Posts

March 9th, 2013

Following an Embargo Break PREVAIL Trial Won’t be Presented at ACC

For more of our ACC.13 coverage of late-breaking clinical trials, interviews with the authors of the most important research, and blogs from our fellows on the most interesting presentations at the meeting, check out our Coverage Headquarters.

The already complicated story behind the PREVAIL trial, which was designed to confirm the safety and efficacy of the Watchman left atrial appendage closure device, just got even more complicated. This morning, after the trial’s sponsor, Boston Scientific, prematurely distributed to investors a press release summarizing the results of the trial, the ACC announced that the scheduled presentation of the results at the main opening session of the meeting would not take place.

Stop Sign

By way of background, last week Boston Scientific first announced that the principal investigator of the trial, David Holmes, would only “present the acute procedural safety results” from the trial. Then the company reversed itself two days later and announced that Holmes would present all three co-primary endpoints.

Holmes’ intended presentation this morning at the ACC in San Francisco makes clear why there was so much confusion. (The slides from his presentation have been made available to the media.) Although the trial results appear largely positive, the trial missed one of its three primary endpoints, and experts will likely spend a lot of time and energy trying to interpret the results.

PREVAIL, the slides explained, was designed to alleviate lingering concerns about the safety and efficacy of the WATCHMAN device left over from the earlier PROTECT AF trial and the continued access program (CAP). A total of 407 atrial fibrillation patients were randomized — 269 to the Watchman device arm and 138 to the warfarin control arm.

The acute results, according to the slides, were positive. The trial met the first primary endpoint, which was the acute occurrence of death, ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, and procedure or device related complications requiring major cardiovascular or endovascular intervention. There were 6 acute events in the device group, resulting in a 2.2% event rate. The upper confidence boundary of 2.618% was within the prespecified criterion for the endpoint.

The two other co-primary endpoints rely on comparisons between the groups at 18 months. Interpretation of these results is made difficult because although all patients in the trial have now been followed for at least six months, only 30 of 138 control patients and 58 of 269 device patients have been followed for 18 months.

The trial missed the second primary endpoint, the comparison between groups of the  composite of stroke, systemic embolism, and cardiovascular/unexplained death at 18 months. The 18-month rate was 6.4% in both groups. The rate ratio for the device group was 1.07. The upper bound of the confidence interval, which was 0.57-1.88, did not fall within the prespecified success criterion of 1.75. Holmes noted, however, that so far only a limited number of patients have been followed through 18 months, and that the confidence intervals may narrow as more events are recorded.

The third primary endpoint was the comparison of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism occurring after day 7. At 18 months the event rate was 2.53% in the device arm versus 2.01% in the control arm, which met the prespecified criterion for non-inferiority.

In its press release, Boston Scientific claimed that the trial showed that the “device continues to demonstrate positive clinical outcomes for patients with atrial fibrillation.” I’ve spoken with a number of experts who think that it is difficult to derive any sort of conclusion about the trial at this time.

This story will be updated as necessary.

Here is the press release that Boston Scientific issued:

THE BOSTON SCIENTIFIC WATCHMAN® DEVICE CONTINUES TO DEMONSTRATE POSITIVE CLINICAL OUTCOMES FOR PATIENTS WITH ATRIAL FIBRILLATION

Natick, Mass. (March 9, 2013) – Boston Scientific Corporation (NYSE: BSX) reports preliminary data in the PREVAIL clinical trial met two out of three co-primary endpoints.  The safety and efficacy data were presented today as a Late-Breaking Clinical Trial presentation at the 62nd Annual Scientific Sessions of the American College of Cardiology in San Francisco by David R. Holmes, Jr., M.D., the coordinating principal investigator of the PREVAIL trial and a cardiologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota.

The PREVAIL trial evaluates safety and efficacy of the WATCHMAN® Left Atrial Appendage (LAA) Closure device in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation versus long-term warfarin therapy.  The device is designed to close off the LAA, a major source of clots in patients with atrial fibrillation, and reduce the risk of stroke, potentially eliminating the need for long-term use of blood-thinning medications.

The prospective, randomized PREVAIL trial enrolled 407 patients at 41 sites and compared the WATCHMAN device to warfarin in high-risk patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation eligible for long-term warfarin therapy.  PREVAIL builds on data from the PROTECT AF clinical trial which enrolled 707 randomized patients treated with either the WATCHMAN device or standard warfarin therapy to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the WATCHMAN technology.  The PREVAIL trial was designed to confirm the results of the PROTECT AF trial and validate the safety of the implant procedure, including at least 25 percent of subjects treated by new operators.

Preliminary Results

The PREVAIL trial met the pre-specified criteria for the first co-primary endpoint of occurrence of all-cause death, ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, or device or procedure-related events requiring open cardiac surgery or major endovascular intervention (randomization to seven days post procedure or by hospital discharge, whichever is later).  The trial did not meet the pre-specified criteria for the second co-primary endpoint of the occurrence of all stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic), cardiovascular death and systemic embolism at 18 months.  While the second co-primary efficacy endpoint was not met, the device performed similar to warfarin with a rate ratio of 1.07.  The PREVAIL trial met its pre-specified endpoint for the third co-primary endpoint of the composite of the occurrence of late ischemic stroke and systemic embolism (eight days post randomization and onward) at 18 months.  The reported endpoint results are preliminary and require final validation.

Specifically, safety data demonstrated an increase in implant success rate overall (95.0 percent), and with new operators (93.2 percent), compared to PROTECT AF (90.9 percent).  The overall seven-day serious procedure/device related complication rate was 4.4 percent in PREVAIL vs. 8.7 percent in PROTECT AF, a 49 percent relative reduction.  A key result of the PREVAIL trial was that pericardial effusions requiring intervention occurred at a rate comparable to other left atrial procedures.  PREVAIL reported a 1.9 percent event rate vs. 4.0 percent in PROTECT AF, a 52 percent relative reduction.  Additionally, new operators had only one occurrence (1.0 percent) of pericardial effusion requiring intervention with no device embolization, peri-procedural strokes or cardiac perforation.

“The results of the PREVAIL trial add to the wealth of previously published data confirming the utility of the WATCHMAN device as an option for the reduction of stroke in high risk patients,” said Kenneth Stein, M.D., chief medical officer, Cardiac Rhythm Management, Boston Scientific. “WATCHMAN is the only device-based alternative to anticoagulation that has undergone rigorous scientific study.  We are pleased the PREVAIL results showed low complication rates with both new and experienced operators and significantly lower complications than the early stage of the PROTECT AF trial.”

Data from the PREVAIL trial, complemented by the PROTECT AF four-year outcomes data, the WATCHMAN Pilot study six-year data, the ASAP study and the CAP registry data update will be submitted to support device approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The WATCHMAN device was approved for sale in Europe in 2005 and some countries in Asia in 2009.  It is already commercially available in 40 countries worldwide.  In the United States, WATCHMAN is an investigational device, limited by applicable law to investigational use and not available for sale.  The device was developed by Atritech, which Boston Scientific acquired in March 2011.  Please visit http://www.bostonscientific.com/PREVAIL for more information.  Images of the WATCHMAN device are available for download at http://bostonscientific.mediaroom.com/image-gallery?mode=gallery&cat=1760.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) affects approximately 15 million patients worldwide and is a disorder that disrupts the ability of the heart to beat regularly and pump blood efficiently.  AF patients have a five times greater risk of stroke.  Blood-thinning medications have previously been the only therapy for reducing stroke risk in these patients.  Boston Scientific offers an alternative to chronic medication.  The WATCHMAN device is introduced into the heart via a flexible tube (catheter) through a vein in the groin and closes off the LAA.

Both Mayo Clinic and Dr. Holmes have a financial interest in technology related to this research.

About Boston Scientific

Boston Scientific transforms lives through innovative medical solutions that improve the health of patients around the world.  As a global medical technology leader for more than 30 years, we advance science for life by providing a broad range of high performance solutions that address unmet patient needs and reduce the cost of healthcare.  For more information, visit www.bostonscientific.com and connect on Twitter and Facebook.

Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Forward-looking statements may be identified by words like “anticipate,” “expect,” “project,” “believe,” “plan,” “estimate,” “intend” and similar words.  These forward-looking statements are based on our beliefs, assumptions and estimates using information available to us at the time and are not intended to be guarantees of future events or performance.  These forward-looking statements include, among other things, statements regarding regulatory submissions and approvals, clinical trials and the impact of their results, product performance and competitive offerings.  If our underlying assumptions turn out to be incorrect, or if certain risks or uncertainties materialize, actual results could vary materially from the expectations and projections expressed or implied by our forward-looking statements.  These factors, in some cases, have affected and in the future (together with other factors) could affect our ability to implement our business strategy and may cause actual results to differ materially from those contemplated by the statements expressed in this press release.  As a result, readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any of our forward-looking statements.

Factors that may cause such differences include, among other things: future economic, competitive, reimbursement and regulatory conditions; final clinical trial results; new product introductions; demographic trends; intellectual property; litigation; financial market conditions; and future business decisions made by us and our competitors.  All of these factors are difficult or impossible to predict accurately and many of them are beyond our control.  For a further list and description of these and other important risks and uncertainties that may affect our future operations, see Part I, Item 1A – Risk Factors in our most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which we may update in Part II, Item 1A – Risk Factors in Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q we have filed or will file hereafter.  We disclaim any intention or obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements to reflect any change in our expectations or in events, conditions or circumstances on which those expectations may be based, or that may affect the likelihood that actual results will differ from those contained in the forward-looking statements.  This cautionary statement is applicable to all forward-looking statements contained in this document.

CONTACT:

Steven Campanini
508-652-5740 (office)
214-546-5034 (cell, March 7 – March 11)
Global Media Relations
Boston Scientific Corporation
media@bsci.com

Michael Campbell
508-650-8023 (office)
Investor Relations
Boston Scientific Corporation

March 9th, 2013

Data Sources for Young Investigators: Blogging from ACC.13

Several Cardiology Fellows who are attending ACC.13 in San Francisco this week are blogging for CardioExchange. The Fellows include Tariq AhmadMegan CoylewrightJeremiah DeptaKumar Dharmarajan Payal Kohli, and  Sandeep Mangalmurti. View the previous post here and the next one here.  

I just attended a great session entitled “Getting Access to Data: Where Can Young Investigators Get Started in Clinical Research.” The session was co-moderated by Tracy Wang from Duke and Robert Yeh from MGH. The panel included Fred Masoudi from UC Denver, Lesley Curtis from Duke, and Gregg Fonarow from UCLA.

Here are some important take home points:

  1. Any trainee can submit a research proposal to the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR). If the proposal is approved, the trainee may be able to receive full analytic support directly from the NCDR. No experience in outcomes research is needed to submit a proposal, but keep in mind that the selection process is merit-based, so proposals will need to be of high quality.
  2. Access to Medicare fee-for-service claims data entails significantly more challenges. Depending on the patient cohort, costs can range from approximately $3,000 to over $40,000 per year of data. Data use agreements are relatively narrow, and new proposals that leverage already purchased data will require a re-use fee. Data files may require significant processing following their receipt. To conduct research with Medicare claims data, young investigators will almost always need to collaborate with more senior investigators with access to the data and expertise in its analysis.
  3. The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) data set from the AHRQ can be a great data source to understand trends over time in hospital-based care for the diversity of patients within 44 states, not just Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. The data set is relatively inexpensive and easy to use for young investigators still learning how to program in SAS, STATA, and other languages.
  4. The Get with the Guidelines (GWTG) registries are rich data sources similar to the NCDR databases. As with NCDR, there is a formal mechanism for proposal submission and review. Data resides at an analytic center, and proposals can receive biostatistical support. GWTG also has a young investigator seed grant program to help trainees fund study analysis and travel to conferences to present their results.
  5. Older prospective clinical trials and longitudinal patient cohorts can be great sources of data depending on the clinical question. In some cases, this data may be publicly available and/or linked to longitudinal claims data. Examples include data from the DIG study in heart failure and the Cardiovascular Health Study.
  6. Don’t be discouraged if your institution does not have strong mentorship in outcomes research. The panelists presenting today have all helped young investigators at other institutions work through the processes of study design, data analysis, paper writing, paper submission, and publication. Don’t hesitate to reach out to senior outcomes researchers at other institutions who have expertise in the database and study domain you intend to study.

For more of our ACC.13 coverage of late-breaking clinical trials, interviews with the authors of the most important research, and blogs from our fellows on the most interesting presentations at the meeting, check out our Coverage Headquarters.

March 9th, 2013

A Fellow Reflects on the Program and on her Progress from Observer to Educator: Blogging on ACC.13

Several Cardiology Fellows who are attending ACC.13 in San Francisco this week are blogging for CardioExchange. The Fellows include Tariq AhmadMegan CoylewrightJeremiah DeptaKumar Dharmarajan Payal Kohli, and  Sandeep Mangalmurti. View the previous post here, view the next post here, and for more of our ACC.13 coverage of late-breaking clinical trials, interviews with the authors of the most important research, and blogs from our fellows on the most interesting presentations at the meeting, check out our Coverage Headquarters.

As time goes on, the meetings seems to cycle through even faster. As a fellow, the first few meetings are experienced as an observer, then a participant on the margins, and as we progress, we speak in oral sessions and somehow begin to become educators. It mirrors our development in our own institutions, but on a much broader scale.

The process is deliberate, and steeped in history and tradition.I think of this as I board my Delta flight in Minneapolis and am cheerily greeted by a community of Mayo educators on the plane: Dr. Jaffe, defining our use of troponin; Dr. Klarich, an expert in echo and clinical cardiology, and my own program director; and Dr. Gersh, perhaps the quintessential traveler, as well as educator to us all.

In the past year, I’ve learned more about the role of the ACC as an educational force, and as I peruse the program, it has never been more true. The TCT/ACC track is filled with great topics, including patient selection for TAVR and periprocedural complications. The live cases this afternoon will feature our cath lab at Mayo. And tonight, I have the opportunity to present at a session highlighting best practices in aortic stenosis, with a panel that again reminds me of the tradition our field has in excellence in clinical care, research and education: Drs. Mack, Holmes, Nishimura, O’Gara, and others.

Looking forward to hearing what you all are learning today…

March 7th, 2013

Hospitals Are Seeing Rapidly Growing Numbers of Adults with Congenital Heart Disease

Hospitals are treating increasing numbers of adults with congenital heart disease, thanks to tremendous progress in treatment for this condition in recent decades. A clear picture of this dramatic change emerges in a new study, presented at the ACC in San Francisco and published simultaneously in JAMA.

Jared O’Leary and colleagues analyzed data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample and compared congenital heart disease hospital admissions from 1998 through June 30, 2004, with those from July 1, 2004, through 2010. From the first period to the second, adult admissions grew much more rapidly than pediatric admissions.

  • Adult admissions increased by 87.8%, from 331,162 in the first half to 622,084 in the second half.
  • Pediatric admissions increased by 32.8%, from 815,471 to 1,082,540.

Adults constituted a growing percentage — from 28.9% to 36.5% — of congenital heart disease admissions.

The authors wrote that the “observed trend is likely due to a number of independent forces including better congenital heart disease survival, an aging population, and accumulating comorbidities. Limited availability of quality outpatient services may also contribute.”

March 6th, 2013

The Influence of Medical School Gift Restrictions on Doctors’ Prescription Decisions

and

A recent BMJ study by King et al shows that gift restrictions adopted in medical schools resulted in graduates writing fewer prescriptions of certain newly marketed drugs compared with older, less expensive alternatives. Focusing on the prescribing patterns of three expensive new psychiatric medicines (paliperidone, lisdexamfetamine, and desvenlafaxine), the authors found that those who attended medical schools that did not allow gifts were three-quarters less likely to prescribe paliperidone and more than 50% less likely to prescribe lisdexamfetamine than those who attended schools without restrictions. The difference found for desvenlafaxine was not significant.

Associate Editor John Ryan asks the study’s senior author, Joseph Ross, about this finding and whether it might translate to cardiovascular agents.

Ryan: What is classified as a gift to a medical student from a pharmaceutical company? Seeing as medical students are not practicing physicians, do they have to declare such gifts in the same way that physicians do?

Ross: The classic gift given to a medical student from a pharmaceutical company is a stethoscope. At some medical schools, the presentation of the stethoscope from a company as part of a larger ceremony on the first day is a long-standing tradition. But many other types of gifts are more common, including pens, notepads, textbooks, and meals – lots and lots of pizza.

To my knowledge, however, there is no requirement for students to declare these gifts. The recently passed and soon to be enacted Physician-Payment Sunshine Act is focused on the reporting of payments from industry to physicians and academic medical centers, not payments to medical students. Those are not required to be reported.

Ryan: How did the medical schools ban such gifts?

Ross: Medical schools have been making the decision to ban gifts on a case-by-case basis for more than 15 years. I cannot speak to how any individual school made the decision to ban gifts, but I suspect that an individual, or group of individuals (most likely students), at the school became concerned about the frequent interactions that were taking place between pharmaceutical companies and medical school faculty and students, and questioned the purpose and consequences of these interactions. Their concern led to advocacy against permission of gifts from companies to students and faculty, eventually leading the schools to enact a policy that banned gifts completely.

Ryan: Do you expect that your findings would extend to the newer cardiology medicines that have been introduced in the past few years, be it new lipid medicines, antiplatelets or anticoagulants?

Ross: This is a great question, one on which I can only speculate since we did not explicitly examine prescribing of cardiology medicines in our study. However, my expectation is that our findings would be consistent, in that we would find that medical students who graduated from schools with gift restriction policies (and other policies governing the interaction between medical students/faculty and pharmaceutical companies) would be less likely to prescribe newly marketed cardiology medicines, specifically medicines that are not first in class.

In our study, we examined psychoactive medications that were new to market within a therapeutic class that had many alternatives, medications that had been on the market for many years and were much cheaper. The same would be true of any new lipid or antiplatelet medication. What we do not know from our study is whether graduates from medical schools with these policies are also less likely to prescribe newly marketed medicines that are first in-class or represent true therapeutic advances within an existing class of therapies. This question deserves scrutiny.

March 5th, 2013

FDA Again Rejects ACS Indication for Rivaroxaban

For the second time the FDA has turned down the supplemental new drug application (sNDA) for the proposed indication of rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Johnson & Johnson) to treat patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

Despite early hopes, the ACS indication has proved tantalizingly elusive for the drug.  When the pivotal ATLAS ACS 2-TIMI 51 trial was unveiled in 2011 it was widely praised. Great expectations were enhanced when the FDA granted priority review for the ACS indication in February 2012. But a few months later the momentum ground to a halt when FDA reviewers raised questions about the ATLAS trial. Shortly afterwards, the FDA’s Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee voted against the ACS indication.

The FDA issued the first complete response letter rejecting the sNDA last June. In a press release issued at the time, a J&J company official said the company remains “confident in the robust results of the ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51 trial and the positive benefit-risk profile of rivaroxaban in patients with ACS.”

In a new press release issued on Monday afternoon the company restated its confidence “in the robustness and results” of the ATLAS  trial. Criticism of ATLAS from the FDA and the advisory panel members had focused on missing data from the ATLAS trial. In today’s press release J&J provided more information about its efforts to address this question:

On September 6, 2012, Janssen submitted to the FDA important data related to patients who had withdrawn from the ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51 trial… as part of its complete response.

To compile these data, the company undertook a global effort and was able to confirm the vital status information for 843, or 63%, of the 1,338 trial participants who previously had unknown vital status. The mortality benefit observed during the treatment phase of the study was maintained. These new events were distributed equally between the three treatment groups (2.5 mg, 5 mg and placebo) of patients who were alive (806) and those who had died (37). After these efforts, follow up data was not available on only 2.4% of patients.

March 4th, 2013

Veterans Study Finds HIV to Be an Independent Risk Factor for MI

Although it has long been suspected that people with the HIV virus are at increased risk for cardiovascular (CV) disease, reliable data has not been available. Now a new study published online in JAMA Internal Medicine provides a much clearer picture of the relationship between CV disease and HIV.

Matthew Freiberg and colleagues analyzed data from 82,459 HIV-positive and matched uninfected veterans enrolled in the Veterans Aging Cohort Study (VACS) Virtual Cohort (VC) and found a significant elevation in myocardial infarction (MI) in the HIV-positive group:

MI event rate per 1,000 person-years in the HIV-positive and the matched uninfected groups:

  • age 40-49: 2 versus 1.5
  • age 50-59 years: 3.9 versus 2.2
  • age 60-69 years: 5 versus 3.3

All the differences achieved statistical significance. Overall, with adjustments for other risk factors, cormorbidities, and substance use, HIV-positive subjects had nearly a 50% elevated risk of MI compared with uninfected subjects (HR 1.48, CI 1.27-1.72). The elevated risk was found even in subjects with low levels of the HIV virus. The results also suggested that recent antiretroviral therapy (ART) may be associated with an increase in the risk of MI.

The findings “suggest that the Framingham risk score may underestimate AMI risk among HIV-positive people and that the addition of HIV and ART to a model of established AMI risk factors may be clinically useful,” the authors wrote.

In an accompanying editorial, Patrick Mallon writes that “the results demonstrate a clear and consistent excess risk of MI (approximately 50% increase) in HIV-positive people across a range of age groups, with the association between HIV status and MI remaining significant when controlled for a number of covariates…” Since the cause of this increased risk is not understood, he argues, “presuming that interventions used in the general population to reduce the risk of MI will translate into similar reductions in MI incidence in HIV-positive populations is arguably naive.”

March 4th, 2013

Selections from Richard Lehman’s Literature Review: March 4th

CardioExchange is pleased to reprint selections from Dr. Richard Lehman’s weekly journal review blog at BMJ.com. Selected summaries are relevant to our audience, but we encourage members to engage with the entire blog.

JAMA  27 Feb 2013  Vol 781

Effect of Spironolactone on Diastolic Function and Exercise Capacity in Patients with HF with Preserved EF (pg. 781): Heart failure divides into two broad classes: the first is caused by damage to the myocardium and is associated with reduction in the left ventricular ejection fraction, and we know pretty well how to treat it; the second is associated with stiffening of the ventricles and the main capacitance vessels, and we don’t know how to treat it, or even what to call it. It is often called “diastolic HF” but this term should really be reserved for the subset who have demonstrable reduction in diastolic filling. And as we fuss over these imaging-based definitions we lose sight of the patient as a whole, who is typically elderly and hypertensive with other comorbidities and taking a variety of pre-existing medication. That’s not to say we shouldn’t try to apply some science to improving their treatment, and this German-Austrian trial was inspired by the theoretical possibility that aldosterone blockade would reverse some of the effects of diastolic dysfunction. And it did. But unfortunately the patients could not notice any difference between spironolactone 25mg and placebo, because what little benefit the former had was purely on LV remodelling and BNP levels. Their diastolic filling indices actually dropped and so (non-significantly) did their walking distance.

March 4th, 2013

New Insights on Early Repolarization

and

A 20-year analysis of more than 5000 participants (mean age, 25; 40% black) in the CARDIA study explores whether the early repolarization electrocardiographic pattern has multiple phenotypes. Two of the study’s authors now comment on their findings, which are published in a recent issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Background

Early repolarization — a finding of ST-segment elevation and J-point elevation in the absence of coronary artery disease — has been associated with young age, male sex, black race, and cardiovascular fitness. A 2008 case-control study by Haissaguerre and colleagues described higher prevalence of early repolarization among survivors of idiopathic ventricular fibrillation. Since then, several well-conducted longitudinal analyses, primarily in middle-aged white people with J-point elevation in the inferior and lateral leads (rather than the precordial leads), have confirmed increased rates of arrhythmia-related and all-cause mortality among patients with early repolarization.

The Study’s Findings

Walsh and colleagues found a definite early repolarization pattern in 18.6% of participants at baseline but in only 4.9% after 20 years. Most patients with early repolarization experienced spontaneous regression of the pattern by middle age. The baseline factors independently associated with persistence of early repolarization over time were black race, lower body-mass index, lower serum triglyceride levels, and longer QRS duration.

Analysis from the Authors

Should we now think of this ECG phenotype as a risk factor?
The commonly found precordial ST-segment elevation that occurs in younger adults is likely to regress in middle-age, and it appears to carry a benign prognosis. The previously described inferior ST-segment elevation occurring in middle-aged patients should raise suspicion for an arrhythmic substrate, particularly if accompanied by a clinical scenario of syncope or palpitations.

What should we tell patients who have early repolarization?
Patients should understand that it represents a very common electrocardiographic finding (about 19% in young adults) that is very likely to regress as they age. Our understanding of the potentially pathogenic role of early repolarization in sudden cardiac death, particularly in young adults, is too limited to discuss its prognostic implications with patients and thereby cause unnecessary anxiety. It remains unclear whether patients who maintain this pattern are at higher risk than those who do not.

Should patients be screened for early repolarization?
Our current understanding of the early repolarization pattern is too limited to enact large-scale screening or preventive efforts (even if we knew what to do for young patients with this pattern). However, in the appropriately selected population of patients with a high-enough pretest probability of sudden cardiac death (i.e., family history or a history of nonsustained ventricular tachycardia), the presence of inferior ST-segment elevation may eventually play a role in screening. This would require a more sophisticated understanding of early repolarization’s sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values for identifying an arrhythmic substrate. It would be difficult to generate a likelihood ratio sufficient to justify the cost of such a large screening effort.

March 1st, 2013

ACC and HRS Release Appropriate Use Criteria for ICDs and CRTs

The American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) today published appropriate use criteria for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The document offers an expert consensus on the appropriateness of  369 separate real-life clinical scenarios in six areas: ICDs for secondary prevention, ICDs for primary prevention, comorbidities, CRT devices, generator replacement, and dual- versus single-chamber ICDs.

After a writing committee drafted the scenarios, a separate technical panel gave a numerical rating from 1-9 to each of the scenarios. The scenarios were determined to be “appropriate” (median 7 to 9), “may be appropriate” (median 4 to 6), or “rarely appropriate” (median 1 to 3). The panel deemed 45% of the scenarios as appropriate, 33% as may be appropriate, and 22% as rarely appropriate. 

“The goal of this document is to help inform medical decisions and assist clinicians and stakeholders in understanding areas of both consensus and uncertainty, while identifying areas where there are gaps in knowledge that warrant further research,” explained Dr. Andrea M. Russo, writing committee co-chair, in an ACC/HRS press release.

“While this document was designed to help inform clinical decision making, it does not establish ‘rules’ by which decisions should be made in clinical practice,” said Russo. “Healthcare providers and other stakeholders should continue to acknowledge the pivotal role of clinical judgment in determining whether device implantation is indicated for an individual patient.”