transmission in the event it is not a household member.¹

For EMS providers, dispatch is crucial in screening calls for any possible risk of exposure to COVID-19, based on symptoms in the victim or any recent contact or household members, and advising whether doing PPE is recommended to the EMS team.¹ In Seattle, they have shown a very low rate of transmission to EMS providers when wearing the appropriate PPE.⁴

For in-hospital cardiac arrest, it is again important to reduce the personnel involved in the resuscitation, close the door when possible, and consider adding PPE to the code carts. It is also important to use HEPA filters and closed circuit ventilation strategies when it comes to ventilation. The guidance also encourages early intubation by the provider with the highest qualification with the best chance for successful intubation, and use video laryngoscopy when able to minimize aerosolizing the virus while securing a closed circuit airway. The guidance also suggests that if patients are prone and intubated to perform CPR without moving the patient in the standard T7-10 vertebral bodies, however, if they are not intubated to attempt to place them supine and proceed with resuscitation.¹

The article also discusses the importance of clarifying goals of care and advanced directives upon arrival, as well as proposes a careful evaluation in the cases of out of hospital cardiac arrest with inability to obtain ROSC, suggesting in some cases, this may be a reason to avoid transport to the hospital due to low likelihood of survival. However, it is important to take into consideration with the benefit, risk and ethics involved.^{1, 3}

Another important update is in regards to maintenance of certification such as BLS/ACLS/PALS. As of March 13, the AHA has offered a 60 day extension for instructor cards and also recommends extension of provider cards for the same length, this allowance is open to be extended based on the evolving threat and CDC/public health recommendations, read the statement here. ⁵

Many people are looking for things to do in this time of sheltering in place, perhaps this could be an opportunity for education and learning on CPR and AED’s. There are many online resources available, and with the advent of telemedicine, zoom learning and video visits increasing, perhaps we could use this as an opportunity to increase our virtual presence for CPR education.

If you’re interested in some online resources, check out the ILHR website, or your local education center’s website.

Edelson, Dana P, et al. “Interim Guidance for Life Support for COVID-19.” Circulation, ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047463.
Scquizzato, Tommaso, et al. “The Other Side of Novel Coronavirus Outbreak: Fear of Performing Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation.” Resuscitation, vol. 150, 2020, pp. 92–93., doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2020.03.019.
Defilippis, Ersilia M., et al. “Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A View from Trainees on the Frontline.” Circulation, Sept. 2020, doi:10.1161/circulationaha.120.047260.

How is the COVID-19 pandemic affecting cardiac patients and the cath lab?

April 17, 2020April 17, 2020 Lina Ya'qoub, MD

Amongst the uncertainty of the future and how this pandemic will end, there comes a huge responsibility on all healthcare workers to care for the sickest patients while staying safe, to lead their healthcare systems and to come together as one unit against this crisis. Seeing how this pandemic has affected our healthcare system, from the evolving utility of telehealth to canceling elective procedures in multiple specialties, I decided to share a few thoughts on COVID-19 and the cardiovascular manifestations associated with this infection and how COVID-19 has affected our approach to commonly performed procedures in the cardiac catheterization lab.

Cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19

Although coronavirus predominantly affects the respiratory system, causing a variety of symptoms from flu-like symptoms to acute respiratory failure requiring intubation, it can affect other organs, and patients may present with non-respiratory complaints [1]. The cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19 have a wide range of clinical presentations (Figure 1), from pericarditis, myocarditis, pericardial effusion, and decompensated heart failure to tamponade, cardiogenic shock and ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) [1-2]. In addition, right ventricular strain should raise suspicion for pulmonary embolism as these infected patients tend to be hyper-coagulable with a high incidence of venous thromboembolism for currently unclear reasons. It is important to recognize these cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19, as it is thought that cardiovascular involvement is associated with a worse prognosis [1].

Figure 1: Potential risk factors and cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19 patients.

Approach to Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) and Structural Procedures in the Cath Lab in COVID-19 Pandemic

Like any procedural field, interventional cardiology has been affected by this pandemic. All elective procedures are being postponed until the crisis settles down per recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), with emergent, urgent, time-sensitive procedures still being performed, in an attempt to preserve hospital beds and personal protective equipment (PPE) for COVID-19 patients [2]. This pandemic has led to several changes in the ACS approach across the world, with the main goal of reducing un-necessary exposure to health care workers and limiting the spread of this highly contagious disease [1,2].

To summarize, some of the key changes many hospitals have applied in their approach to some of the most commonly performed percutaneous cardiac procedures in COVID-19 patients:

ACS patients
Thrombolytics are considered standard therapy in many hospitals for many STEMI patients with symptoms <12 hours and no contraindications: signs of success are resolution of symptoms and/or >50% decrease in ST elevation. If thrombolytics fail, coronary angiogram and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) should be considered in an isolated cath lab (Figure 2) and the benefit versus the exposure risk should be carefully evaluated.
For patients with low risk Non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI): medical therapy is reasonable. For those with high risk NSTEMI or failure of medical treatment, coronary angiogram and/or PCI should be performed. These coronary procedures are usually performed in isolated cath labs with only limited staff in the cath lab room, to avoid unnecessary exposure (Figure 2).
Structural heart disease patients
For patients who are unstable and have severe aortic stenosis (AS), balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) should be performed emergently to stabilize the patient if this is thought to be the cause of the hemodynamic instability. For those who develop significant aortic regurgitation after BAV, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) should be performed.
Patients with severe symptomatic AS, TAVR is considered a time-sensitive procedure. The benefit of TAVR and risk of infection exposure should be discussed.It is important to note that this change in policy, in part, could explain the decrease in cath lab activation rates for STEMI during this pandemic [2]; as many STEMI patients are receiving thrombolytics. In addition to that, many patients are not seeking medical care, or if they do, they are presenting late, possibly due to fear from contracting the virus in the hospital, potentially leading to late STEMI complications [2]. Thus, it is important to counsel our patients in our virtual clinic visits that if significant symptoms develop, they should seek medical care.

Lastly, I want to thank all of my colleagues and healthcare workers across the nation and across the globe for risking their lives for patients and for their continued dedication. This is a critical time for everyone in the health care system. In light of this pandemic, I hope we continue to learn and share our experiences in this global crisis in order to improve our patient’s care, safety for our healthcare workers and the dynamics of our healthcare system.

Figure 2: Simplified Set-up of an Isolated Cath Lab during the COVID-19 pandemic.

References

Fried et al: The Variety of Cardiovascular Presentations of COVID-19. 2020 Apr 3. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047164. [Epub ahead of print] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32243205
Garcia et al: Reduction in ST-Segment Elevation Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Activations in the United States during COVID-19 Pandemic. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 10. Epublished DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.011 http://www.onlinejacc.org/content/early/2020/04/07/j.jacc.2020.04.011

Another (Louder) Call to Improve the Care We Provide Heart Failure Patients

April 14, 2020April 17, 2020 Nasrien E. Ibrahim, MD

I am always taken aback when I recommend a switch to sacubitril/valsartan in a patient with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and the response is “my patient feels fine”. This is a common response and certainly not a good enough reason to not optimize guideline directed medical therapy (GDMT) in patients with HFrEF. Optimization of GDMT in HFrEF, known to improve morbidity and mortality (1,2), is dismal. The Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure (CHAMP-HF) registry included patients in the United States with chronic HFrEF receiving at least one oral medication for management of HF and showed >25% of eligible patients are not prescribed angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker/angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, >33% are not prescribed a beta blocker, >50% are not prescribed a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist. Remarkably, even among those receiving GDMT fewer than 25% are prescribed target doses and only 1% of eligible patients are simultaneously on target doses of all 3 classes of GDMT (3,4).

The mechanisms for suboptimal prescription of GDMT in HFrEF are complex and undertreatment is even more evident among women, minority patient populations, and patients from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, among others. Cost is certainly an issue, especially with more novel HF therapies and co-pay assistance programs are not always available to our most vulnerable patients. There are not enough HF cardiologists to take care of the continuously increasing population of HF patients and therefore, optimization of GDMT needs to be done by general cardiologists and primary care clinicians as well. We should also become creative and use telemedicine to optimize GDMT more efficiently. We do our patients a disservice by not optimizing GDMT that improves HF morbidity and mortality.

And just as optimization of GDMT is not ideal, neither is our evaluation of etiology of HF. Optimization of GDMT and determination of etiology of HF whose management may change disease trajectory should be undertaken in all patients with new-onset HF. This begins with a fundamental understanding of the various etiologies of HF, the laboratory and imaging testing needed, and the best treatment strategy for the underlying etiology discovered- if any (cue, “idiopathic” cardiomyopathy). O’Connor and colleagues’ observational cohort study from the Get With The Guidelines- Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) registry demonstrates the need to improve the testing we perform to exclude coronary artery disease (CAD) as the underlying etiology of new-onset HF.⁴

Why is this important? Well, of course for treatment, which involves deciding whether medical therapy (aspirin, statins) or revascularization (surgical or percutaneous) is a more optimal strategy. And most important to improve disease trajectory as continued ischemia will lead to worsening HF. O’Connor and colleagues found that the majority of 17,185 patients hospitalized for new-onset HF did not receive testing for CAD either during the hospitalization or in the 90 days before and after, despite data demonstrating that 60% (!!!) of HF patients have concomitant significant CAD.⁴ And consistent with disparities I mentioned earlier regarding the undertreatment of women with GDMT, men were more likely to be tested for CAD.

Diagnosing and treating CAD provides an opportunity to discuss risk factor modification with patients such as smoking cessation, diabetes control, exercise, healthy diets etc.… to further mitigate future risk. The importance of optimization of GDMT in patients with HFrEF cannot be understated and analogous to this, is the importance of examining the underlying etiology of HF in patients with new-onset HF with preserved, borderline, or reduced EF to improve disease trajectory. Furthermore, inequities in both aspects of the care of HF patients in terms of identification of etiology and optimization of GDMT, must be addressed on a national level. We have plenty of data illustrating suboptimal optimization of GDMT in those with established HFrEF and suboptimal testing for CAD in those with new-onset HF. The next steps are understanding the mechanisms and implementing strategies to improve care. The need for this is critical to reduce morbidity and mortality in all HF patients.

References

Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Failure Society of America. Circulation 2017;137.
Yancy CW, Januzzi JL, Allen LA et al. 2017 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway for Optimization of Heart Failure Treatment: Answers to 10 Pivotal Issues About Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2017.
Greene SJ, Butler J, Albert NM et al. Contemporary Utilization and Dosing of Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy for Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction: From the CHAMP-HF Registry. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 2018.
O’Connor, Kyle D., et al. “Testing for Coronary Artery Disease in Older Patients With New-Onset Heart Failure.” Circulation: Heart Failure, vol. 13, no. 4, 2020, doi:10.1161/circheartfailure.120.006963.

Future Planning in the Time of Corona

April 13, 2020April 13, 2020 Mo Al-Khalaf, PhD

(Image from pixabay.com CC-0)

Let me ask you this: How many articles related to COVID-19 did you read, in the past few weeks? Just like most of us, medical science professionals of all kinds, the content we have been consuming most of has been related, directly or indirectly, to the biggest pressing issue the world is dealing with presently. And I’m here to say this is totally fine & appropriate. After all, when was the last time a biomedical issue became the worldwide number 1 topic of interest. SARS-CoV-2 is harming the healthy, and vulnerable patients. It’s also harming society, economy, policy, and more, both in predictable ways and in ways we still have no solid forecast ability for yet. This is why present efforts towards containment, mitigation, and other management actions are so vital and require the buy-in from all individuals in society. In parallel, this is also why the biomedical, and more broadly, the life science field in general, is very much pivoting their attention at the moment, vigorously brainstorming and planning future directions (while #StayingHome of course) in an effort to better understand, deal with, and avoid future similar scenarios that will inevitably happen again.

One of the more crass and unpalatable statements that get thrown around in times like these, especially within the halls of certain types of political and financial power brokers is “Never let a crisis go to waste”. The point being, while people are distracted by the overwhelming day to day events that unfold in times of struggle, some individuals use the cover provided and make certain that some of their goals and demands that normally get blocked in more orderly times, can be enacted and their aims can be realized. The prevalence and precision of this type of maneuver is so well-honed and practiced that a lot of folks refer to it as part of the “playbook” in political and financial writing. And the reality is, it works! And while historically it’s been used for ways to benefit the few over the many, “Never let a crisis go to waste” is, at its core, a useful and effective strategy, that can be implemented to benefit the many, the society, and everyone in it.

A global pandemic is one of the few causes that truly brings to attention the uniting themes and areas of need that a vast majority of the world population face. Whether it’s the instability and vulnerability of the supply chains of food and goods, or the imbalance of economic status-quo that we all come to take for granted. These and many other angles that require addressing are perfect opportunities to utilize that play from the playbook “Never let a crisis go to waste”. I sincerely hope altruist economists and politicians are brainstorming, or bringing out and dusting off old shelved plans that have not had a chance to be enacted in the status-quo times. I hope they’re doing their best to ensure that once we, as world citizens, are able to turn the tide on COVID-19, we have a chance to achieve a course correction and a new balance that puts us on a path for a healthier, more egalitarian world.

To focus on the biomedical side of this equation, and the needs that should be addressed, we should face some of the facts unfolding right in front us, in real time. Looking at the healthcare systems of many cities and countries around the world, we right now see the vulnerability our healthcare providers are made to experience. Lack of personal protective equipment, lack of numbers of health care workers needed in a particular city or country, difficulty in coordination of testing and acquiring enough medicine and lifesaving equipment, and a number of other vital issues that have been uncovered by this pandemic. These are the types of factors that must be addressed so that they can be avoided in the future. These are just a handful of examples, and many others are getting documented. If I can state this in one sentence (severely oversimplifying it, but the point remains true): Cities need to have healthcare infrastructures that won’t get overwhelmed when more than 5% of the population served requires attention in a short period of time. There needs to be plans, equipment, and available reserve workforce that can quickly (in a matter of days, not weeks or more), expand and enlarge the healthcare infrastructure to accommodate the needs of the population.

And while it’s obvious now, it must be said that support and focus on research geared towards coronavirus specifically, and more broadly infectious disease, must be bolstered and elevated to higher priority, which it definitely was not, prior to this latest health crisis. Additionally, let’s not forget that biomedical research of all types is constantly working to investigate, and help defend the world from exactly this type of burden. Research if fields such as cardiovascular diseases (still the #1 cause of mortality worldwide, WHO data), or cancer, or any other field in bioscience or medicine is our way to avoid a future similar to this moment. Maybe (hopefully) the physicians and scientists that are in a position to “Never let a crisis go to waste” can find a way to make their causes more of a priority, and their efforts can be more widely acknowledged, and their research more efficiently utilized, to help us all in avoiding similar future healthcare challenges.