User login
People still want their medical intelligence in human form
Doctors or AI? Lukewarm vote of confidence goes to …
Well, we’ve got some good news for the physicians out there, and we’ve got some bad news. Which do you want first? Okay, we’re mostly hearing good news, so here goes: Most people would choose a human doctor over artificial intelligence for the diagnosis and treatment of their medical conditions.
And the bad news? In the survey we’re talking about, “most” was 53%, so not exactly a huge victory for the carbon-based life forms. Yup, about 47% of the 2,472 respondents said they would prefer an AI-based clinic over a human specialist, and that number went up if individuals were told that their primary care physicians were on board with AI, “or otherwise nudged to consider AI as good,” the research team said in a written statement released by the University of Arizona, Tucson.
They went on to add that “this signaled the significance of the human physician in guiding a patient’s decision.” So patients will still need their doctors in the future to … um … this is a bit awkward … tell them how good the AI is?
And yes, we know that ChatGPT is already doing the same thing to journalists, but could it write a medical-humor column? Not a chance. Probably can’t even tell a joke.
How do ghosts get rid of wrinkles? Boo-tox. There, let’s see ChatGPT do that.
Explaining the joke makes it funnier, right?
Here at LOTME headquarters, we live by one simple rule, passed down directly from the Buddha himself: “Never let a good presurgical assessment of refractory epilepsy go to waste. Also, don’t believe everything you read on the Internet.”
This human-created joke has been brought to you by the leading theory of humor, which states that comedy stems from our brain reacting to an incongruous part of reality in a positive way. These positive emotions light up our neurons in a specific fashion, and boom, comedy is achieved.
Previous studies into the science of comedy have typically used functional MRI to analyze the brain while it was gripped in the throes of a comedic reaction. Unfortunately, fMRI cannot detect the entirety of the electromagnetic spectrum generated by the brain during these moments, so observing scientists have been, quite literally, missing out on some of the joke. And that’s where a new study from France comes in.
In the study, the researchers showed a group of patients with epilepsy who were hooked up to deep brain electrodes and a high-tech neuroimaging machine – part of the aforementioned presurgical assessment – a 3-minute excerpt from a Charlie Chaplin movie and analyzed their brain activity. Why Charlie Chaplin? Simple. Slapstick is perhaps the most accessible form of comedy across cultures. We can all appreciate a man getting hit in the head with a coconut. The world’s oldest bar joke or whatever this is? Not so much.
During the funniest scenes, all study participants showed increased high-frequency gamma waves (indicating high cognitive engagement) and a decrease in low-frequency waves (indicating reduced inattention and introspection). During unfunny scenes, such as transition moments, the opposite occurred. Importantly, this inverse relationship occurred in the temporal lobe but not in other regions, supporting previous research that indicated humor was mainly processed in the temporal lobe.
The investigators suggested future research should focus on longer videos with more complex forms of comedy, such as jokes, irony, sarcasm, or reference humor. So, uh, a guy getting hit in the head with two coconuts? That’s high-brow stuff right there.
Hot take: Humans aren’t that special
We humans have always prided ourselves on being different from “the animals” in an exceptional way. News flash! We aren’t. We may be the apex predator, but new research shows that humans, as part of the animal kingdom, just aren’t special.
Not special? How can they say that? Are gorillas doing open-heart surgery? Do wolverines tell jokes? At a more basic level, though, the way we operate as mammals in societies is not unique or even new. Elephants are known to mourn their deceased and to have funeral-like practices, ants invented agriculture, and we’re certainly not the only species that has figured out how to use tools.
This new research just demonstrates another way we aren’t exceptional, and that’s in our mating practices and outcomes.
“Humans appear to resemble mammals that live in monogamous partnerships and to some extent, those classified as cooperative breeders, where breeding individuals have to rely on the help of others to raise their offspring,” Monique Borgerhoff Mulder, PhD, professor emerita of anthropology at the University of California, Davis, said in a written statement.
The research team, which consisted of over 100 investigators, looked at 90 human populations based on data from over 80,000 people globally and compared the human data with 49 different nonhuman mammal species. In polygynous societies in which men take several wives, they found, women have more access to resources like food, shelter, and parenting help. Monogamy, on the other hand, “can drive significant inequalities among women,” Dr. Borgerhoff Mulder said, by promoting large differences in the number of children couples produce.
Human day-to-day behavior and child-rearing habits – one parent taking a daughter to ballet class and fixing dinner so the other parent can get to exercise class before picking up the son from soccer practice – may have us thinking that we are part of an evolved society, but really we are not much different than other mammals that hunt, forage for food, and rear and teach their children, the researchers suggested.
So, yes, humans can travel to the moon, create a vaccine for smallpox, and hit other humans with coconuts, but when it comes to simply having offspring or raising them, we’re not all that special. Get over it.
Doctors or AI? Lukewarm vote of confidence goes to …
Well, we’ve got some good news for the physicians out there, and we’ve got some bad news. Which do you want first? Okay, we’re mostly hearing good news, so here goes: Most people would choose a human doctor over artificial intelligence for the diagnosis and treatment of their medical conditions.
And the bad news? In the survey we’re talking about, “most” was 53%, so not exactly a huge victory for the carbon-based life forms. Yup, about 47% of the 2,472 respondents said they would prefer an AI-based clinic over a human specialist, and that number went up if individuals were told that their primary care physicians were on board with AI, “or otherwise nudged to consider AI as good,” the research team said in a written statement released by the University of Arizona, Tucson.
They went on to add that “this signaled the significance of the human physician in guiding a patient’s decision.” So patients will still need their doctors in the future to … um … this is a bit awkward … tell them how good the AI is?
And yes, we know that ChatGPT is already doing the same thing to journalists, but could it write a medical-humor column? Not a chance. Probably can’t even tell a joke.
How do ghosts get rid of wrinkles? Boo-tox. There, let’s see ChatGPT do that.
Explaining the joke makes it funnier, right?
Here at LOTME headquarters, we live by one simple rule, passed down directly from the Buddha himself: “Never let a good presurgical assessment of refractory epilepsy go to waste. Also, don’t believe everything you read on the Internet.”
This human-created joke has been brought to you by the leading theory of humor, which states that comedy stems from our brain reacting to an incongruous part of reality in a positive way. These positive emotions light up our neurons in a specific fashion, and boom, comedy is achieved.
Previous studies into the science of comedy have typically used functional MRI to analyze the brain while it was gripped in the throes of a comedic reaction. Unfortunately, fMRI cannot detect the entirety of the electromagnetic spectrum generated by the brain during these moments, so observing scientists have been, quite literally, missing out on some of the joke. And that’s where a new study from France comes in.
In the study, the researchers showed a group of patients with epilepsy who were hooked up to deep brain electrodes and a high-tech neuroimaging machine – part of the aforementioned presurgical assessment – a 3-minute excerpt from a Charlie Chaplin movie and analyzed their brain activity. Why Charlie Chaplin? Simple. Slapstick is perhaps the most accessible form of comedy across cultures. We can all appreciate a man getting hit in the head with a coconut. The world’s oldest bar joke or whatever this is? Not so much.
During the funniest scenes, all study participants showed increased high-frequency gamma waves (indicating high cognitive engagement) and a decrease in low-frequency waves (indicating reduced inattention and introspection). During unfunny scenes, such as transition moments, the opposite occurred. Importantly, this inverse relationship occurred in the temporal lobe but not in other regions, supporting previous research that indicated humor was mainly processed in the temporal lobe.
The investigators suggested future research should focus on longer videos with more complex forms of comedy, such as jokes, irony, sarcasm, or reference humor. So, uh, a guy getting hit in the head with two coconuts? That’s high-brow stuff right there.
Hot take: Humans aren’t that special
We humans have always prided ourselves on being different from “the animals” in an exceptional way. News flash! We aren’t. We may be the apex predator, but new research shows that humans, as part of the animal kingdom, just aren’t special.
Not special? How can they say that? Are gorillas doing open-heart surgery? Do wolverines tell jokes? At a more basic level, though, the way we operate as mammals in societies is not unique or even new. Elephants are known to mourn their deceased and to have funeral-like practices, ants invented agriculture, and we’re certainly not the only species that has figured out how to use tools.
This new research just demonstrates another way we aren’t exceptional, and that’s in our mating practices and outcomes.
“Humans appear to resemble mammals that live in monogamous partnerships and to some extent, those classified as cooperative breeders, where breeding individuals have to rely on the help of others to raise their offspring,” Monique Borgerhoff Mulder, PhD, professor emerita of anthropology at the University of California, Davis, said in a written statement.
The research team, which consisted of over 100 investigators, looked at 90 human populations based on data from over 80,000 people globally and compared the human data with 49 different nonhuman mammal species. In polygynous societies in which men take several wives, they found, women have more access to resources like food, shelter, and parenting help. Monogamy, on the other hand, “can drive significant inequalities among women,” Dr. Borgerhoff Mulder said, by promoting large differences in the number of children couples produce.
Human day-to-day behavior and child-rearing habits – one parent taking a daughter to ballet class and fixing dinner so the other parent can get to exercise class before picking up the son from soccer practice – may have us thinking that we are part of an evolved society, but really we are not much different than other mammals that hunt, forage for food, and rear and teach their children, the researchers suggested.
So, yes, humans can travel to the moon, create a vaccine for smallpox, and hit other humans with coconuts, but when it comes to simply having offspring or raising them, we’re not all that special. Get over it.
Doctors or AI? Lukewarm vote of confidence goes to …
Well, we’ve got some good news for the physicians out there, and we’ve got some bad news. Which do you want first? Okay, we’re mostly hearing good news, so here goes: Most people would choose a human doctor over artificial intelligence for the diagnosis and treatment of their medical conditions.
And the bad news? In the survey we’re talking about, “most” was 53%, so not exactly a huge victory for the carbon-based life forms. Yup, about 47% of the 2,472 respondents said they would prefer an AI-based clinic over a human specialist, and that number went up if individuals were told that their primary care physicians were on board with AI, “or otherwise nudged to consider AI as good,” the research team said in a written statement released by the University of Arizona, Tucson.
They went on to add that “this signaled the significance of the human physician in guiding a patient’s decision.” So patients will still need their doctors in the future to … um … this is a bit awkward … tell them how good the AI is?
And yes, we know that ChatGPT is already doing the same thing to journalists, but could it write a medical-humor column? Not a chance. Probably can’t even tell a joke.
How do ghosts get rid of wrinkles? Boo-tox. There, let’s see ChatGPT do that.
Explaining the joke makes it funnier, right?
Here at LOTME headquarters, we live by one simple rule, passed down directly from the Buddha himself: “Never let a good presurgical assessment of refractory epilepsy go to waste. Also, don’t believe everything you read on the Internet.”
This human-created joke has been brought to you by the leading theory of humor, which states that comedy stems from our brain reacting to an incongruous part of reality in a positive way. These positive emotions light up our neurons in a specific fashion, and boom, comedy is achieved.
Previous studies into the science of comedy have typically used functional MRI to analyze the brain while it was gripped in the throes of a comedic reaction. Unfortunately, fMRI cannot detect the entirety of the electromagnetic spectrum generated by the brain during these moments, so observing scientists have been, quite literally, missing out on some of the joke. And that’s where a new study from France comes in.
In the study, the researchers showed a group of patients with epilepsy who were hooked up to deep brain electrodes and a high-tech neuroimaging machine – part of the aforementioned presurgical assessment – a 3-minute excerpt from a Charlie Chaplin movie and analyzed their brain activity. Why Charlie Chaplin? Simple. Slapstick is perhaps the most accessible form of comedy across cultures. We can all appreciate a man getting hit in the head with a coconut. The world’s oldest bar joke or whatever this is? Not so much.
During the funniest scenes, all study participants showed increased high-frequency gamma waves (indicating high cognitive engagement) and a decrease in low-frequency waves (indicating reduced inattention and introspection). During unfunny scenes, such as transition moments, the opposite occurred. Importantly, this inverse relationship occurred in the temporal lobe but not in other regions, supporting previous research that indicated humor was mainly processed in the temporal lobe.
The investigators suggested future research should focus on longer videos with more complex forms of comedy, such as jokes, irony, sarcasm, or reference humor. So, uh, a guy getting hit in the head with two coconuts? That’s high-brow stuff right there.
Hot take: Humans aren’t that special
We humans have always prided ourselves on being different from “the animals” in an exceptional way. News flash! We aren’t. We may be the apex predator, but new research shows that humans, as part of the animal kingdom, just aren’t special.
Not special? How can they say that? Are gorillas doing open-heart surgery? Do wolverines tell jokes? At a more basic level, though, the way we operate as mammals in societies is not unique or even new. Elephants are known to mourn their deceased and to have funeral-like practices, ants invented agriculture, and we’re certainly not the only species that has figured out how to use tools.
This new research just demonstrates another way we aren’t exceptional, and that’s in our mating practices and outcomes.
“Humans appear to resemble mammals that live in monogamous partnerships and to some extent, those classified as cooperative breeders, where breeding individuals have to rely on the help of others to raise their offspring,” Monique Borgerhoff Mulder, PhD, professor emerita of anthropology at the University of California, Davis, said in a written statement.
The research team, which consisted of over 100 investigators, looked at 90 human populations based on data from over 80,000 people globally and compared the human data with 49 different nonhuman mammal species. In polygynous societies in which men take several wives, they found, women have more access to resources like food, shelter, and parenting help. Monogamy, on the other hand, “can drive significant inequalities among women,” Dr. Borgerhoff Mulder said, by promoting large differences in the number of children couples produce.
Human day-to-day behavior and child-rearing habits – one parent taking a daughter to ballet class and fixing dinner so the other parent can get to exercise class before picking up the son from soccer practice – may have us thinking that we are part of an evolved society, but really we are not much different than other mammals that hunt, forage for food, and rear and teach their children, the researchers suggested.
So, yes, humans can travel to the moon, create a vaccine for smallpox, and hit other humans with coconuts, but when it comes to simply having offspring or raising them, we’re not all that special. Get over it.
Video-based AI tool estimates LVEF from angiograms
a new study suggests.
In the test dataset, the video-based algorithm, called a deep neural network (DNN), discriminated reduced LVEF (< 40%) with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.911.
In the external validation dataset, the DNN discriminated reduced LVEF with an AUROC of 0.906. However, the DNN tended to overestimate low LVEFs and to underestimate high LVEFs.
“We know the findings will be unexpected for cardiologists who don’t typically expect to get an estimate of systolic function or pump function just from an angiogram,” principal investigator Geoffrey H. Tison, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.
In fact, he noted, “one of the challenges we face is a lack of trust by the health care community. They may not understand what drives the predictions behind our models. We have to translate that information in such a way that physicians trust that the algorithm is using the right features from the data they feed in to make the predictions.”
To help bolster that trust, “we display the ‘Model Facts,’ a nutrition-style label that describes how we train the algorithm, how it was validated, and the inclusion and exclusion criteria,” added lead author Robert Avram, MD, of the University of Montreal.
Model Facts is a safeguard against inappropriate use of the algorithm, Dr. Avram said. For example, if the algorithm was trained on patients between the ages of 40 and 90 and a clinician fed in data for a 35-year-old, a pop-up would appear warning the physician that the data being inputted are different from the data the algorithm was trained and validated on, and so any prediction “should be taken with a grain of salt.”
The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.
Additional procedure
LVEF can be determined before coronary angiography with transthoracic echocardiography, but that is not always available, particularly for patients being seen emergently for acute coronary syndromes, the researchers wrote. LVEF can also be assessed using left ventriculography, an additional procedure that requires insertion of a pigtail catheter into the left ventricle and injection of more contrast and longer radiation exposure.
“Novel methods to assess LVEF at the point of care during coronary angiography would expand the available options to perform this important physiologic determination,” they wrote. “Video-based deep neural networks can learn subtle patterns from medical data to accomplish certain tasks beyond what physicians can achieve with that data, providing an opportunity to assess cardiac systolic function in real time from standard angiographic images without additional cost or procedures.”
The investigators conducted a cross-sectional study using UCSF patient data from 2012 to 2019. Data were randomly categorized into training, development, and test datasets.
External validation data were obtained from the University of Ottawa Heart Institute.
All adult patients who received a coronary angiogram and a transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) within 3 months before or 1 month after receiving the angiogram were included.
A total of 4,042 angiograms with corresponding TTE LVEF from 3,679 UCSF patients were included in the analysis. The mean age of the patients was 64.3 years, and 65% were men.
The researchers’ video-based DNN, called CathEF, was used to discriminate reduced LVEF and to predict a continuous LVEF percentage from standard angiogram videos of the left coronary artery.
In the UCSF test dataset, CathEF discriminated reduced LVEF with an AUROC of 0.911; the diagnostic odds ratio for reduced LVEF was 22.7.
Furthermore, the CathEF-predicted that LVEF had a mean absolute error (MAE) of 8.5%, compared with TTE LVEF.
The CathEF-predicted LVEF differed 5% or less in comparison with the TTE LVEF in 38% of the test dataset studies; however, differences greater than 15% were seen in 15.2% of cases.
In the external validation, CathEF discriminated reduced LVEF with an AUROC of 0.906 and an MAE of 7%.
CathEF performance was consistent irrespective of patient characteristics, including sex, body mass index, low estimated glomerular filtration rate (< 45), acute coronary syndromes, obstructive coronary artery disease, and left ventricular hypertrophy.
However, as noted, it tended to overestimate low LVEFs and to underestimate high LVEFs.
“Further research can improve accuracy and reduce the variability of DNNs to maximize their clinical utility,” the authors concluded.
A validation study is underway at the Montreal Heart Institute, and similar studies are planned at UCSF and McGill University, Dr. Tison said. “We expect to present preliminary findings at medical conferences either before the end of the year or maybe for the American College of Cardiology meeting in March 2024.”
Potentially improved outcomes
In a comment, Alfonso H. Waller, MD, a member of the American College of Cardiology’s Imaging Council and director of cardiac imaging at New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said that, “at some centers, in patients presenting with an acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, some argue that assessment of myocardial and valvular function with [left ventriculography] grams may provide important prognostic information and in part may help guide the management of the patient.
“Therefore, this novel approach may provide information that is not usually available without performing a classic LV gram ... [and] may lead to improved delivery of care, earlier therapies, and potentially improved outcomes and quality of life.”
If the technology is available in real time, “it could enable real-time, dynamic assessment of cardiac function during coronary angiography, which may be particularly helpful in acute STEMI cases where baseline cardiac function and renal function may be unknown and additional contrast may be detrimental,” he said.
However, patients who might benefit most from the technology are those with severely reduced LVEF, “and unfortunately, the LVEF may be overestimated in this group,” he said.
Dr. Waller also noted that the model was developed using echocardiograms obtained 3 months before or up to 1 month after the angiogram, during which time “LVEF may change significantly. Typically, if someone presents with an acute coronary syndrome, there can be myocardial stunning, which can lead to regional wall motion abnormalities and lowering of LVEF.”
The validation study is evaluating patients with acute coronary syndrome for whom an echocardiogram was performed within 48 hours of the angiogram, he added.
The study was supported by grants from the Fonds de la Recherche en Santé du Québec, the Montreal Heart Institute Research Centre, the Montreal Heart Institute Foundation, the Des Groseillers-Bérard Research Chair, the National Institutes of Health, and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario. Dr. Tison, Dr. Avram, and Dr. Waller disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
a new study suggests.
In the test dataset, the video-based algorithm, called a deep neural network (DNN), discriminated reduced LVEF (< 40%) with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.911.
In the external validation dataset, the DNN discriminated reduced LVEF with an AUROC of 0.906. However, the DNN tended to overestimate low LVEFs and to underestimate high LVEFs.
“We know the findings will be unexpected for cardiologists who don’t typically expect to get an estimate of systolic function or pump function just from an angiogram,” principal investigator Geoffrey H. Tison, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.
In fact, he noted, “one of the challenges we face is a lack of trust by the health care community. They may not understand what drives the predictions behind our models. We have to translate that information in such a way that physicians trust that the algorithm is using the right features from the data they feed in to make the predictions.”
To help bolster that trust, “we display the ‘Model Facts,’ a nutrition-style label that describes how we train the algorithm, how it was validated, and the inclusion and exclusion criteria,” added lead author Robert Avram, MD, of the University of Montreal.
Model Facts is a safeguard against inappropriate use of the algorithm, Dr. Avram said. For example, if the algorithm was trained on patients between the ages of 40 and 90 and a clinician fed in data for a 35-year-old, a pop-up would appear warning the physician that the data being inputted are different from the data the algorithm was trained and validated on, and so any prediction “should be taken with a grain of salt.”
The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.
Additional procedure
LVEF can be determined before coronary angiography with transthoracic echocardiography, but that is not always available, particularly for patients being seen emergently for acute coronary syndromes, the researchers wrote. LVEF can also be assessed using left ventriculography, an additional procedure that requires insertion of a pigtail catheter into the left ventricle and injection of more contrast and longer radiation exposure.
“Novel methods to assess LVEF at the point of care during coronary angiography would expand the available options to perform this important physiologic determination,” they wrote. “Video-based deep neural networks can learn subtle patterns from medical data to accomplish certain tasks beyond what physicians can achieve with that data, providing an opportunity to assess cardiac systolic function in real time from standard angiographic images without additional cost or procedures.”
The investigators conducted a cross-sectional study using UCSF patient data from 2012 to 2019. Data were randomly categorized into training, development, and test datasets.
External validation data were obtained from the University of Ottawa Heart Institute.
All adult patients who received a coronary angiogram and a transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) within 3 months before or 1 month after receiving the angiogram were included.
A total of 4,042 angiograms with corresponding TTE LVEF from 3,679 UCSF patients were included in the analysis. The mean age of the patients was 64.3 years, and 65% were men.
The researchers’ video-based DNN, called CathEF, was used to discriminate reduced LVEF and to predict a continuous LVEF percentage from standard angiogram videos of the left coronary artery.
In the UCSF test dataset, CathEF discriminated reduced LVEF with an AUROC of 0.911; the diagnostic odds ratio for reduced LVEF was 22.7.
Furthermore, the CathEF-predicted that LVEF had a mean absolute error (MAE) of 8.5%, compared with TTE LVEF.
The CathEF-predicted LVEF differed 5% or less in comparison with the TTE LVEF in 38% of the test dataset studies; however, differences greater than 15% were seen in 15.2% of cases.
In the external validation, CathEF discriminated reduced LVEF with an AUROC of 0.906 and an MAE of 7%.
CathEF performance was consistent irrespective of patient characteristics, including sex, body mass index, low estimated glomerular filtration rate (< 45), acute coronary syndromes, obstructive coronary artery disease, and left ventricular hypertrophy.
However, as noted, it tended to overestimate low LVEFs and to underestimate high LVEFs.
“Further research can improve accuracy and reduce the variability of DNNs to maximize their clinical utility,” the authors concluded.
A validation study is underway at the Montreal Heart Institute, and similar studies are planned at UCSF and McGill University, Dr. Tison said. “We expect to present preliminary findings at medical conferences either before the end of the year or maybe for the American College of Cardiology meeting in March 2024.”
Potentially improved outcomes
In a comment, Alfonso H. Waller, MD, a member of the American College of Cardiology’s Imaging Council and director of cardiac imaging at New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said that, “at some centers, in patients presenting with an acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, some argue that assessment of myocardial and valvular function with [left ventriculography] grams may provide important prognostic information and in part may help guide the management of the patient.
“Therefore, this novel approach may provide information that is not usually available without performing a classic LV gram ... [and] may lead to improved delivery of care, earlier therapies, and potentially improved outcomes and quality of life.”
If the technology is available in real time, “it could enable real-time, dynamic assessment of cardiac function during coronary angiography, which may be particularly helpful in acute STEMI cases where baseline cardiac function and renal function may be unknown and additional contrast may be detrimental,” he said.
However, patients who might benefit most from the technology are those with severely reduced LVEF, “and unfortunately, the LVEF may be overestimated in this group,” he said.
Dr. Waller also noted that the model was developed using echocardiograms obtained 3 months before or up to 1 month after the angiogram, during which time “LVEF may change significantly. Typically, if someone presents with an acute coronary syndrome, there can be myocardial stunning, which can lead to regional wall motion abnormalities and lowering of LVEF.”
The validation study is evaluating patients with acute coronary syndrome for whom an echocardiogram was performed within 48 hours of the angiogram, he added.
The study was supported by grants from the Fonds de la Recherche en Santé du Québec, the Montreal Heart Institute Research Centre, the Montreal Heart Institute Foundation, the Des Groseillers-Bérard Research Chair, the National Institutes of Health, and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario. Dr. Tison, Dr. Avram, and Dr. Waller disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
a new study suggests.
In the test dataset, the video-based algorithm, called a deep neural network (DNN), discriminated reduced LVEF (< 40%) with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.911.
In the external validation dataset, the DNN discriminated reduced LVEF with an AUROC of 0.906. However, the DNN tended to overestimate low LVEFs and to underestimate high LVEFs.
“We know the findings will be unexpected for cardiologists who don’t typically expect to get an estimate of systolic function or pump function just from an angiogram,” principal investigator Geoffrey H. Tison, MD, of the University of California, San Francisco, said in an interview.
In fact, he noted, “one of the challenges we face is a lack of trust by the health care community. They may not understand what drives the predictions behind our models. We have to translate that information in such a way that physicians trust that the algorithm is using the right features from the data they feed in to make the predictions.”
To help bolster that trust, “we display the ‘Model Facts,’ a nutrition-style label that describes how we train the algorithm, how it was validated, and the inclusion and exclusion criteria,” added lead author Robert Avram, MD, of the University of Montreal.
Model Facts is a safeguard against inappropriate use of the algorithm, Dr. Avram said. For example, if the algorithm was trained on patients between the ages of 40 and 90 and a clinician fed in data for a 35-year-old, a pop-up would appear warning the physician that the data being inputted are different from the data the algorithm was trained and validated on, and so any prediction “should be taken with a grain of salt.”
The study was published online in JAMA Cardiology.
Additional procedure
LVEF can be determined before coronary angiography with transthoracic echocardiography, but that is not always available, particularly for patients being seen emergently for acute coronary syndromes, the researchers wrote. LVEF can also be assessed using left ventriculography, an additional procedure that requires insertion of a pigtail catheter into the left ventricle and injection of more contrast and longer radiation exposure.
“Novel methods to assess LVEF at the point of care during coronary angiography would expand the available options to perform this important physiologic determination,” they wrote. “Video-based deep neural networks can learn subtle patterns from medical data to accomplish certain tasks beyond what physicians can achieve with that data, providing an opportunity to assess cardiac systolic function in real time from standard angiographic images without additional cost or procedures.”
The investigators conducted a cross-sectional study using UCSF patient data from 2012 to 2019. Data were randomly categorized into training, development, and test datasets.
External validation data were obtained from the University of Ottawa Heart Institute.
All adult patients who received a coronary angiogram and a transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) within 3 months before or 1 month after receiving the angiogram were included.
A total of 4,042 angiograms with corresponding TTE LVEF from 3,679 UCSF patients were included in the analysis. The mean age of the patients was 64.3 years, and 65% were men.
The researchers’ video-based DNN, called CathEF, was used to discriminate reduced LVEF and to predict a continuous LVEF percentage from standard angiogram videos of the left coronary artery.
In the UCSF test dataset, CathEF discriminated reduced LVEF with an AUROC of 0.911; the diagnostic odds ratio for reduced LVEF was 22.7.
Furthermore, the CathEF-predicted that LVEF had a mean absolute error (MAE) of 8.5%, compared with TTE LVEF.
The CathEF-predicted LVEF differed 5% or less in comparison with the TTE LVEF in 38% of the test dataset studies; however, differences greater than 15% were seen in 15.2% of cases.
In the external validation, CathEF discriminated reduced LVEF with an AUROC of 0.906 and an MAE of 7%.
CathEF performance was consistent irrespective of patient characteristics, including sex, body mass index, low estimated glomerular filtration rate (< 45), acute coronary syndromes, obstructive coronary artery disease, and left ventricular hypertrophy.
However, as noted, it tended to overestimate low LVEFs and to underestimate high LVEFs.
“Further research can improve accuracy and reduce the variability of DNNs to maximize their clinical utility,” the authors concluded.
A validation study is underway at the Montreal Heart Institute, and similar studies are planned at UCSF and McGill University, Dr. Tison said. “We expect to present preliminary findings at medical conferences either before the end of the year or maybe for the American College of Cardiology meeting in March 2024.”
Potentially improved outcomes
In a comment, Alfonso H. Waller, MD, a member of the American College of Cardiology’s Imaging Council and director of cardiac imaging at New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said that, “at some centers, in patients presenting with an acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, some argue that assessment of myocardial and valvular function with [left ventriculography] grams may provide important prognostic information and in part may help guide the management of the patient.
“Therefore, this novel approach may provide information that is not usually available without performing a classic LV gram ... [and] may lead to improved delivery of care, earlier therapies, and potentially improved outcomes and quality of life.”
If the technology is available in real time, “it could enable real-time, dynamic assessment of cardiac function during coronary angiography, which may be particularly helpful in acute STEMI cases where baseline cardiac function and renal function may be unknown and additional contrast may be detrimental,” he said.
However, patients who might benefit most from the technology are those with severely reduced LVEF, “and unfortunately, the LVEF may be overestimated in this group,” he said.
Dr. Waller also noted that the model was developed using echocardiograms obtained 3 months before or up to 1 month after the angiogram, during which time “LVEF may change significantly. Typically, if someone presents with an acute coronary syndrome, there can be myocardial stunning, which can lead to regional wall motion abnormalities and lowering of LVEF.”
The validation study is evaluating patients with acute coronary syndrome for whom an echocardiogram was performed within 48 hours of the angiogram, he added.
The study was supported by grants from the Fonds de la Recherche en Santé du Québec, the Montreal Heart Institute Research Centre, the Montreal Heart Institute Foundation, the Des Groseillers-Bérard Research Chair, the National Institutes of Health, and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario. Dr. Tison, Dr. Avram, and Dr. Waller disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA CARDIOLOGY
LAA closure outcomes improve with CCTA: Swiss-Apero subanalysis
The largest multicenter randomized trial to date of CT angiography before left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) to treat atrial fibrillation has added to the evidence that the imaging technique on top of transesophageal echocardiography achieves a higher degree of short- and long-term success than TEE alone.
The results are from a subanalysis of the Swiss-Apero trial, a randomized comparative trial of the Watchman and Amulet devices for LAAC, which published results in Circulation.
“Our observational data support to use of CT for LAAC procedure planning,” senior investigator Lorenz Räber, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “This is not very surprising given the high variability of the LAA anatomy and the associated complexity of the procedure.” Dr. Räber is director of the catheterization laboratory at Inselspital, Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital.
The study, published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, included 219 LAAC procedures in which the operators performed coronary CT angiography (CTTA) beforehand. When the investigators designed the study, LAAC procedures were typically planned using TEE alone, and so participating operators were blinded to preprocedural CCTA imaging. Soon after the study launch, European cardiology societies issued a consensus statement that included CCTA as an option for procedure planning. So the Swiss-Apero investigators changed the subanalysis protocol to unblind the operators – that is, they were permitted to plan LAAC procedures with CCTA imaging in addition to TEE. In this subanalysis, most patients had implantation with blinding to CCTA (57.9% vs. 41.2%).
Study results
The subanalysis determined that operator unblinding to preprocedural CCTA resulted in better success with LAAC, both in the short term, at 93.5% vs. 81.1% (P = .009; adjusted odds ratio, 2.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-7.29; P = .40) and the long term, at 83.7% vs. 72.4% (P = .050; aOR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.03-4.35; P = .041).
Dr. Räber noted that this is only the third study to date that examined the potential impact of preprocedural CCTA plus TEE. One was a small study of 24 consecutive LAAC procedures with the Watchman device that compared TEE alone and CCTA plus TEE, finding better outcomes in the group that had both imaging modalities . A larger, single-center cohort study of 485 LAAC Watchman procedures found that CCTA resulted in faster operation times and higher successful device implantation rates, but no significant difference in procedural complications.
Dr. Räber explained why his group’s subanalysis may have found a clinical benefit with CCTA on top of TEE. “Our study was much larger, as compared to the randomized clinical trial, and there was no selection bias as in the second study mentioned before, as operators did not have the option to decide whether or not to assess the CCTA prior to the procedure,” he said. “Finally, in the previous studies there was no random allocation of device type” – that is, Amulet versus Watchman.
One study limitation Dr. Räber noted was that significantly more patients in the blinded group were discharged with dual-antiplatelet therapy. “The lower rate of procedure complications observed in unblinded procedures was mostly driven by a lower number of major bleedings and in particular of pericardial tamponade,” he said. “We cannot therefore exclude that the higher percentage of patients under dual-antiplatelet therapy in the CCTA-blinded group might have favored this difference.”
However, he noted the investigators corrected their analysis to account for differences between the groups. “Importantly, the numerical excess in major procedural bleeding was observed within both the single-antiplatelet therapy and dual-antiplatelet therapy subgroups of the TEE-only group.”
In an accompanying editorial, coauthors Brian O’Neill, MD, and Dee Dee Wang, MD, both with the Center for Structural Heard Disease at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, noted that the Swiss-Apero subanalysis “reinforced” the benefit of CCTA before LAAC.
“This study demonstrated, for the first time, improved short- and long-term procedural success using CT in addition to TEE for left atrial appendage occlusion,” Dr. O’Neill said in an interview. “This particular study may serve as a guide to an adequately powered randomized trial of CT versus TEE in left atrial appendage occlusion.” Future LAAC trials should incorporate preprocedural CCTA.
Dr. O’Neill noted that, as a subanalysis of a randomized trial, the “results are hypothesis generating.” However, he added, “the results are in line with several previous studies of CT versus TEE in left atrial appendage occlusion.”
Dr Räber disclosed financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Infraredx, Heartflow, Sanofi, Regeneron, Amgen, AstraZeneca, CSL Behring, Canon, Occlutech, and Vifor. Dr. O’Neill disclosed financial relationships with Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Abbott Vascular.
The largest multicenter randomized trial to date of CT angiography before left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) to treat atrial fibrillation has added to the evidence that the imaging technique on top of transesophageal echocardiography achieves a higher degree of short- and long-term success than TEE alone.
The results are from a subanalysis of the Swiss-Apero trial, a randomized comparative trial of the Watchman and Amulet devices for LAAC, which published results in Circulation.
“Our observational data support to use of CT for LAAC procedure planning,” senior investigator Lorenz Räber, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “This is not very surprising given the high variability of the LAA anatomy and the associated complexity of the procedure.” Dr. Räber is director of the catheterization laboratory at Inselspital, Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital.
The study, published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, included 219 LAAC procedures in which the operators performed coronary CT angiography (CTTA) beforehand. When the investigators designed the study, LAAC procedures were typically planned using TEE alone, and so participating operators were blinded to preprocedural CCTA imaging. Soon after the study launch, European cardiology societies issued a consensus statement that included CCTA as an option for procedure planning. So the Swiss-Apero investigators changed the subanalysis protocol to unblind the operators – that is, they were permitted to plan LAAC procedures with CCTA imaging in addition to TEE. In this subanalysis, most patients had implantation with blinding to CCTA (57.9% vs. 41.2%).
Study results
The subanalysis determined that operator unblinding to preprocedural CCTA resulted in better success with LAAC, both in the short term, at 93.5% vs. 81.1% (P = .009; adjusted odds ratio, 2.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-7.29; P = .40) and the long term, at 83.7% vs. 72.4% (P = .050; aOR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.03-4.35; P = .041).
Dr. Räber noted that this is only the third study to date that examined the potential impact of preprocedural CCTA plus TEE. One was a small study of 24 consecutive LAAC procedures with the Watchman device that compared TEE alone and CCTA plus TEE, finding better outcomes in the group that had both imaging modalities . A larger, single-center cohort study of 485 LAAC Watchman procedures found that CCTA resulted in faster operation times and higher successful device implantation rates, but no significant difference in procedural complications.
Dr. Räber explained why his group’s subanalysis may have found a clinical benefit with CCTA on top of TEE. “Our study was much larger, as compared to the randomized clinical trial, and there was no selection bias as in the second study mentioned before, as operators did not have the option to decide whether or not to assess the CCTA prior to the procedure,” he said. “Finally, in the previous studies there was no random allocation of device type” – that is, Amulet versus Watchman.
One study limitation Dr. Räber noted was that significantly more patients in the blinded group were discharged with dual-antiplatelet therapy. “The lower rate of procedure complications observed in unblinded procedures was mostly driven by a lower number of major bleedings and in particular of pericardial tamponade,” he said. “We cannot therefore exclude that the higher percentage of patients under dual-antiplatelet therapy in the CCTA-blinded group might have favored this difference.”
However, he noted the investigators corrected their analysis to account for differences between the groups. “Importantly, the numerical excess in major procedural bleeding was observed within both the single-antiplatelet therapy and dual-antiplatelet therapy subgroups of the TEE-only group.”
In an accompanying editorial, coauthors Brian O’Neill, MD, and Dee Dee Wang, MD, both with the Center for Structural Heard Disease at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, noted that the Swiss-Apero subanalysis “reinforced” the benefit of CCTA before LAAC.
“This study demonstrated, for the first time, improved short- and long-term procedural success using CT in addition to TEE for left atrial appendage occlusion,” Dr. O’Neill said in an interview. “This particular study may serve as a guide to an adequately powered randomized trial of CT versus TEE in left atrial appendage occlusion.” Future LAAC trials should incorporate preprocedural CCTA.
Dr. O’Neill noted that, as a subanalysis of a randomized trial, the “results are hypothesis generating.” However, he added, “the results are in line with several previous studies of CT versus TEE in left atrial appendage occlusion.”
Dr Räber disclosed financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Infraredx, Heartflow, Sanofi, Regeneron, Amgen, AstraZeneca, CSL Behring, Canon, Occlutech, and Vifor. Dr. O’Neill disclosed financial relationships with Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Abbott Vascular.
The largest multicenter randomized trial to date of CT angiography before left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) to treat atrial fibrillation has added to the evidence that the imaging technique on top of transesophageal echocardiography achieves a higher degree of short- and long-term success than TEE alone.
The results are from a subanalysis of the Swiss-Apero trial, a randomized comparative trial of the Watchman and Amulet devices for LAAC, which published results in Circulation.
“Our observational data support to use of CT for LAAC procedure planning,” senior investigator Lorenz Räber, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “This is not very surprising given the high variability of the LAA anatomy and the associated complexity of the procedure.” Dr. Räber is director of the catheterization laboratory at Inselspital, Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital.
The study, published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, included 219 LAAC procedures in which the operators performed coronary CT angiography (CTTA) beforehand. When the investigators designed the study, LAAC procedures were typically planned using TEE alone, and so participating operators were blinded to preprocedural CCTA imaging. Soon after the study launch, European cardiology societies issued a consensus statement that included CCTA as an option for procedure planning. So the Swiss-Apero investigators changed the subanalysis protocol to unblind the operators – that is, they were permitted to plan LAAC procedures with CCTA imaging in addition to TEE. In this subanalysis, most patients had implantation with blinding to CCTA (57.9% vs. 41.2%).
Study results
The subanalysis determined that operator unblinding to preprocedural CCTA resulted in better success with LAAC, both in the short term, at 93.5% vs. 81.1% (P = .009; adjusted odds ratio, 2.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-7.29; P = .40) and the long term, at 83.7% vs. 72.4% (P = .050; aOR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.03-4.35; P = .041).
Dr. Räber noted that this is only the third study to date that examined the potential impact of preprocedural CCTA plus TEE. One was a small study of 24 consecutive LAAC procedures with the Watchman device that compared TEE alone and CCTA plus TEE, finding better outcomes in the group that had both imaging modalities . A larger, single-center cohort study of 485 LAAC Watchman procedures found that CCTA resulted in faster operation times and higher successful device implantation rates, but no significant difference in procedural complications.
Dr. Räber explained why his group’s subanalysis may have found a clinical benefit with CCTA on top of TEE. “Our study was much larger, as compared to the randomized clinical trial, and there was no selection bias as in the second study mentioned before, as operators did not have the option to decide whether or not to assess the CCTA prior to the procedure,” he said. “Finally, in the previous studies there was no random allocation of device type” – that is, Amulet versus Watchman.
One study limitation Dr. Räber noted was that significantly more patients in the blinded group were discharged with dual-antiplatelet therapy. “The lower rate of procedure complications observed in unblinded procedures was mostly driven by a lower number of major bleedings and in particular of pericardial tamponade,” he said. “We cannot therefore exclude that the higher percentage of patients under dual-antiplatelet therapy in the CCTA-blinded group might have favored this difference.”
However, he noted the investigators corrected their analysis to account for differences between the groups. “Importantly, the numerical excess in major procedural bleeding was observed within both the single-antiplatelet therapy and dual-antiplatelet therapy subgroups of the TEE-only group.”
In an accompanying editorial, coauthors Brian O’Neill, MD, and Dee Dee Wang, MD, both with the Center for Structural Heard Disease at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, noted that the Swiss-Apero subanalysis “reinforced” the benefit of CCTA before LAAC.
“This study demonstrated, for the first time, improved short- and long-term procedural success using CT in addition to TEE for left atrial appendage occlusion,” Dr. O’Neill said in an interview. “This particular study may serve as a guide to an adequately powered randomized trial of CT versus TEE in left atrial appendage occlusion.” Future LAAC trials should incorporate preprocedural CCTA.
Dr. O’Neill noted that, as a subanalysis of a randomized trial, the “results are hypothesis generating.” However, he added, “the results are in line with several previous studies of CT versus TEE in left atrial appendage occlusion.”
Dr Räber disclosed financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Infraredx, Heartflow, Sanofi, Regeneron, Amgen, AstraZeneca, CSL Behring, Canon, Occlutech, and Vifor. Dr. O’Neill disclosed financial relationships with Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Abbott Vascular.
FROM JACC: CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS
Predicting BPD vs. bipolar treatment response: New imaging data
A new study identifies specific brain regions involved in treatment response in bipolar disorder (BD) and borderline personality disorder (BPD), potentially paving the way for more targeted treatment.
In a meta-analysis of 34 studies that used neuroimaging to investigate changes in brain activation following psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy for BD and BPD, investigators found most brain regions showing abnormal activation in both conditions improved after treatment. In particular, changes in brain activity after psychotherapy were found primarily in the frontal areas, whereas pharmacotherapy largely altered the limbic areas.
“,” senior investigator Xiaoming Li, PhD, professor, department of medical psychology, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China, told this news organization.
“It may also contribute to the identification of more accurate neuroimaging biomarkers for treatment of the two disorders and to the finding of more effective therapy,” Dr. Li said.
The study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
Blurred boundary
Dr. Li called BDs and BPDs “difficult to diagnose and differentiate,” noting that the comorbidity rate is “very high.” Underestimating the boundary between BD and BPD “increases the risk of improper or harmful drug exposure,” since mood stabilizing drugs are “considered to be the key therapeutic intervention for BD, while psychotherapy is the key treatment for BPD.”
The “blurred boundary between BD and BPD is one of the reasons it is important to study the relationship between these two diseases,” the authors said.
Previous studies comparing the relationship between BD and BPD “did not explore the similarities and differences in brain mechanisms between these two disorders after treatment,” they pointed out.
Patients with BD have a different disease course and response to therapy, compared to patient with BPD patients. “Misdiagnosis may result in the patients receiving ineffective treatment, so it is particularly important to explore the neural mechanisms of the treatment of these two diseases,” Dr. Li said.
To investigate, the researchers used activation likelihood estimation (ALE) – a technique that examines coordinates of neuroimaging data gleaned from published studies – after searching several databases from inception until June 2021.
This approach was used to “evaluate the similarities and differences in the activation of different brain regions in patients with BD and BPD after treatment with psychotherapy and drug therapy.”
Studies were required to focus on patients with a clinical diagnosis of BD or BPD; neuroimaging studies using functional MRI; coordinates of the peak activations in the stereotactic space of the Montreal Neurologic Institute or Talairach; treatment (pharmacologic or psychological) for patients with BD or BPD; and results of changes in brain activation after treatment, relative to a before-treatment condition.
Of 1,592 records, 34 studies (n = 912 subjects) met inclusion criteria and were selected and used in extracting the activation coordinates. The researchers extracted a total of 186 activity increase points and 90 activity decrease points. After combining these calculations, they found 12 increased activation clusters and 2 decreased activation clusters.
Of the studies, 23 focused on BD and 11 on BPD; 14 used psychotherapy, 18 used drug therapy, and 2 used a combination of both approaches.
Normalizing activation levels
Both treatments were associated with convergent activity increases and decreases in several brain regions: the anterior cingulate cortex, medial frontal gyrus, inferior frontal gyrus, cingulate gyrus, parahippocampal gyrus, and the posterior cingulate cortex.
The researchers then examined studies based on treatment method – psychotherapy or pharmacotherapy and the effect on the two disorders.
“After psychotherapy, the frontal lobe and temporal lobe were the primary brain regions in which activation changed, indicating a top-down effect of this therapy type, while after drug therapy, the limbic area was the region in which activation changed, indicating a ‘bottom-up’ effect,” said Dr. Li.
Dr. Li cited previous research pointing to functional and structural abnormalities in both disorders – especially in the default mode network (DMN) and frontolimbic network.
In particular, alterations in the amygdala and the parahippocampal gyrus are reported more frequently in BPD than in BD, whereas dysfunctional frontolimbic brain regions seem to underlie the emotional dysfunction in BPD. Several studies have also associated the impulsivity of BD with dysfunctions in the interplay of cortical-limbic circuits.
Dr. Li said the study findings suggest “that treatment may change these brain activation levels by acting on the abnormal brain circuit, such as the DMN and the frontolimbic network so as to ‘normalize’ its activity and improve symptoms.”
Specifically, brain regions with abnormally increased activation “showed decreased activation after treatment, and brain regions with abnormally decreased activation showed increased activation after treatment.”
Discrete, overlapping mechanisms
Commenting on the study, Roger S. McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, and head of the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, said the study “provides additional support for the underlying neurobiological signature of bipolar disorder and a commonly encountered co-occurring condition – borderline personality disorder – having both discrete yet overlapping mechanisms.”
He found it interesting that “medications have a different principal target than psychosocial interventions, which has both academic and clinical implications.
“The academic implication is that we have reasons to believe that we will be in a position to parse the neurobiology of bipolar disorder or borderline personality disorder when we take an approach that isolates specific domains of psychopathology, which is what they [the authors] appear to be doing,” said Dr. McIntyre, who wasn’t associated with this research.
In addition, “from the clinical perspective, this provides a rationale for why we should be integrating pharmacotherapy with psychotherapy in people who have comorbid conditions like borderline personality disorder, which affects 20% of people living with bipolar disorder and 60% to 70% have borderline traits,” he added.
The research was supported by the Anhui Natural Science Foundation and Grants for Scientific Research from Anhui Medical University. Dr. Li and coauthors declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McIntyre has received research grant support from CIHR/GACD/National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Milken Institute; speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Alkermes, Neumora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sage, Biogen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Bausch Health, Axsome, Novo Nordisk, Kris, Sanofi, Eisai, Intra-Cellular, NewBridge Pharmaceuticals, Viatris, AbbVie, Atai Life Sciences. Dr. McIntyre is a CEO of Braxia Scientific Corp.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new study identifies specific brain regions involved in treatment response in bipolar disorder (BD) and borderline personality disorder (BPD), potentially paving the way for more targeted treatment.
In a meta-analysis of 34 studies that used neuroimaging to investigate changes in brain activation following psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy for BD and BPD, investigators found most brain regions showing abnormal activation in both conditions improved after treatment. In particular, changes in brain activity after psychotherapy were found primarily in the frontal areas, whereas pharmacotherapy largely altered the limbic areas.
“,” senior investigator Xiaoming Li, PhD, professor, department of medical psychology, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China, told this news organization.
“It may also contribute to the identification of more accurate neuroimaging biomarkers for treatment of the two disorders and to the finding of more effective therapy,” Dr. Li said.
The study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
Blurred boundary
Dr. Li called BDs and BPDs “difficult to diagnose and differentiate,” noting that the comorbidity rate is “very high.” Underestimating the boundary between BD and BPD “increases the risk of improper or harmful drug exposure,” since mood stabilizing drugs are “considered to be the key therapeutic intervention for BD, while psychotherapy is the key treatment for BPD.”
The “blurred boundary between BD and BPD is one of the reasons it is important to study the relationship between these two diseases,” the authors said.
Previous studies comparing the relationship between BD and BPD “did not explore the similarities and differences in brain mechanisms between these two disorders after treatment,” they pointed out.
Patients with BD have a different disease course and response to therapy, compared to patient with BPD patients. “Misdiagnosis may result in the patients receiving ineffective treatment, so it is particularly important to explore the neural mechanisms of the treatment of these two diseases,” Dr. Li said.
To investigate, the researchers used activation likelihood estimation (ALE) – a technique that examines coordinates of neuroimaging data gleaned from published studies – after searching several databases from inception until June 2021.
This approach was used to “evaluate the similarities and differences in the activation of different brain regions in patients with BD and BPD after treatment with psychotherapy and drug therapy.”
Studies were required to focus on patients with a clinical diagnosis of BD or BPD; neuroimaging studies using functional MRI; coordinates of the peak activations in the stereotactic space of the Montreal Neurologic Institute or Talairach; treatment (pharmacologic or psychological) for patients with BD or BPD; and results of changes in brain activation after treatment, relative to a before-treatment condition.
Of 1,592 records, 34 studies (n = 912 subjects) met inclusion criteria and were selected and used in extracting the activation coordinates. The researchers extracted a total of 186 activity increase points and 90 activity decrease points. After combining these calculations, they found 12 increased activation clusters and 2 decreased activation clusters.
Of the studies, 23 focused on BD and 11 on BPD; 14 used psychotherapy, 18 used drug therapy, and 2 used a combination of both approaches.
Normalizing activation levels
Both treatments were associated with convergent activity increases and decreases in several brain regions: the anterior cingulate cortex, medial frontal gyrus, inferior frontal gyrus, cingulate gyrus, parahippocampal gyrus, and the posterior cingulate cortex.
The researchers then examined studies based on treatment method – psychotherapy or pharmacotherapy and the effect on the two disorders.
“After psychotherapy, the frontal lobe and temporal lobe were the primary brain regions in which activation changed, indicating a top-down effect of this therapy type, while after drug therapy, the limbic area was the region in which activation changed, indicating a ‘bottom-up’ effect,” said Dr. Li.
Dr. Li cited previous research pointing to functional and structural abnormalities in both disorders – especially in the default mode network (DMN) and frontolimbic network.
In particular, alterations in the amygdala and the parahippocampal gyrus are reported more frequently in BPD than in BD, whereas dysfunctional frontolimbic brain regions seem to underlie the emotional dysfunction in BPD. Several studies have also associated the impulsivity of BD with dysfunctions in the interplay of cortical-limbic circuits.
Dr. Li said the study findings suggest “that treatment may change these brain activation levels by acting on the abnormal brain circuit, such as the DMN and the frontolimbic network so as to ‘normalize’ its activity and improve symptoms.”
Specifically, brain regions with abnormally increased activation “showed decreased activation after treatment, and brain regions with abnormally decreased activation showed increased activation after treatment.”
Discrete, overlapping mechanisms
Commenting on the study, Roger S. McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, and head of the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, said the study “provides additional support for the underlying neurobiological signature of bipolar disorder and a commonly encountered co-occurring condition – borderline personality disorder – having both discrete yet overlapping mechanisms.”
He found it interesting that “medications have a different principal target than psychosocial interventions, which has both academic and clinical implications.
“The academic implication is that we have reasons to believe that we will be in a position to parse the neurobiology of bipolar disorder or borderline personality disorder when we take an approach that isolates specific domains of psychopathology, which is what they [the authors] appear to be doing,” said Dr. McIntyre, who wasn’t associated with this research.
In addition, “from the clinical perspective, this provides a rationale for why we should be integrating pharmacotherapy with psychotherapy in people who have comorbid conditions like borderline personality disorder, which affects 20% of people living with bipolar disorder and 60% to 70% have borderline traits,” he added.
The research was supported by the Anhui Natural Science Foundation and Grants for Scientific Research from Anhui Medical University. Dr. Li and coauthors declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McIntyre has received research grant support from CIHR/GACD/National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Milken Institute; speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Alkermes, Neumora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sage, Biogen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Bausch Health, Axsome, Novo Nordisk, Kris, Sanofi, Eisai, Intra-Cellular, NewBridge Pharmaceuticals, Viatris, AbbVie, Atai Life Sciences. Dr. McIntyre is a CEO of Braxia Scientific Corp.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A new study identifies specific brain regions involved in treatment response in bipolar disorder (BD) and borderline personality disorder (BPD), potentially paving the way for more targeted treatment.
In a meta-analysis of 34 studies that used neuroimaging to investigate changes in brain activation following psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy for BD and BPD, investigators found most brain regions showing abnormal activation in both conditions improved after treatment. In particular, changes in brain activity after psychotherapy were found primarily in the frontal areas, whereas pharmacotherapy largely altered the limbic areas.
“,” senior investigator Xiaoming Li, PhD, professor, department of medical psychology, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China, told this news organization.
“It may also contribute to the identification of more accurate neuroimaging biomarkers for treatment of the two disorders and to the finding of more effective therapy,” Dr. Li said.
The study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
Blurred boundary
Dr. Li called BDs and BPDs “difficult to diagnose and differentiate,” noting that the comorbidity rate is “very high.” Underestimating the boundary between BD and BPD “increases the risk of improper or harmful drug exposure,” since mood stabilizing drugs are “considered to be the key therapeutic intervention for BD, while psychotherapy is the key treatment for BPD.”
The “blurred boundary between BD and BPD is one of the reasons it is important to study the relationship between these two diseases,” the authors said.
Previous studies comparing the relationship between BD and BPD “did not explore the similarities and differences in brain mechanisms between these two disorders after treatment,” they pointed out.
Patients with BD have a different disease course and response to therapy, compared to patient with BPD patients. “Misdiagnosis may result in the patients receiving ineffective treatment, so it is particularly important to explore the neural mechanisms of the treatment of these two diseases,” Dr. Li said.
To investigate, the researchers used activation likelihood estimation (ALE) – a technique that examines coordinates of neuroimaging data gleaned from published studies – after searching several databases from inception until June 2021.
This approach was used to “evaluate the similarities and differences in the activation of different brain regions in patients with BD and BPD after treatment with psychotherapy and drug therapy.”
Studies were required to focus on patients with a clinical diagnosis of BD or BPD; neuroimaging studies using functional MRI; coordinates of the peak activations in the stereotactic space of the Montreal Neurologic Institute or Talairach; treatment (pharmacologic or psychological) for patients with BD or BPD; and results of changes in brain activation after treatment, relative to a before-treatment condition.
Of 1,592 records, 34 studies (n = 912 subjects) met inclusion criteria and were selected and used in extracting the activation coordinates. The researchers extracted a total of 186 activity increase points and 90 activity decrease points. After combining these calculations, they found 12 increased activation clusters and 2 decreased activation clusters.
Of the studies, 23 focused on BD and 11 on BPD; 14 used psychotherapy, 18 used drug therapy, and 2 used a combination of both approaches.
Normalizing activation levels
Both treatments were associated with convergent activity increases and decreases in several brain regions: the anterior cingulate cortex, medial frontal gyrus, inferior frontal gyrus, cingulate gyrus, parahippocampal gyrus, and the posterior cingulate cortex.
The researchers then examined studies based on treatment method – psychotherapy or pharmacotherapy and the effect on the two disorders.
“After psychotherapy, the frontal lobe and temporal lobe were the primary brain regions in which activation changed, indicating a top-down effect of this therapy type, while after drug therapy, the limbic area was the region in which activation changed, indicating a ‘bottom-up’ effect,” said Dr. Li.
Dr. Li cited previous research pointing to functional and structural abnormalities in both disorders – especially in the default mode network (DMN) and frontolimbic network.
In particular, alterations in the amygdala and the parahippocampal gyrus are reported more frequently in BPD than in BD, whereas dysfunctional frontolimbic brain regions seem to underlie the emotional dysfunction in BPD. Several studies have also associated the impulsivity of BD with dysfunctions in the interplay of cortical-limbic circuits.
Dr. Li said the study findings suggest “that treatment may change these brain activation levels by acting on the abnormal brain circuit, such as the DMN and the frontolimbic network so as to ‘normalize’ its activity and improve symptoms.”
Specifically, brain regions with abnormally increased activation “showed decreased activation after treatment, and brain regions with abnormally decreased activation showed increased activation after treatment.”
Discrete, overlapping mechanisms
Commenting on the study, Roger S. McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, and head of the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, said the study “provides additional support for the underlying neurobiological signature of bipolar disorder and a commonly encountered co-occurring condition – borderline personality disorder – having both discrete yet overlapping mechanisms.”
He found it interesting that “medications have a different principal target than psychosocial interventions, which has both academic and clinical implications.
“The academic implication is that we have reasons to believe that we will be in a position to parse the neurobiology of bipolar disorder or borderline personality disorder when we take an approach that isolates specific domains of psychopathology, which is what they [the authors] appear to be doing,” said Dr. McIntyre, who wasn’t associated with this research.
In addition, “from the clinical perspective, this provides a rationale for why we should be integrating pharmacotherapy with psychotherapy in people who have comorbid conditions like borderline personality disorder, which affects 20% of people living with bipolar disorder and 60% to 70% have borderline traits,” he added.
The research was supported by the Anhui Natural Science Foundation and Grants for Scientific Research from Anhui Medical University. Dr. Li and coauthors declared no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McIntyre has received research grant support from CIHR/GACD/National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Milken Institute; speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Alkermes, Neumora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sage, Biogen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Bausch Health, Axsome, Novo Nordisk, Kris, Sanofi, Eisai, Intra-Cellular, NewBridge Pharmaceuticals, Viatris, AbbVie, Atai Life Sciences. Dr. McIntyre is a CEO of Braxia Scientific Corp.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHIATRY
New ASE guideline on interventional echocardiography training
The American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) has issued guidance on all critical aspects of training for cardiology and anesthesiology trainees and postgraduate echocardiographers who plan to specialize in interventional echocardiography (IE).
The guideline outlines requirements of the training institution, the duration and core competencies of training, minimal procedural volume for competency in IE, and knowledge of specific structural health disease (SHD) procedures.
The 16-page guideline was published online in the Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography.
Specific skill set
IE is the primary imaging modality used to support and guide SHD interventions, such as heart valve replacements and other cardiac catheterization procedures, the writing group notes.
They say the “emerging specialty” of IE requires a specific set of skills to support an array of transcatheter therapies, with successful outcomes highly dependent on the skill of the echocardiography team.
“IE techniques are unique since imaging is performed in real-time, it is highly dependent on 3D and non-standard views, and it has immediate and profound implications for patient management,” Stephen H. Little, MD, ASE president and co-chair of the guideline writing group, says in a news release.
“Additionally, IE requires candid, accurate, and timely communication with other members of the multidisciplinary SHD team,” Dr. Little adds.
The new ASE guideline expands on the 2019 statement on echocardiography training put forward by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and ASE, by focusing specifically on interventional echocardiographers.
It outlines core competencies common to all transcatheter therapies, as well as specific transcatheter procedures. It provides consensus recommendations for specific knowledge, experience, and skills to be learned and demonstrated within an IE training program or during postgraduate training.
A “core principle” in the guideline states that the length of IE training or achieved number of procedures performed are less important than the demonstration of procedure-specific competencies within the milestone domains of knowledge, skill, and communication.
“Transcatheter therapies for SHD continue to grow at a rapid pace, which means that the demand for skilled interventional echocardiographers has steadily increased,” Vera H. Rigolin, MD, co-chair of the guideline writing, says in the release.
“Training standards are needed to ensure that interventional echocardiographers have the necessary expertise to provide fast, accurate, and high-quality image acquisition and interpretation in real-time,” Dr. Rigolin adds.
In addition, the guidelines states that use of simulation training has a role in IE training.
Virtual and simulation training could shorten the learning curve for trainees and, when combined with remote learning, could permit societies to standardize a teaching curriculum and allow the trainee to complete training in a reasonable timeframe. Simulator training may also improve access to training and thus promote diversity and inclusivity, the writing group says.
The guideline has been endorsed by 21 ASE international partners.
Writing group co-chairs Little and Rigolin have declared no conflicts of interest. A complete list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) has issued guidance on all critical aspects of training for cardiology and anesthesiology trainees and postgraduate echocardiographers who plan to specialize in interventional echocardiography (IE).
The guideline outlines requirements of the training institution, the duration and core competencies of training, minimal procedural volume for competency in IE, and knowledge of specific structural health disease (SHD) procedures.
The 16-page guideline was published online in the Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography.
Specific skill set
IE is the primary imaging modality used to support and guide SHD interventions, such as heart valve replacements and other cardiac catheterization procedures, the writing group notes.
They say the “emerging specialty” of IE requires a specific set of skills to support an array of transcatheter therapies, with successful outcomes highly dependent on the skill of the echocardiography team.
“IE techniques are unique since imaging is performed in real-time, it is highly dependent on 3D and non-standard views, and it has immediate and profound implications for patient management,” Stephen H. Little, MD, ASE president and co-chair of the guideline writing group, says in a news release.
“Additionally, IE requires candid, accurate, and timely communication with other members of the multidisciplinary SHD team,” Dr. Little adds.
The new ASE guideline expands on the 2019 statement on echocardiography training put forward by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and ASE, by focusing specifically on interventional echocardiographers.
It outlines core competencies common to all transcatheter therapies, as well as specific transcatheter procedures. It provides consensus recommendations for specific knowledge, experience, and skills to be learned and demonstrated within an IE training program or during postgraduate training.
A “core principle” in the guideline states that the length of IE training or achieved number of procedures performed are less important than the demonstration of procedure-specific competencies within the milestone domains of knowledge, skill, and communication.
“Transcatheter therapies for SHD continue to grow at a rapid pace, which means that the demand for skilled interventional echocardiographers has steadily increased,” Vera H. Rigolin, MD, co-chair of the guideline writing, says in the release.
“Training standards are needed to ensure that interventional echocardiographers have the necessary expertise to provide fast, accurate, and high-quality image acquisition and interpretation in real-time,” Dr. Rigolin adds.
In addition, the guidelines states that use of simulation training has a role in IE training.
Virtual and simulation training could shorten the learning curve for trainees and, when combined with remote learning, could permit societies to standardize a teaching curriculum and allow the trainee to complete training in a reasonable timeframe. Simulator training may also improve access to training and thus promote diversity and inclusivity, the writing group says.
The guideline has been endorsed by 21 ASE international partners.
Writing group co-chairs Little and Rigolin have declared no conflicts of interest. A complete list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) has issued guidance on all critical aspects of training for cardiology and anesthesiology trainees and postgraduate echocardiographers who plan to specialize in interventional echocardiography (IE).
The guideline outlines requirements of the training institution, the duration and core competencies of training, minimal procedural volume for competency in IE, and knowledge of specific structural health disease (SHD) procedures.
The 16-page guideline was published online in the Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography.
Specific skill set
IE is the primary imaging modality used to support and guide SHD interventions, such as heart valve replacements and other cardiac catheterization procedures, the writing group notes.
They say the “emerging specialty” of IE requires a specific set of skills to support an array of transcatheter therapies, with successful outcomes highly dependent on the skill of the echocardiography team.
“IE techniques are unique since imaging is performed in real-time, it is highly dependent on 3D and non-standard views, and it has immediate and profound implications for patient management,” Stephen H. Little, MD, ASE president and co-chair of the guideline writing group, says in a news release.
“Additionally, IE requires candid, accurate, and timely communication with other members of the multidisciplinary SHD team,” Dr. Little adds.
The new ASE guideline expands on the 2019 statement on echocardiography training put forward by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and ASE, by focusing specifically on interventional echocardiographers.
It outlines core competencies common to all transcatheter therapies, as well as specific transcatheter procedures. It provides consensus recommendations for specific knowledge, experience, and skills to be learned and demonstrated within an IE training program or during postgraduate training.
A “core principle” in the guideline states that the length of IE training or achieved number of procedures performed are less important than the demonstration of procedure-specific competencies within the milestone domains of knowledge, skill, and communication.
“Transcatheter therapies for SHD continue to grow at a rapid pace, which means that the demand for skilled interventional echocardiographers has steadily increased,” Vera H. Rigolin, MD, co-chair of the guideline writing, says in the release.
“Training standards are needed to ensure that interventional echocardiographers have the necessary expertise to provide fast, accurate, and high-quality image acquisition and interpretation in real-time,” Dr. Rigolin adds.
In addition, the guidelines states that use of simulation training has a role in IE training.
Virtual and simulation training could shorten the learning curve for trainees and, when combined with remote learning, could permit societies to standardize a teaching curriculum and allow the trainee to complete training in a reasonable timeframe. Simulator training may also improve access to training and thus promote diversity and inclusivity, the writing group says.
The guideline has been endorsed by 21 ASE international partners.
Writing group co-chairs Little and Rigolin have declared no conflicts of interest. A complete list of disclosures for the writing group is available with the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Spherical heart may predict cardiomyopathy, AFib
A round heart, or left ventricle sphericity, predicted cardiomyopathy and atrial fibrillation (AFib) in a deep learning analysis of MRI images from close to 39,000 participants in the UK Biobank, a new study shows.
An increase of 1 standard deviation in the sphericity index (short axis length/long axis length) was associated with a 47% increased incidence of cardiomyopathy and a 20% increased incidence of AFib, independent of clinical factors and traditional MRI measures.
Furthermore, a genetic analysis suggested a shared architecture between sphericity and nonischemic cardiomyopathy, pointing to NICM as a possible causal factor for left ventricle sphericity among individuals with normal LV size and function.
“Physicians have known the heart gets rounder after heart attacks and as we get older,” David Ouyang, MD, a cardiologist in the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and a researcher in the division of artificial intelligence in medicine, said in an interview. “We wanted to see if this sphericity is prognostic of future disease even in healthy individuals.”
Although it is too early to recommend heart shape assessment in healthy asymptomatic people, he said, “physicians should be extra careful and think about treatments when they notice a patient’s heart is particularly round.”
The study was published online March 29 in the journal Med.
Sphericity index key
The investigators hypothesized that there is variation in LV sphericity within the spectrum of normal LV chamber size and systolic function, and that such variation might be a marker of cardiac risk with genetic influences.
To test this hypothesis, they used automated deep-learning segmentation of cardiac MRI data to estimate and analyze the sphericity index in a cohort of 38,897 individuals participating in the UK Biobank.
After adjustment for age at MRI and sex, an increased sphericity index was associated with an increased risk for cardiomyopathy (hazard ratio, 1.57), AFib (HR, 1.35), and heart failure (HR, 1.37).
No significant association was seen with cardiac arrest.
The team then stratified the cohort into quintiles and compared the top 20%, middle 60%, and bottom 20%. The relationship between the sphericity index and risk extended across the distribution; individuals with higher than median sphericity had increased disease incidence, and those with lower than median sphericity had decreased incidence.
Overall, a single standard deviation in the sphericity index was associated with increased risk of cardiomyopathy (HR, 1.47) and of AFib (HR, 1.20), independent of clinical factors and usual MRI measurements.
In a minimally adjusted model, the sphericity index was a predictor of incident cardiomyopathy, AFib, and heart failure.
Adjustment for clinical factors partially attenuated the heart failure association; additional adjustment for MRI measurements fully attenuated that association and partially attenuated the association with AFib.
However, in all adjusted models, the association with cardiomyopathy showed little attenuation.
Furthermore, the team identified four loci associated with sphericity at genomewide significance – PLN, ANGPT1, PDZRN3, and HLA DR/DQ – and Mendelian randomization supported NICM as a cause of LV sphericity.
Looking ahead
“While conventional imaging metrics have significant diagnostic and prognostic value, some of these measurements have been adopted out of convenience or tradition,” the authors noted. “By representing a specific multidimensional remodeling phenotype, sphericity has emerged as a distinct morphologic trait with features not adequately captured by conventional measurements.
“We expect that the search space of potential imaging measurements is vast, and we have only begun to scratch at the surface of disease associations.”
Indeed, Dr. Ouyang said his group is “trying to evaluate the sphericity in echocardiograms or heart ultrasounds, which are more common and cheaper than MRI.”
“The main caveat is translating the information directly to patient care,” Richard C. Becker, MD, director and physician-in-chief of the University of Cincinnati Heart, Lung, and Vascular Institute, said in an interview. “Near-term yield could include using the spherical calculation in routine MRI of the heart, and based on the findings, following patients more closely if there is an abnormal shape. Or performing an MRI and targeted gene testing if there is a family history of cardiomyopathy or [of] an abnormal shape of the heart.”
“Validation of the findings and large-scale evaluation of the genes identified, and how they interact with patient and environmental factors, will be very important,” he added.
Nevertheless, “the study was well done and may serve as a foundation for future research,” Dr. Becker said. “The investigators used several powerful tools, including MRI, genomics, and [artificial intelligence] to draw their conclusions. This is precisely the way that ‘big data’ should be used – in a complementary fashion.”
The study authors and Dr. Becker reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A round heart, or left ventricle sphericity, predicted cardiomyopathy and atrial fibrillation (AFib) in a deep learning analysis of MRI images from close to 39,000 participants in the UK Biobank, a new study shows.
An increase of 1 standard deviation in the sphericity index (short axis length/long axis length) was associated with a 47% increased incidence of cardiomyopathy and a 20% increased incidence of AFib, independent of clinical factors and traditional MRI measures.
Furthermore, a genetic analysis suggested a shared architecture between sphericity and nonischemic cardiomyopathy, pointing to NICM as a possible causal factor for left ventricle sphericity among individuals with normal LV size and function.
“Physicians have known the heart gets rounder after heart attacks and as we get older,” David Ouyang, MD, a cardiologist in the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and a researcher in the division of artificial intelligence in medicine, said in an interview. “We wanted to see if this sphericity is prognostic of future disease even in healthy individuals.”
Although it is too early to recommend heart shape assessment in healthy asymptomatic people, he said, “physicians should be extra careful and think about treatments when they notice a patient’s heart is particularly round.”
The study was published online March 29 in the journal Med.
Sphericity index key
The investigators hypothesized that there is variation in LV sphericity within the spectrum of normal LV chamber size and systolic function, and that such variation might be a marker of cardiac risk with genetic influences.
To test this hypothesis, they used automated deep-learning segmentation of cardiac MRI data to estimate and analyze the sphericity index in a cohort of 38,897 individuals participating in the UK Biobank.
After adjustment for age at MRI and sex, an increased sphericity index was associated with an increased risk for cardiomyopathy (hazard ratio, 1.57), AFib (HR, 1.35), and heart failure (HR, 1.37).
No significant association was seen with cardiac arrest.
The team then stratified the cohort into quintiles and compared the top 20%, middle 60%, and bottom 20%. The relationship between the sphericity index and risk extended across the distribution; individuals with higher than median sphericity had increased disease incidence, and those with lower than median sphericity had decreased incidence.
Overall, a single standard deviation in the sphericity index was associated with increased risk of cardiomyopathy (HR, 1.47) and of AFib (HR, 1.20), independent of clinical factors and usual MRI measurements.
In a minimally adjusted model, the sphericity index was a predictor of incident cardiomyopathy, AFib, and heart failure.
Adjustment for clinical factors partially attenuated the heart failure association; additional adjustment for MRI measurements fully attenuated that association and partially attenuated the association with AFib.
However, in all adjusted models, the association with cardiomyopathy showed little attenuation.
Furthermore, the team identified four loci associated with sphericity at genomewide significance – PLN, ANGPT1, PDZRN3, and HLA DR/DQ – and Mendelian randomization supported NICM as a cause of LV sphericity.
Looking ahead
“While conventional imaging metrics have significant diagnostic and prognostic value, some of these measurements have been adopted out of convenience or tradition,” the authors noted. “By representing a specific multidimensional remodeling phenotype, sphericity has emerged as a distinct morphologic trait with features not adequately captured by conventional measurements.
“We expect that the search space of potential imaging measurements is vast, and we have only begun to scratch at the surface of disease associations.”
Indeed, Dr. Ouyang said his group is “trying to evaluate the sphericity in echocardiograms or heart ultrasounds, which are more common and cheaper than MRI.”
“The main caveat is translating the information directly to patient care,” Richard C. Becker, MD, director and physician-in-chief of the University of Cincinnati Heart, Lung, and Vascular Institute, said in an interview. “Near-term yield could include using the spherical calculation in routine MRI of the heart, and based on the findings, following patients more closely if there is an abnormal shape. Or performing an MRI and targeted gene testing if there is a family history of cardiomyopathy or [of] an abnormal shape of the heart.”
“Validation of the findings and large-scale evaluation of the genes identified, and how they interact with patient and environmental factors, will be very important,” he added.
Nevertheless, “the study was well done and may serve as a foundation for future research,” Dr. Becker said. “The investigators used several powerful tools, including MRI, genomics, and [artificial intelligence] to draw their conclusions. This is precisely the way that ‘big data’ should be used – in a complementary fashion.”
The study authors and Dr. Becker reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A round heart, or left ventricle sphericity, predicted cardiomyopathy and atrial fibrillation (AFib) in a deep learning analysis of MRI images from close to 39,000 participants in the UK Biobank, a new study shows.
An increase of 1 standard deviation in the sphericity index (short axis length/long axis length) was associated with a 47% increased incidence of cardiomyopathy and a 20% increased incidence of AFib, independent of clinical factors and traditional MRI measures.
Furthermore, a genetic analysis suggested a shared architecture between sphericity and nonischemic cardiomyopathy, pointing to NICM as a possible causal factor for left ventricle sphericity among individuals with normal LV size and function.
“Physicians have known the heart gets rounder after heart attacks and as we get older,” David Ouyang, MD, a cardiologist in the Smidt Heart Institute at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and a researcher in the division of artificial intelligence in medicine, said in an interview. “We wanted to see if this sphericity is prognostic of future disease even in healthy individuals.”
Although it is too early to recommend heart shape assessment in healthy asymptomatic people, he said, “physicians should be extra careful and think about treatments when they notice a patient’s heart is particularly round.”
The study was published online March 29 in the journal Med.
Sphericity index key
The investigators hypothesized that there is variation in LV sphericity within the spectrum of normal LV chamber size and systolic function, and that such variation might be a marker of cardiac risk with genetic influences.
To test this hypothesis, they used automated deep-learning segmentation of cardiac MRI data to estimate and analyze the sphericity index in a cohort of 38,897 individuals participating in the UK Biobank.
After adjustment for age at MRI and sex, an increased sphericity index was associated with an increased risk for cardiomyopathy (hazard ratio, 1.57), AFib (HR, 1.35), and heart failure (HR, 1.37).
No significant association was seen with cardiac arrest.
The team then stratified the cohort into quintiles and compared the top 20%, middle 60%, and bottom 20%. The relationship between the sphericity index and risk extended across the distribution; individuals with higher than median sphericity had increased disease incidence, and those with lower than median sphericity had decreased incidence.
Overall, a single standard deviation in the sphericity index was associated with increased risk of cardiomyopathy (HR, 1.47) and of AFib (HR, 1.20), independent of clinical factors and usual MRI measurements.
In a minimally adjusted model, the sphericity index was a predictor of incident cardiomyopathy, AFib, and heart failure.
Adjustment for clinical factors partially attenuated the heart failure association; additional adjustment for MRI measurements fully attenuated that association and partially attenuated the association with AFib.
However, in all adjusted models, the association with cardiomyopathy showed little attenuation.
Furthermore, the team identified four loci associated with sphericity at genomewide significance – PLN, ANGPT1, PDZRN3, and HLA DR/DQ – and Mendelian randomization supported NICM as a cause of LV sphericity.
Looking ahead
“While conventional imaging metrics have significant diagnostic and prognostic value, some of these measurements have been adopted out of convenience or tradition,” the authors noted. “By representing a specific multidimensional remodeling phenotype, sphericity has emerged as a distinct morphologic trait with features not adequately captured by conventional measurements.
“We expect that the search space of potential imaging measurements is vast, and we have only begun to scratch at the surface of disease associations.”
Indeed, Dr. Ouyang said his group is “trying to evaluate the sphericity in echocardiograms or heart ultrasounds, which are more common and cheaper than MRI.”
“The main caveat is translating the information directly to patient care,” Richard C. Becker, MD, director and physician-in-chief of the University of Cincinnati Heart, Lung, and Vascular Institute, said in an interview. “Near-term yield could include using the spherical calculation in routine MRI of the heart, and based on the findings, following patients more closely if there is an abnormal shape. Or performing an MRI and targeted gene testing if there is a family history of cardiomyopathy or [of] an abnormal shape of the heart.”
“Validation of the findings and large-scale evaluation of the genes identified, and how they interact with patient and environmental factors, will be very important,” he added.
Nevertheless, “the study was well done and may serve as a foundation for future research,” Dr. Becker said. “The investigators used several powerful tools, including MRI, genomics, and [artificial intelligence] to draw their conclusions. This is precisely the way that ‘big data’ should be used – in a complementary fashion.”
The study authors and Dr. Becker reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM MED
Subclinical CAD by CT predicts MI risk, with or without stenoses
About half of middle-aged adults in the community without cardiovascular (CV) symptoms have coronary atherosclerosis by CT angiography (CTA) that puts them at substantial risk for myocardial infarction (MI), suggests a prospective cohort study.
The 10% of participants who had subclinical disease considered obstructive at CTA showed a ninefold increased risk for MI over several years. Obstructive disease seemed to elevate risk more than subclinical disease that wasn’t obstructive but still considered extensive within the coronary arteries.
The findings, based on a Copenhagen General Population Study cohort, are new for CTA but consistent with research based on coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores and other ways to assess CV risk, say researchers.
Although all participants underwent CTA, such imaging isn’t used in the general population for atherosclerosis screening. But the findings may have implications for “opportunistic screening” for subclinical coronary disease at CTA conducted for other reasons, notes the study’s report, published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
“Identification of luminal obstructive or extensive subclinical coronary atherosclerosis” could potentially provide “clinically relevant, incremental risk assessment” in nonischemic patients who undergo cardiac CT or electrocardiogram-gated chest CT before procedures such as arrhythmia ablation or valve repair, it states.
Such patients found with subclinical coronary atherosclerosis might potentially “benefit from referral to intensified cardiovascular primary prevention therapy,” write the authors, led by Andreas Fuchs, MD, PhD, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet.
The group acknowledges the findings may not entirely apply to a non-Danish population.
A screening role for CTA?
Whether CTA has a role to play in adults without symptoms “is a big, open question in the field right now,” observed Ron Blankstein, MD, not associated with the current analysis, for this news organization.
Most population studies of CV risk prediction, such as MESA, have looked at CAC scores, not CTA, and have shown that “the more plaque individuals have, the higher the risk.” The current findings are similar but novel in coming from coronary CTA in a large asymptomatic community population, said Dr. Blankstein, who is director of cardiac CT at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
“It’s possible that patients who have obstructive plaque in general tend to have a larger amount of plaque as well,” he said. So, while the study suggests that “the more plaque individuals have, the worse their overall risk,” it also shows that the risk “is enhanced even more if they have obstructive disease.”
The Danish cohort analysis “provides a unique opportunity to study the contemporary natural history of coronary artery disease in the absence of intervention,” notes an accompanying editorial.
For example, both patients and clinicians were blinded to CTA results, and CV preventive therapies weren’t common, observe Michael McDermott, MBChB, and David E. Newby, DM, PhD, of the BHF Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Edinburgh.
The analysis suggests that subclinical coronary disease that is obstructive predicts MI risk more strongly than extensive coronary disease, they note, and may be present in two-thirds of MI patients. “This contrasts with symptomatic populations, where nonobstructive disease accounts for most future myocardial infarctions, presumably from plaque rupture.”
It also points to “strong associations between nonobstructive extensive disease and adverse plaque characteristics,” write Dr. McDermott and Dr. Newby. “This underscores the major importance of plaque burden” for the prediction of coronary events.
Graded risk
The analysis included 9,533 persons aged 40 and older without known ischemic heart disease or symptoms with available CTA assessments.
Obstructive disease, defined as presence of a luminal stenosis of at least 50%, was seen in 10% and nonobstructive disease in 36% of the total cohort, the report states.
Disease occupying more than one-third of the coronary tree was considered extensive and less than one-third of the coronaries nonextensive, occurring in 10.5% and 35.8% of the cohort, respectively.
There were 71 MIs and 193 deaths over a median of 3.5 years. The adjusted relative risk for MI, compared with those without coronary atherosclerosis, was:
- 7.65 (95% confidence interval, 3.53-16.57) overall in patients with extensive disease.
- 8.28 (95% CI, 3.75-18.32) in those with obstructive but nonextensive disease.
- 9.19 (95% CI, 4.49-18.82) overall in those with obstructive disease.
- 12.48 (95% CI, 5.50-28.12) in those with or obstructive and extensive disease.
The adjusted RR for the composite of death or MI was also elevated in persons with extensive disease:
- 2.70 (95% CI, 1.72-4.25) in those with extensive but nonobstructive disease.
- 3.15 (95% CI, 2.05-4.83) in those with extensive and obstructive disease.
“It’s one thing to show that the more plaque, the higher the risk,” Dr. Blankstein said. But “does the information ultimately lead to better outcomes? Do patients have fewer MIs or fewer deaths?” Several ongoing randomized trials are exploring these questions.
They include DANE-HEART (Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography for Primary Prevention), projected to enroll about 6,000 participants from the Copenhagen General Population Study cohort who have at least one CV risk factor, and SCOT-HEART 2 (second Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography for the Prevention of Myocardial Infarction), enrolling a similar cohort in Scotland.
The study was supported by grants from AP Møller og Hustru Chastine Mc-Kinney Møllers Fond, the Research Council of Rigshospitalet, and Danish Heart Foundation. Dr. Fuchs reports no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors can be found here. Dr. Blankstein recently disclosed serving as a consultant to Amgen, Caristo Diagnostics, Novartis, and Silence Therapeutics. Disclosures for Dr. McDermott and Dr. Newby, who are SCOT-HEART 2 investigators, can be found here.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
About half of middle-aged adults in the community without cardiovascular (CV) symptoms have coronary atherosclerosis by CT angiography (CTA) that puts them at substantial risk for myocardial infarction (MI), suggests a prospective cohort study.
The 10% of participants who had subclinical disease considered obstructive at CTA showed a ninefold increased risk for MI over several years. Obstructive disease seemed to elevate risk more than subclinical disease that wasn’t obstructive but still considered extensive within the coronary arteries.
The findings, based on a Copenhagen General Population Study cohort, are new for CTA but consistent with research based on coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores and other ways to assess CV risk, say researchers.
Although all participants underwent CTA, such imaging isn’t used in the general population for atherosclerosis screening. But the findings may have implications for “opportunistic screening” for subclinical coronary disease at CTA conducted for other reasons, notes the study’s report, published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
“Identification of luminal obstructive or extensive subclinical coronary atherosclerosis” could potentially provide “clinically relevant, incremental risk assessment” in nonischemic patients who undergo cardiac CT or electrocardiogram-gated chest CT before procedures such as arrhythmia ablation or valve repair, it states.
Such patients found with subclinical coronary atherosclerosis might potentially “benefit from referral to intensified cardiovascular primary prevention therapy,” write the authors, led by Andreas Fuchs, MD, PhD, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet.
The group acknowledges the findings may not entirely apply to a non-Danish population.
A screening role for CTA?
Whether CTA has a role to play in adults without symptoms “is a big, open question in the field right now,” observed Ron Blankstein, MD, not associated with the current analysis, for this news organization.
Most population studies of CV risk prediction, such as MESA, have looked at CAC scores, not CTA, and have shown that “the more plaque individuals have, the higher the risk.” The current findings are similar but novel in coming from coronary CTA in a large asymptomatic community population, said Dr. Blankstein, who is director of cardiac CT at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
“It’s possible that patients who have obstructive plaque in general tend to have a larger amount of plaque as well,” he said. So, while the study suggests that “the more plaque individuals have, the worse their overall risk,” it also shows that the risk “is enhanced even more if they have obstructive disease.”
The Danish cohort analysis “provides a unique opportunity to study the contemporary natural history of coronary artery disease in the absence of intervention,” notes an accompanying editorial.
For example, both patients and clinicians were blinded to CTA results, and CV preventive therapies weren’t common, observe Michael McDermott, MBChB, and David E. Newby, DM, PhD, of the BHF Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Edinburgh.
The analysis suggests that subclinical coronary disease that is obstructive predicts MI risk more strongly than extensive coronary disease, they note, and may be present in two-thirds of MI patients. “This contrasts with symptomatic populations, where nonobstructive disease accounts for most future myocardial infarctions, presumably from plaque rupture.”
It also points to “strong associations between nonobstructive extensive disease and adverse plaque characteristics,” write Dr. McDermott and Dr. Newby. “This underscores the major importance of plaque burden” for the prediction of coronary events.
Graded risk
The analysis included 9,533 persons aged 40 and older without known ischemic heart disease or symptoms with available CTA assessments.
Obstructive disease, defined as presence of a luminal stenosis of at least 50%, was seen in 10% and nonobstructive disease in 36% of the total cohort, the report states.
Disease occupying more than one-third of the coronary tree was considered extensive and less than one-third of the coronaries nonextensive, occurring in 10.5% and 35.8% of the cohort, respectively.
There were 71 MIs and 193 deaths over a median of 3.5 years. The adjusted relative risk for MI, compared with those without coronary atherosclerosis, was:
- 7.65 (95% confidence interval, 3.53-16.57) overall in patients with extensive disease.
- 8.28 (95% CI, 3.75-18.32) in those with obstructive but nonextensive disease.
- 9.19 (95% CI, 4.49-18.82) overall in those with obstructive disease.
- 12.48 (95% CI, 5.50-28.12) in those with or obstructive and extensive disease.
The adjusted RR for the composite of death or MI was also elevated in persons with extensive disease:
- 2.70 (95% CI, 1.72-4.25) in those with extensive but nonobstructive disease.
- 3.15 (95% CI, 2.05-4.83) in those with extensive and obstructive disease.
“It’s one thing to show that the more plaque, the higher the risk,” Dr. Blankstein said. But “does the information ultimately lead to better outcomes? Do patients have fewer MIs or fewer deaths?” Several ongoing randomized trials are exploring these questions.
They include DANE-HEART (Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography for Primary Prevention), projected to enroll about 6,000 participants from the Copenhagen General Population Study cohort who have at least one CV risk factor, and SCOT-HEART 2 (second Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography for the Prevention of Myocardial Infarction), enrolling a similar cohort in Scotland.
The study was supported by grants from AP Møller og Hustru Chastine Mc-Kinney Møllers Fond, the Research Council of Rigshospitalet, and Danish Heart Foundation. Dr. Fuchs reports no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors can be found here. Dr. Blankstein recently disclosed serving as a consultant to Amgen, Caristo Diagnostics, Novartis, and Silence Therapeutics. Disclosures for Dr. McDermott and Dr. Newby, who are SCOT-HEART 2 investigators, can be found here.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
About half of middle-aged adults in the community without cardiovascular (CV) symptoms have coronary atherosclerosis by CT angiography (CTA) that puts them at substantial risk for myocardial infarction (MI), suggests a prospective cohort study.
The 10% of participants who had subclinical disease considered obstructive at CTA showed a ninefold increased risk for MI over several years. Obstructive disease seemed to elevate risk more than subclinical disease that wasn’t obstructive but still considered extensive within the coronary arteries.
The findings, based on a Copenhagen General Population Study cohort, are new for CTA but consistent with research based on coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores and other ways to assess CV risk, say researchers.
Although all participants underwent CTA, such imaging isn’t used in the general population for atherosclerosis screening. But the findings may have implications for “opportunistic screening” for subclinical coronary disease at CTA conducted for other reasons, notes the study’s report, published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
“Identification of luminal obstructive or extensive subclinical coronary atherosclerosis” could potentially provide “clinically relevant, incremental risk assessment” in nonischemic patients who undergo cardiac CT or electrocardiogram-gated chest CT before procedures such as arrhythmia ablation or valve repair, it states.
Such patients found with subclinical coronary atherosclerosis might potentially “benefit from referral to intensified cardiovascular primary prevention therapy,” write the authors, led by Andreas Fuchs, MD, PhD, Copenhagen University Hospital-Rigshospitalet.
The group acknowledges the findings may not entirely apply to a non-Danish population.
A screening role for CTA?
Whether CTA has a role to play in adults without symptoms “is a big, open question in the field right now,” observed Ron Blankstein, MD, not associated with the current analysis, for this news organization.
Most population studies of CV risk prediction, such as MESA, have looked at CAC scores, not CTA, and have shown that “the more plaque individuals have, the higher the risk.” The current findings are similar but novel in coming from coronary CTA in a large asymptomatic community population, said Dr. Blankstein, who is director of cardiac CT at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
“It’s possible that patients who have obstructive plaque in general tend to have a larger amount of plaque as well,” he said. So, while the study suggests that “the more plaque individuals have, the worse their overall risk,” it also shows that the risk “is enhanced even more if they have obstructive disease.”
The Danish cohort analysis “provides a unique opportunity to study the contemporary natural history of coronary artery disease in the absence of intervention,” notes an accompanying editorial.
For example, both patients and clinicians were blinded to CTA results, and CV preventive therapies weren’t common, observe Michael McDermott, MBChB, and David E. Newby, DM, PhD, of the BHF Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Edinburgh.
The analysis suggests that subclinical coronary disease that is obstructive predicts MI risk more strongly than extensive coronary disease, they note, and may be present in two-thirds of MI patients. “This contrasts with symptomatic populations, where nonobstructive disease accounts for most future myocardial infarctions, presumably from plaque rupture.”
It also points to “strong associations between nonobstructive extensive disease and adverse plaque characteristics,” write Dr. McDermott and Dr. Newby. “This underscores the major importance of plaque burden” for the prediction of coronary events.
Graded risk
The analysis included 9,533 persons aged 40 and older without known ischemic heart disease or symptoms with available CTA assessments.
Obstructive disease, defined as presence of a luminal stenosis of at least 50%, was seen in 10% and nonobstructive disease in 36% of the total cohort, the report states.
Disease occupying more than one-third of the coronary tree was considered extensive and less than one-third of the coronaries nonextensive, occurring in 10.5% and 35.8% of the cohort, respectively.
There were 71 MIs and 193 deaths over a median of 3.5 years. The adjusted relative risk for MI, compared with those without coronary atherosclerosis, was:
- 7.65 (95% confidence interval, 3.53-16.57) overall in patients with extensive disease.
- 8.28 (95% CI, 3.75-18.32) in those with obstructive but nonextensive disease.
- 9.19 (95% CI, 4.49-18.82) overall in those with obstructive disease.
- 12.48 (95% CI, 5.50-28.12) in those with or obstructive and extensive disease.
The adjusted RR for the composite of death or MI was also elevated in persons with extensive disease:
- 2.70 (95% CI, 1.72-4.25) in those with extensive but nonobstructive disease.
- 3.15 (95% CI, 2.05-4.83) in those with extensive and obstructive disease.
“It’s one thing to show that the more plaque, the higher the risk,” Dr. Blankstein said. But “does the information ultimately lead to better outcomes? Do patients have fewer MIs or fewer deaths?” Several ongoing randomized trials are exploring these questions.
They include DANE-HEART (Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography for Primary Prevention), projected to enroll about 6,000 participants from the Copenhagen General Population Study cohort who have at least one CV risk factor, and SCOT-HEART 2 (second Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography for the Prevention of Myocardial Infarction), enrolling a similar cohort in Scotland.
The study was supported by grants from AP Møller og Hustru Chastine Mc-Kinney Møllers Fond, the Research Council of Rigshospitalet, and Danish Heart Foundation. Dr. Fuchs reports no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other authors can be found here. Dr. Blankstein recently disclosed serving as a consultant to Amgen, Caristo Diagnostics, Novartis, and Silence Therapeutics. Disclosures for Dr. McDermott and Dr. Newby, who are SCOT-HEART 2 investigators, can be found here.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID can mimic prostate cancer symptoms
This patient has a strong likelihood of aggressive prostate cancer, right? If that same patient also presents with severe, burning bone pain with no precipitating trauma to the area and rest and over-the-counter painkillers are not helping, you’d think, “check for metastases,” right?
That patient was me in late January 2023.
As a research scientist member of the American Urological Association, I knew enough to know I had to consult my urologist ASAP.
With the above symptoms, I’ll admit I was scared. Fortunately, if that’s the right word, I was no stranger to a rapid, dramatic spike in PSA. In 2021 I was temporarily living in a new city, and I wanted to form a relationship with a good local urologist. The urologist that I was referred to gave me a thorough consultation, including a vigorous digital rectal exam (DRE) and sent me across the street for a blood draw.
To my shock, my PSA had spiked over 2 points, to 9.9 from 7.8 a few months earlier. I freaked. Had my 3-cm tumor burst out into an aggressive cancer? Research on PubMed provided an array of studies showing what could cause PSA to suddenly rise, including a DRE performed 72 hours before the blood draw.1 A week later, my PSA was back down to its normal 7.6.
But in January 2023, I had none of those previously reported experiences that could suddenly trigger a spike in PSA, like a DRE or riding on a thin bicycle seat for a few hours before the lab visit.
The COVID effect
I went back to PubMed and found a new circumstance that could cause a surge in PSA: COVID-19. A recent study2 of 91 men with benign prostatic hypertrophy by researchers in Turkey found that PSA spiked from 0 to 5 points during the COVID infection period and up to 2 points higher 3 months after the infection had cleared. I had tested positive for COVID-19 in mid-December 2022, 4 weeks before my 9.9 PSA reading.
Using Google translate, I communicated with the team in Turkey and found out that the PSA spike can last up to 6 months.
That study helps explain why my PSA dropped over 1.5 points to 8.5 just 2 weeks after the 9.9 reading, with the expectation that it would return to its previous normal of 7.8 within 6 months of infection with SARS-CoV-2. To be safe, my urologist scheduled another PSA test in May, along with an updated multiparametric MRI, which may be followed by an in-bore MRI-guided biopsy of the 3-cm tumor if the mass has enlarged.
COVID-19 pain
What about my burning bone pain in my upper right humerus and right rotator cuff that was not precipitated by trauma or strain? A radiograph found no evidence of metastasis, thank goodness. And my research showed that several studies3 have found that COVID-19 can cause burning musculoskeletal pain, including enthesopathy, which is what I had per the radiology report. So my PSA spike and searing pain were likely consequences of the infection.
To avoid the risk for a gross misdiagnosis after a radical spike in PSA, the informed urologist should ask the patient if he has had COVID-19 in the previous 6 months. Overlooking that question could lead to the wrong diagnostic decisions about a rapid jump in PSA or unexplained bone pain.
References
1. Bossens MM et al. Eur J Cancer. 1995;31A:682-5.
2. Cinislioglu AE et al. Urology. 2022;159:16-21.
3. Ciaffi J et al. Joint Bone Spine. 2021;88:105158.
Dr. Keller is founder of the Keller Research Institute, Jacksonville, Fla. He reported serving as a research scientist for the American Urological Association, serving on the advisory board of Active Surveillance Patient’s International, and serving on the boards of numerous nonprofit organizations.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This patient has a strong likelihood of aggressive prostate cancer, right? If that same patient also presents with severe, burning bone pain with no precipitating trauma to the area and rest and over-the-counter painkillers are not helping, you’d think, “check for metastases,” right?
That patient was me in late January 2023.
As a research scientist member of the American Urological Association, I knew enough to know I had to consult my urologist ASAP.
With the above symptoms, I’ll admit I was scared. Fortunately, if that’s the right word, I was no stranger to a rapid, dramatic spike in PSA. In 2021 I was temporarily living in a new city, and I wanted to form a relationship with a good local urologist. The urologist that I was referred to gave me a thorough consultation, including a vigorous digital rectal exam (DRE) and sent me across the street for a blood draw.
To my shock, my PSA had spiked over 2 points, to 9.9 from 7.8 a few months earlier. I freaked. Had my 3-cm tumor burst out into an aggressive cancer? Research on PubMed provided an array of studies showing what could cause PSA to suddenly rise, including a DRE performed 72 hours before the blood draw.1 A week later, my PSA was back down to its normal 7.6.
But in January 2023, I had none of those previously reported experiences that could suddenly trigger a spike in PSA, like a DRE or riding on a thin bicycle seat for a few hours before the lab visit.
The COVID effect
I went back to PubMed and found a new circumstance that could cause a surge in PSA: COVID-19. A recent study2 of 91 men with benign prostatic hypertrophy by researchers in Turkey found that PSA spiked from 0 to 5 points during the COVID infection period and up to 2 points higher 3 months after the infection had cleared. I had tested positive for COVID-19 in mid-December 2022, 4 weeks before my 9.9 PSA reading.
Using Google translate, I communicated with the team in Turkey and found out that the PSA spike can last up to 6 months.
That study helps explain why my PSA dropped over 1.5 points to 8.5 just 2 weeks after the 9.9 reading, with the expectation that it would return to its previous normal of 7.8 within 6 months of infection with SARS-CoV-2. To be safe, my urologist scheduled another PSA test in May, along with an updated multiparametric MRI, which may be followed by an in-bore MRI-guided biopsy of the 3-cm tumor if the mass has enlarged.
COVID-19 pain
What about my burning bone pain in my upper right humerus and right rotator cuff that was not precipitated by trauma or strain? A radiograph found no evidence of metastasis, thank goodness. And my research showed that several studies3 have found that COVID-19 can cause burning musculoskeletal pain, including enthesopathy, which is what I had per the radiology report. So my PSA spike and searing pain were likely consequences of the infection.
To avoid the risk for a gross misdiagnosis after a radical spike in PSA, the informed urologist should ask the patient if he has had COVID-19 in the previous 6 months. Overlooking that question could lead to the wrong diagnostic decisions about a rapid jump in PSA or unexplained bone pain.
References
1. Bossens MM et al. Eur J Cancer. 1995;31A:682-5.
2. Cinislioglu AE et al. Urology. 2022;159:16-21.
3. Ciaffi J et al. Joint Bone Spine. 2021;88:105158.
Dr. Keller is founder of the Keller Research Institute, Jacksonville, Fla. He reported serving as a research scientist for the American Urological Association, serving on the advisory board of Active Surveillance Patient’s International, and serving on the boards of numerous nonprofit organizations.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This patient has a strong likelihood of aggressive prostate cancer, right? If that same patient also presents with severe, burning bone pain with no precipitating trauma to the area and rest and over-the-counter painkillers are not helping, you’d think, “check for metastases,” right?
That patient was me in late January 2023.
As a research scientist member of the American Urological Association, I knew enough to know I had to consult my urologist ASAP.
With the above symptoms, I’ll admit I was scared. Fortunately, if that’s the right word, I was no stranger to a rapid, dramatic spike in PSA. In 2021 I was temporarily living in a new city, and I wanted to form a relationship with a good local urologist. The urologist that I was referred to gave me a thorough consultation, including a vigorous digital rectal exam (DRE) and sent me across the street for a blood draw.
To my shock, my PSA had spiked over 2 points, to 9.9 from 7.8 a few months earlier. I freaked. Had my 3-cm tumor burst out into an aggressive cancer? Research on PubMed provided an array of studies showing what could cause PSA to suddenly rise, including a DRE performed 72 hours before the blood draw.1 A week later, my PSA was back down to its normal 7.6.
But in January 2023, I had none of those previously reported experiences that could suddenly trigger a spike in PSA, like a DRE or riding on a thin bicycle seat for a few hours before the lab visit.
The COVID effect
I went back to PubMed and found a new circumstance that could cause a surge in PSA: COVID-19. A recent study2 of 91 men with benign prostatic hypertrophy by researchers in Turkey found that PSA spiked from 0 to 5 points during the COVID infection period and up to 2 points higher 3 months after the infection had cleared. I had tested positive for COVID-19 in mid-December 2022, 4 weeks before my 9.9 PSA reading.
Using Google translate, I communicated with the team in Turkey and found out that the PSA spike can last up to 6 months.
That study helps explain why my PSA dropped over 1.5 points to 8.5 just 2 weeks after the 9.9 reading, with the expectation that it would return to its previous normal of 7.8 within 6 months of infection with SARS-CoV-2. To be safe, my urologist scheduled another PSA test in May, along with an updated multiparametric MRI, which may be followed by an in-bore MRI-guided biopsy of the 3-cm tumor if the mass has enlarged.
COVID-19 pain
What about my burning bone pain in my upper right humerus and right rotator cuff that was not precipitated by trauma or strain? A radiograph found no evidence of metastasis, thank goodness. And my research showed that several studies3 have found that COVID-19 can cause burning musculoskeletal pain, including enthesopathy, which is what I had per the radiology report. So my PSA spike and searing pain were likely consequences of the infection.
To avoid the risk for a gross misdiagnosis after a radical spike in PSA, the informed urologist should ask the patient if he has had COVID-19 in the previous 6 months. Overlooking that question could lead to the wrong diagnostic decisions about a rapid jump in PSA or unexplained bone pain.
References
1. Bossens MM et al. Eur J Cancer. 1995;31A:682-5.
2. Cinislioglu AE et al. Urology. 2022;159:16-21.
3. Ciaffi J et al. Joint Bone Spine. 2021;88:105158.
Dr. Keller is founder of the Keller Research Institute, Jacksonville, Fla. He reported serving as a research scientist for the American Urological Association, serving on the advisory board of Active Surveillance Patient’s International, and serving on the boards of numerous nonprofit organizations.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Older men more at risk as dangerous falls rise for all seniors
When Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fell recently at a dinner event in Washington, he unfortunately joined a large group of his senior citizen peers.
This wasn’t the first tumble the 81-year-old has taken. In 2019, he fell in his home, fracturing his shoulder. This time, he got a concussion and was recently released to an in-patient rehabilitation facility. While Sen. McConnell didn’t fracture his skull, in falling and hitting his head, he became part of an emerging statistic: One that reveals falls are more dangerous for senior men than senior women.
This new research, which appeared in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine, came as a surprise to lead researcher Scott Alter, MD, associate professor of emergency medicine at the Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton.
“We always hear about lower bone density rates among females, so we didn’t expect to see males with more skull fractures,” he said.
Dr. Alter said that as a clinician in a southern Florida facility, his emergency department was the perfect study grounds to evaluate incoming geriatric patients due to falls. Older “patients are at higher risk of skull fractures and intercranial bleeding, and we wanted to look at any patient presenting with a head injury. Some 80% were fall related, however.”
The statistics bear out the fact that falls of all types are common among the elderly: Some 800,000 seniors wind up in the hospital each year because of falls.
The numbers show death rates from falls are on the rise in the senior citizen age group, too, up 30% from 2007 to 2016. Falls account for 70% of accidental deaths in people 75 and older. They are the leading cause of injury-related visits to emergency departments in the country, too.
Jennifer Stevens, MD, a gerontologist and executive director at Florida-based Abbey Delray South, is aware of the dire numbers and sees their consequences regularly. “The reasons seniors are at a high fall risk are many,” she said. “They include balance issues, declining strength, diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, side effects of their medications, and more.”
In addition, many seniors live in spaces that are not necessarily equipped for their limitations, and hazards exist all over their homes. Put together, and the risks for falls are everywhere. But there are steps seniors, their families, and even middle-aged people can take to mitigate and hopefully prevent dangerous falls.
Starting early
While in many cases the journey to lessen fall risks begins after a fall, the time to begin addressing the issue is long before you hit your senior years. Mary Therese Cole, a physical therapist and certified dementia practitioner at Manual Edge Physical Therapy in Colorado Springs, Colo., says that age 50 is a good time to start paying attention and addressing physical declines.
“This is an age where your vision might begin deteriorating,” she said. “It’s a big reason why elderly people trip and fall.”
As our brains begin to age in our middle years, the neural pathways from brain to extremities start to decline, too. The result is that many people stop picking up their feet as well as they used to do, making them more likely to trip.
“You’re not elderly yet, but you’re not a spring chicken, either,” Ms. Cole said. “Any issues you have now will only get worse if you’re not working on them.”
A good starting point in middle age, then, is to work on both strength training and balance exercises. A certified personal trainer or physical therapist can help get you on a program to ward off many of these declines.
If you’ve reached your later years, however, and are experiencing physical declines, it’s smart to check in with your primary care doctor for an assessment. “He or she can get your started on regular PT to evaluate any shortcomings and then address them,” Ms. Cole said.
She noted that when she’s working with senior patients, she’ll test their strength getting into and out of a chair, do a manual strength test to check on lower extremities, check their walking stride, and ask about conditions such as diabetes, former surgeries, and other conditions.
From there, Ms. Cole said she can write up a plan for the patient. Likewise, Dr. Stevens uses a program called Be Active that allows her to test seniors on a variety of measurements, including flexibility, balance, hand strength, and more.
“Then we match them with classes to address their shortcomings,” she said. “It’s critical that seniors have the ability to recover and not fall if they get knocked off balance.”
Beyond working on your physical limitations, taking a good look at your home is essential, too. “You can have an occupational therapist come to your home and do an evaluation,” Dr. Stevens said. “They can help you rearrange and reorganize for a safer environment.”
Big, common household fall hazards include throw rugs, lack of nightlights for middle-of-the-night visits to the bathroom, a lack of grab bars in the shower/bathtub, and furniture that blocks pathways.
For his part, Dr. Alter likes to point seniors and their doctors to the CDC’s STEADI program, which is aimed at stopping elderly accidents, deaths, and injuries.
“It includes screening for fall risk, assessing factors you can modify or improve, and more tools,” he said.
Dr. Alter also recommended seniors talk to their doctors about medications, particularly blood thinners.
“At a certain point, you need to weigh the benefits of disease prevention with the risk of injury if you fall,” he said. “The bleeding risk might be too high if the patient is at a high risk of falls.”
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
When Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fell recently at a dinner event in Washington, he unfortunately joined a large group of his senior citizen peers.
This wasn’t the first tumble the 81-year-old has taken. In 2019, he fell in his home, fracturing his shoulder. This time, he got a concussion and was recently released to an in-patient rehabilitation facility. While Sen. McConnell didn’t fracture his skull, in falling and hitting his head, he became part of an emerging statistic: One that reveals falls are more dangerous for senior men than senior women.
This new research, which appeared in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine, came as a surprise to lead researcher Scott Alter, MD, associate professor of emergency medicine at the Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton.
“We always hear about lower bone density rates among females, so we didn’t expect to see males with more skull fractures,” he said.
Dr. Alter said that as a clinician in a southern Florida facility, his emergency department was the perfect study grounds to evaluate incoming geriatric patients due to falls. Older “patients are at higher risk of skull fractures and intercranial bleeding, and we wanted to look at any patient presenting with a head injury. Some 80% were fall related, however.”
The statistics bear out the fact that falls of all types are common among the elderly: Some 800,000 seniors wind up in the hospital each year because of falls.
The numbers show death rates from falls are on the rise in the senior citizen age group, too, up 30% from 2007 to 2016. Falls account for 70% of accidental deaths in people 75 and older. They are the leading cause of injury-related visits to emergency departments in the country, too.
Jennifer Stevens, MD, a gerontologist and executive director at Florida-based Abbey Delray South, is aware of the dire numbers and sees their consequences regularly. “The reasons seniors are at a high fall risk are many,” she said. “They include balance issues, declining strength, diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, side effects of their medications, and more.”
In addition, many seniors live in spaces that are not necessarily equipped for their limitations, and hazards exist all over their homes. Put together, and the risks for falls are everywhere. But there are steps seniors, their families, and even middle-aged people can take to mitigate and hopefully prevent dangerous falls.
Starting early
While in many cases the journey to lessen fall risks begins after a fall, the time to begin addressing the issue is long before you hit your senior years. Mary Therese Cole, a physical therapist and certified dementia practitioner at Manual Edge Physical Therapy in Colorado Springs, Colo., says that age 50 is a good time to start paying attention and addressing physical declines.
“This is an age where your vision might begin deteriorating,” she said. “It’s a big reason why elderly people trip and fall.”
As our brains begin to age in our middle years, the neural pathways from brain to extremities start to decline, too. The result is that many people stop picking up their feet as well as they used to do, making them more likely to trip.
“You’re not elderly yet, but you’re not a spring chicken, either,” Ms. Cole said. “Any issues you have now will only get worse if you’re not working on them.”
A good starting point in middle age, then, is to work on both strength training and balance exercises. A certified personal trainer or physical therapist can help get you on a program to ward off many of these declines.
If you’ve reached your later years, however, and are experiencing physical declines, it’s smart to check in with your primary care doctor for an assessment. “He or she can get your started on regular PT to evaluate any shortcomings and then address them,” Ms. Cole said.
She noted that when she’s working with senior patients, she’ll test their strength getting into and out of a chair, do a manual strength test to check on lower extremities, check their walking stride, and ask about conditions such as diabetes, former surgeries, and other conditions.
From there, Ms. Cole said she can write up a plan for the patient. Likewise, Dr. Stevens uses a program called Be Active that allows her to test seniors on a variety of measurements, including flexibility, balance, hand strength, and more.
“Then we match them with classes to address their shortcomings,” she said. “It’s critical that seniors have the ability to recover and not fall if they get knocked off balance.”
Beyond working on your physical limitations, taking a good look at your home is essential, too. “You can have an occupational therapist come to your home and do an evaluation,” Dr. Stevens said. “They can help you rearrange and reorganize for a safer environment.”
Big, common household fall hazards include throw rugs, lack of nightlights for middle-of-the-night visits to the bathroom, a lack of grab bars in the shower/bathtub, and furniture that blocks pathways.
For his part, Dr. Alter likes to point seniors and their doctors to the CDC’s STEADI program, which is aimed at stopping elderly accidents, deaths, and injuries.
“It includes screening for fall risk, assessing factors you can modify or improve, and more tools,” he said.
Dr. Alter also recommended seniors talk to their doctors about medications, particularly blood thinners.
“At a certain point, you need to weigh the benefits of disease prevention with the risk of injury if you fall,” he said. “The bleeding risk might be too high if the patient is at a high risk of falls.”
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
When Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fell recently at a dinner event in Washington, he unfortunately joined a large group of his senior citizen peers.
This wasn’t the first tumble the 81-year-old has taken. In 2019, he fell in his home, fracturing his shoulder. This time, he got a concussion and was recently released to an in-patient rehabilitation facility. While Sen. McConnell didn’t fracture his skull, in falling and hitting his head, he became part of an emerging statistic: One that reveals falls are more dangerous for senior men than senior women.
This new research, which appeared in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine, came as a surprise to lead researcher Scott Alter, MD, associate professor of emergency medicine at the Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton.
“We always hear about lower bone density rates among females, so we didn’t expect to see males with more skull fractures,” he said.
Dr. Alter said that as a clinician in a southern Florida facility, his emergency department was the perfect study grounds to evaluate incoming geriatric patients due to falls. Older “patients are at higher risk of skull fractures and intercranial bleeding, and we wanted to look at any patient presenting with a head injury. Some 80% were fall related, however.”
The statistics bear out the fact that falls of all types are common among the elderly: Some 800,000 seniors wind up in the hospital each year because of falls.
The numbers show death rates from falls are on the rise in the senior citizen age group, too, up 30% from 2007 to 2016. Falls account for 70% of accidental deaths in people 75 and older. They are the leading cause of injury-related visits to emergency departments in the country, too.
Jennifer Stevens, MD, a gerontologist and executive director at Florida-based Abbey Delray South, is aware of the dire numbers and sees their consequences regularly. “The reasons seniors are at a high fall risk are many,” she said. “They include balance issues, declining strength, diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, side effects of their medications, and more.”
In addition, many seniors live in spaces that are not necessarily equipped for their limitations, and hazards exist all over their homes. Put together, and the risks for falls are everywhere. But there are steps seniors, their families, and even middle-aged people can take to mitigate and hopefully prevent dangerous falls.
Starting early
While in many cases the journey to lessen fall risks begins after a fall, the time to begin addressing the issue is long before you hit your senior years. Mary Therese Cole, a physical therapist and certified dementia practitioner at Manual Edge Physical Therapy in Colorado Springs, Colo., says that age 50 is a good time to start paying attention and addressing physical declines.
“This is an age where your vision might begin deteriorating,” she said. “It’s a big reason why elderly people trip and fall.”
As our brains begin to age in our middle years, the neural pathways from brain to extremities start to decline, too. The result is that many people stop picking up their feet as well as they used to do, making them more likely to trip.
“You’re not elderly yet, but you’re not a spring chicken, either,” Ms. Cole said. “Any issues you have now will only get worse if you’re not working on them.”
A good starting point in middle age, then, is to work on both strength training and balance exercises. A certified personal trainer or physical therapist can help get you on a program to ward off many of these declines.
If you’ve reached your later years, however, and are experiencing physical declines, it’s smart to check in with your primary care doctor for an assessment. “He or she can get your started on regular PT to evaluate any shortcomings and then address them,” Ms. Cole said.
She noted that when she’s working with senior patients, she’ll test their strength getting into and out of a chair, do a manual strength test to check on lower extremities, check their walking stride, and ask about conditions such as diabetes, former surgeries, and other conditions.
From there, Ms. Cole said she can write up a plan for the patient. Likewise, Dr. Stevens uses a program called Be Active that allows her to test seniors on a variety of measurements, including flexibility, balance, hand strength, and more.
“Then we match them with classes to address their shortcomings,” she said. “It’s critical that seniors have the ability to recover and not fall if they get knocked off balance.”
Beyond working on your physical limitations, taking a good look at your home is essential, too. “You can have an occupational therapist come to your home and do an evaluation,” Dr. Stevens said. “They can help you rearrange and reorganize for a safer environment.”
Big, common household fall hazards include throw rugs, lack of nightlights for middle-of-the-night visits to the bathroom, a lack of grab bars in the shower/bathtub, and furniture that blocks pathways.
For his part, Dr. Alter likes to point seniors and their doctors to the CDC’s STEADI program, which is aimed at stopping elderly accidents, deaths, and injuries.
“It includes screening for fall risk, assessing factors you can modify or improve, and more tools,” he said.
Dr. Alter also recommended seniors talk to their doctors about medications, particularly blood thinners.
“At a certain point, you need to weigh the benefits of disease prevention with the risk of injury if you fall,” he said. “The bleeding risk might be too high if the patient is at a high risk of falls.”
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
Must-read acute care medicine articles from 2022
When 2022 began, we started seeing some light at the end of the COVID-19 tunnel. Vaccines were widely available, and even with new variants of the virus still occasionally emerging, the rates of severe morbidity and mortality appeared to be decreasing.
Expectedly, journals appeared to start moving more toward mainstream topics and publications rather than what seemed like a major focus on COVID-19 publications. The resulting literature was fantastic.
Several of those topics were discussed in a prior Emergency Medicine Viewpoint from this news organization, and many more of the research advances of 2022 will be discussed in the near future. However, in this Viewpoint, I would like to present my annual review of my three “must-read” articles of the past year.
As in past years, I am choosing reviews of the literature rather than original research articles (which, all too often, become outdated or debunked within a few years). I choose these articles in the hopes that readers will not simply settle for my brief reviews of the key points but instead will feel compelled to download and read the entire articles. These publications address common conditions and quandaries we face in the daily practice of emergency medicine and are practice-changing.
Myocardial dysfunction after cardiac arrest: Tips and pitfalls
The management of post–cardiac arrest patients remains a hot topic in the resuscitation literature as we continue to understand that the immediate post-arrest period is critical to patient outcome.
Ortuno and colleagues reviewed the current literature on post-arrest care and wrote an outstanding summary of how to optimally care for these patients. More specifically, they focused on post-arrest patients who demonstrate continued shock, or “post–cardiac arrest myocardial dysfunction” (PCAMD).
They propose three mechanisms for the pathogenesis of PCAMD: ischemia reperfusion phenomenon, systemic inflammatory response, and increased catecholamine release
I will skip through the details of the pathophysiology that they describe in the article, but I certainly do recommend that everyone review their descriptions.
Management of these patients begins with a good hemodynamic assessment, which includes clinical markers of perfusion (blood pressure, capillary refill), ECG, and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). If the initial assessment reveals an obvious cause of the cardiac arrest (e.g., massive pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, pericardial tamponade), then the underlying cause should be treated expeditiously.
In the absence of an obvious treatable cause of the shock, the fluid status and cardiac function should be addressed with POCUS. If the patient is hypovolemic, intravenous fluids should be administered. If the fluid status is adequate, POCUS should be used to estimate the patient’s ventricular function. If the ventricle appears to be hyperdynamic with good contractility, shock should be treated with norepinephrine. On the other hand, if the ventricle is hypodynamic, dobutamine should be substituted for norepinephrine or, more often, added to norepinephrine.
The above represents a simplified summary of the critical points, but the authors do delve into further detail and also discuss some other options for therapies, including steroids, coronary revascularization, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and so on. The review is very thoughtful, thorough, and definitely worth a full read.
Top myths of diagnosis and management of infectious diseases in hospital medicine
Most, if not all of us in medicine, have heard the saying that 50% of what we learn in medical school (or residency) will turn out to be wrong. I certainly believe in this concept and consequently, like many of you, I enjoy reading about myths and misconceptions that we have been taught. With that in mind, I have to say that I love this article because it seems to have been written specifically to address what I was taught!
This author group, consisting mostly of clinical PharmDs who are experts in antibiotic use, provide us with an evidence-based discussion of myths and pitfalls in how antibiotics are often used in current clinical practice. The authors review their top 10 myths involving the use of antibiotics in treating infections in the hospital setting. A few of these relate more to the inpatient setting, but here are my favorite emergency department (ED)–related myths that they address:
- “Antibiotics do no harm.” The authors address the risk-benefit of antibiotics based on assumed vs. confirmed infections, including a brief discussion of adverse drug effects.
- “Antibiotic durations of 7, 14, or 21 days are typically necessary.” The authors address appropriate duration of antibiotic use and the fact that unnecessarily long durations of use can lead to resistance. They also provide reassurance that some infections can be treated with quite short durations of antibiotics.
- “If one drug is good, two (or more!) is better.” The use of multiple antibiotics, often with overlapping bacterial coverage, is rampant in medicine and further increases the risk for adverse drug effects and resistance.
- “Oral antibiotics are not as good as intravenous antibiotics for hospitalized patients.” This is definitely a myth that I learned. I recall being taught by many senior physicians that anyone sick enough for admission should be treated with intravenous antibiotics. As it turns out, absorption and effectiveness of most oral antibiotics is just as good as intravenous antibiotics, and the oral formulations are often safer.
- “A history of a penicillin allergy means the patient can never receive a beta-lactam antibiotic.” This is a myth that was debunked quite a few years ago, but it seems that many clinicians still need a reminder.
The authors included five more myths that are worth the read. This is an article that needs to be disseminated among all hospital clinicians.
Guidelines for low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department
The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) recently initiated a program focused on creating evidence-based approaches to challenging chief complaints and presentations in the emergency department (ED). In 2021, they published an approach to managing patients with recurrent, low-risk chest pain in the ED. This past year, they published their second guideline, focused on the management of patients with low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the ED.
Recurrent low-risk abdominal pain is a common and vexing presentation to EDs around the world, and there is little prior published guidance. Do all of these patients need repeat imaging? How do we manage their pain? Are there nonabdominal conditions that should be considered?
Broder and colleagues did a fantastic review of the current literature and, on behalf of SAEM, have provided a rational approach to optimal management of these patients. The four major questions they addressed, with brief summaries of their recommendations, are:
- Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive a repeat CT abdomen-pelvis (CTAP) after a negative CTAP within the past 12 months? This is a typical question that we all ponder when managing these patients. Unfortunately, the writing group found insufficient evidence to definitively identify populations in whom CTAP was recommended vs could be safely withheld. It is a bit disappointing that there is no definite answer to the question. On the other hand, it is reassuring to know that the world’s best evidence essentially says that it is perfectly appropriate to use your own good clinical judgment.
- Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain with a negative CTAP receive additional imaging with abdominal ultrasound? In this case, the writing group found enough evidence, though low-level, to suggest against routine ultrasound in the absence of concern specifically for pelvic or hepatobiliary pathology. Like most tests, ultrasound is best used when there are specific concerns rather than being used in an undifferentiated fashion.
- Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive screening for depression/anxiety? The writing group found enough evidence, though low-level again, to suggest that screening for depression and/or anxiety be performed during the ED evaluation. This could lead to successful therapy for the abdominal pain.
- Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive nonopioid and/or nonpharmacologic analgesics? The writing group found little evidence to suggest for or against these analgesics, but they made a consensus recommendation suggesting an opioid-minimizing strategy for pain control.
Although the final recommendations of the writing group were not definitive or based on the strongest level of evidence, I find it helpful to have this guidance, nevertheless, on behalf of a major national organization. I also find it helpful to know that even with the best evidence available, optimal patient care will often boil down to physician experience and gestalt. I should also add that the overall article is chock-full of pearls and helpful information that will further inform the readers’ decisions, and so the full version is definitely worth the read.
In summary
There you have it – my three favorite practice-changing articles of 2022. Although I have tried to provide key points here, the full discussions of those key points in the published articles will provide a great deal more education than I can offer in this brief write-up, and so I strongly encourage everyone to read the full versions. Please be sure to include in the comments section your own pick for favorite or must-read articles from the past year.
Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When 2022 began, we started seeing some light at the end of the COVID-19 tunnel. Vaccines were widely available, and even with new variants of the virus still occasionally emerging, the rates of severe morbidity and mortality appeared to be decreasing.
Expectedly, journals appeared to start moving more toward mainstream topics and publications rather than what seemed like a major focus on COVID-19 publications. The resulting literature was fantastic.
Several of those topics were discussed in a prior Emergency Medicine Viewpoint from this news organization, and many more of the research advances of 2022 will be discussed in the near future. However, in this Viewpoint, I would like to present my annual review of my three “must-read” articles of the past year.
As in past years, I am choosing reviews of the literature rather than original research articles (which, all too often, become outdated or debunked within a few years). I choose these articles in the hopes that readers will not simply settle for my brief reviews of the key points but instead will feel compelled to download and read the entire articles. These publications address common conditions and quandaries we face in the daily practice of emergency medicine and are practice-changing.
Myocardial dysfunction after cardiac arrest: Tips and pitfalls
The management of post–cardiac arrest patients remains a hot topic in the resuscitation literature as we continue to understand that the immediate post-arrest period is critical to patient outcome.
Ortuno and colleagues reviewed the current literature on post-arrest care and wrote an outstanding summary of how to optimally care for these patients. More specifically, they focused on post-arrest patients who demonstrate continued shock, or “post–cardiac arrest myocardial dysfunction” (PCAMD).
They propose three mechanisms for the pathogenesis of PCAMD: ischemia reperfusion phenomenon, systemic inflammatory response, and increased catecholamine release
I will skip through the details of the pathophysiology that they describe in the article, but I certainly do recommend that everyone review their descriptions.
Management of these patients begins with a good hemodynamic assessment, which includes clinical markers of perfusion (blood pressure, capillary refill), ECG, and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). If the initial assessment reveals an obvious cause of the cardiac arrest (e.g., massive pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, pericardial tamponade), then the underlying cause should be treated expeditiously.
In the absence of an obvious treatable cause of the shock, the fluid status and cardiac function should be addressed with POCUS. If the patient is hypovolemic, intravenous fluids should be administered. If the fluid status is adequate, POCUS should be used to estimate the patient’s ventricular function. If the ventricle appears to be hyperdynamic with good contractility, shock should be treated with norepinephrine. On the other hand, if the ventricle is hypodynamic, dobutamine should be substituted for norepinephrine or, more often, added to norepinephrine.
The above represents a simplified summary of the critical points, but the authors do delve into further detail and also discuss some other options for therapies, including steroids, coronary revascularization, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and so on. The review is very thoughtful, thorough, and definitely worth a full read.
Top myths of diagnosis and management of infectious diseases in hospital medicine
Most, if not all of us in medicine, have heard the saying that 50% of what we learn in medical school (or residency) will turn out to be wrong. I certainly believe in this concept and consequently, like many of you, I enjoy reading about myths and misconceptions that we have been taught. With that in mind, I have to say that I love this article because it seems to have been written specifically to address what I was taught!
This author group, consisting mostly of clinical PharmDs who are experts in antibiotic use, provide us with an evidence-based discussion of myths and pitfalls in how antibiotics are often used in current clinical practice. The authors review their top 10 myths involving the use of antibiotics in treating infections in the hospital setting. A few of these relate more to the inpatient setting, but here are my favorite emergency department (ED)–related myths that they address:
- “Antibiotics do no harm.” The authors address the risk-benefit of antibiotics based on assumed vs. confirmed infections, including a brief discussion of adverse drug effects.
- “Antibiotic durations of 7, 14, or 21 days are typically necessary.” The authors address appropriate duration of antibiotic use and the fact that unnecessarily long durations of use can lead to resistance. They also provide reassurance that some infections can be treated with quite short durations of antibiotics.
- “If one drug is good, two (or more!) is better.” The use of multiple antibiotics, often with overlapping bacterial coverage, is rampant in medicine and further increases the risk for adverse drug effects and resistance.
- “Oral antibiotics are not as good as intravenous antibiotics for hospitalized patients.” This is definitely a myth that I learned. I recall being taught by many senior physicians that anyone sick enough for admission should be treated with intravenous antibiotics. As it turns out, absorption and effectiveness of most oral antibiotics is just as good as intravenous antibiotics, and the oral formulations are often safer.
- “A history of a penicillin allergy means the patient can never receive a beta-lactam antibiotic.” This is a myth that was debunked quite a few years ago, but it seems that many clinicians still need a reminder.
The authors included five more myths that are worth the read. This is an article that needs to be disseminated among all hospital clinicians.
Guidelines for low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department
The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) recently initiated a program focused on creating evidence-based approaches to challenging chief complaints and presentations in the emergency department (ED). In 2021, they published an approach to managing patients with recurrent, low-risk chest pain in the ED. This past year, they published their second guideline, focused on the management of patients with low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the ED.
Recurrent low-risk abdominal pain is a common and vexing presentation to EDs around the world, and there is little prior published guidance. Do all of these patients need repeat imaging? How do we manage their pain? Are there nonabdominal conditions that should be considered?
Broder and colleagues did a fantastic review of the current literature and, on behalf of SAEM, have provided a rational approach to optimal management of these patients. The four major questions they addressed, with brief summaries of their recommendations, are:
- Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive a repeat CT abdomen-pelvis (CTAP) after a negative CTAP within the past 12 months? This is a typical question that we all ponder when managing these patients. Unfortunately, the writing group found insufficient evidence to definitively identify populations in whom CTAP was recommended vs could be safely withheld. It is a bit disappointing that there is no definite answer to the question. On the other hand, it is reassuring to know that the world’s best evidence essentially says that it is perfectly appropriate to use your own good clinical judgment.
- Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain with a negative CTAP receive additional imaging with abdominal ultrasound? In this case, the writing group found enough evidence, though low-level, to suggest against routine ultrasound in the absence of concern specifically for pelvic or hepatobiliary pathology. Like most tests, ultrasound is best used when there are specific concerns rather than being used in an undifferentiated fashion.
- Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive screening for depression/anxiety? The writing group found enough evidence, though low-level again, to suggest that screening for depression and/or anxiety be performed during the ED evaluation. This could lead to successful therapy for the abdominal pain.
- Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive nonopioid and/or nonpharmacologic analgesics? The writing group found little evidence to suggest for or against these analgesics, but they made a consensus recommendation suggesting an opioid-minimizing strategy for pain control.
Although the final recommendations of the writing group were not definitive or based on the strongest level of evidence, I find it helpful to have this guidance, nevertheless, on behalf of a major national organization. I also find it helpful to know that even with the best evidence available, optimal patient care will often boil down to physician experience and gestalt. I should also add that the overall article is chock-full of pearls and helpful information that will further inform the readers’ decisions, and so the full version is definitely worth the read.
In summary
There you have it – my three favorite practice-changing articles of 2022. Although I have tried to provide key points here, the full discussions of those key points in the published articles will provide a great deal more education than I can offer in this brief write-up, and so I strongly encourage everyone to read the full versions. Please be sure to include in the comments section your own pick for favorite or must-read articles from the past year.
Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
When 2022 began, we started seeing some light at the end of the COVID-19 tunnel. Vaccines were widely available, and even with new variants of the virus still occasionally emerging, the rates of severe morbidity and mortality appeared to be decreasing.
Expectedly, journals appeared to start moving more toward mainstream topics and publications rather than what seemed like a major focus on COVID-19 publications. The resulting literature was fantastic.
Several of those topics were discussed in a prior Emergency Medicine Viewpoint from this news organization, and many more of the research advances of 2022 will be discussed in the near future. However, in this Viewpoint, I would like to present my annual review of my three “must-read” articles of the past year.
As in past years, I am choosing reviews of the literature rather than original research articles (which, all too often, become outdated or debunked within a few years). I choose these articles in the hopes that readers will not simply settle for my brief reviews of the key points but instead will feel compelled to download and read the entire articles. These publications address common conditions and quandaries we face in the daily practice of emergency medicine and are practice-changing.
Myocardial dysfunction after cardiac arrest: Tips and pitfalls
The management of post–cardiac arrest patients remains a hot topic in the resuscitation literature as we continue to understand that the immediate post-arrest period is critical to patient outcome.
Ortuno and colleagues reviewed the current literature on post-arrest care and wrote an outstanding summary of how to optimally care for these patients. More specifically, they focused on post-arrest patients who demonstrate continued shock, or “post–cardiac arrest myocardial dysfunction” (PCAMD).
They propose three mechanisms for the pathogenesis of PCAMD: ischemia reperfusion phenomenon, systemic inflammatory response, and increased catecholamine release
I will skip through the details of the pathophysiology that they describe in the article, but I certainly do recommend that everyone review their descriptions.
Management of these patients begins with a good hemodynamic assessment, which includes clinical markers of perfusion (blood pressure, capillary refill), ECG, and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). If the initial assessment reveals an obvious cause of the cardiac arrest (e.g., massive pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, pericardial tamponade), then the underlying cause should be treated expeditiously.
In the absence of an obvious treatable cause of the shock, the fluid status and cardiac function should be addressed with POCUS. If the patient is hypovolemic, intravenous fluids should be administered. If the fluid status is adequate, POCUS should be used to estimate the patient’s ventricular function. If the ventricle appears to be hyperdynamic with good contractility, shock should be treated with norepinephrine. On the other hand, if the ventricle is hypodynamic, dobutamine should be substituted for norepinephrine or, more often, added to norepinephrine.
The above represents a simplified summary of the critical points, but the authors do delve into further detail and also discuss some other options for therapies, including steroids, coronary revascularization, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and so on. The review is very thoughtful, thorough, and definitely worth a full read.
Top myths of diagnosis and management of infectious diseases in hospital medicine
Most, if not all of us in medicine, have heard the saying that 50% of what we learn in medical school (or residency) will turn out to be wrong. I certainly believe in this concept and consequently, like many of you, I enjoy reading about myths and misconceptions that we have been taught. With that in mind, I have to say that I love this article because it seems to have been written specifically to address what I was taught!
This author group, consisting mostly of clinical PharmDs who are experts in antibiotic use, provide us with an evidence-based discussion of myths and pitfalls in how antibiotics are often used in current clinical practice. The authors review their top 10 myths involving the use of antibiotics in treating infections in the hospital setting. A few of these relate more to the inpatient setting, but here are my favorite emergency department (ED)–related myths that they address:
- “Antibiotics do no harm.” The authors address the risk-benefit of antibiotics based on assumed vs. confirmed infections, including a brief discussion of adverse drug effects.
- “Antibiotic durations of 7, 14, or 21 days are typically necessary.” The authors address appropriate duration of antibiotic use and the fact that unnecessarily long durations of use can lead to resistance. They also provide reassurance that some infections can be treated with quite short durations of antibiotics.
- “If one drug is good, two (or more!) is better.” The use of multiple antibiotics, often with overlapping bacterial coverage, is rampant in medicine and further increases the risk for adverse drug effects and resistance.
- “Oral antibiotics are not as good as intravenous antibiotics for hospitalized patients.” This is definitely a myth that I learned. I recall being taught by many senior physicians that anyone sick enough for admission should be treated with intravenous antibiotics. As it turns out, absorption and effectiveness of most oral antibiotics is just as good as intravenous antibiotics, and the oral formulations are often safer.
- “A history of a penicillin allergy means the patient can never receive a beta-lactam antibiotic.” This is a myth that was debunked quite a few years ago, but it seems that many clinicians still need a reminder.
The authors included five more myths that are worth the read. This is an article that needs to be disseminated among all hospital clinicians.
Guidelines for low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the emergency department
The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) recently initiated a program focused on creating evidence-based approaches to challenging chief complaints and presentations in the emergency department (ED). In 2021, they published an approach to managing patients with recurrent, low-risk chest pain in the ED. This past year, they published their second guideline, focused on the management of patients with low-risk, recurrent abdominal pain in the ED.
Recurrent low-risk abdominal pain is a common and vexing presentation to EDs around the world, and there is little prior published guidance. Do all of these patients need repeat imaging? How do we manage their pain? Are there nonabdominal conditions that should be considered?
Broder and colleagues did a fantastic review of the current literature and, on behalf of SAEM, have provided a rational approach to optimal management of these patients. The four major questions they addressed, with brief summaries of their recommendations, are:
- Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive a repeat CT abdomen-pelvis (CTAP) after a negative CTAP within the past 12 months? This is a typical question that we all ponder when managing these patients. Unfortunately, the writing group found insufficient evidence to definitively identify populations in whom CTAP was recommended vs could be safely withheld. It is a bit disappointing that there is no definite answer to the question. On the other hand, it is reassuring to know that the world’s best evidence essentially says that it is perfectly appropriate to use your own good clinical judgment.
- Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain with a negative CTAP receive additional imaging with abdominal ultrasound? In this case, the writing group found enough evidence, though low-level, to suggest against routine ultrasound in the absence of concern specifically for pelvic or hepatobiliary pathology. Like most tests, ultrasound is best used when there are specific concerns rather than being used in an undifferentiated fashion.
- Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive screening for depression/anxiety? The writing group found enough evidence, though low-level again, to suggest that screening for depression and/or anxiety be performed during the ED evaluation. This could lead to successful therapy for the abdominal pain.
- Should adult ED patients with low-risk, recurrent, and previously undifferentiated abdominal pain receive nonopioid and/or nonpharmacologic analgesics? The writing group found little evidence to suggest for or against these analgesics, but they made a consensus recommendation suggesting an opioid-minimizing strategy for pain control.
Although the final recommendations of the writing group were not definitive or based on the strongest level of evidence, I find it helpful to have this guidance, nevertheless, on behalf of a major national organization. I also find it helpful to know that even with the best evidence available, optimal patient care will often boil down to physician experience and gestalt. I should also add that the overall article is chock-full of pearls and helpful information that will further inform the readers’ decisions, and so the full version is definitely worth the read.
In summary
There you have it – my three favorite practice-changing articles of 2022. Although I have tried to provide key points here, the full discussions of those key points in the published articles will provide a great deal more education than I can offer in this brief write-up, and so I strongly encourage everyone to read the full versions. Please be sure to include in the comments section your own pick for favorite or must-read articles from the past year.
Amal Mattu, MD, is a professor, vice chair of education, and codirector of the emergency cardiology fellowship in the department of emergency medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.