Category Archives: heart attack

Is An Unneeded Beta-Blocker Making You Feel Logy?

The skeptical cardiologist saw a patient recently who  had undergone stenting of a 95% blocked right coronary artery. Mr Jones had presented  a year ago to our ER 2 days after he first began experiencing a light pressure-type discomfort in his left shoulder and scapular region. This pain persisted, waxing and waning, without a clear relationship to exertion or position or movement of his shoulder.

Upon arrival in the ER, his ECG was normal but his cardiac enzymes were slightly elevated (troponin peaking 0.92), thus he was diagnosed with a non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (MI).

He’s done great since the stent procedure fixed the coronary blockage that caused his infarct and chest pain, but during our office visit he related that since his hospitalization he had been feeling “logy.” 

Being a lover of words, my ears perked up at this new-to-me adjective, and I asked him to describe what he meant by logy. For him, loginess was a feeling of fatigue or lacking energy.

Indeed, the online Merriam-Webster dictionary defines logy as sluggish or groggy. It is pronounced usually with a long o and a hard g.

The origin is unclear but has nothing to do with rum:

Based on surface resemblance, you might guess that “logy” (also sometimes spelled “loggy”) is related to “groggy,” but that’s not the case. “Groggy” ultimately comes from “Old Grog,” the nickname of an English admiral who was notorious for his cloak made of a fabric called grogram – and for adding water to his crew’s rum. The sailors called the rum mixture “grog” after the admiral. Because of the effect of grog, “groggy” came to mean “weak and unsteady on the feet or in action.” No one is really sure about the origin of “logy,” but experts speculate that it comes from the Dutch word log, meaning “heavy.” Its first recorded use in English, from an 1847 London newspaper, refers to a “loggy stroke” in rowing.

Fatigue is a common, nonspecific symptom that we all feel at times. It is more common as we age and it can be challenging for both patients and physicians to sort out when it needs to be further evaluated.

Occasionally, fatigue is the only symptom of a significant cardiac condition, but more frequently in the patient population I see it is either noncardiac (low thyroid, anemia, etc.) or iatrogenic

When a patient tells me they are feeling fatigued I immediately scan their med list for potential logigenic drugs.

In this case, my patient had been started on a low dosage of the beta-blocker carvedilol (brand name Coreg) after his stent, and I suspected this was why he had felt logy for the past year.

In cardiology, we utilize beta-blockers in many situations-arrhythmias, heart failure, and heart attacks to name a few, and they are well-known to have fatigue as a common side effect. There was a really good chance that Mr. Jones’s loginess was due to the carvedilol.

It’s important to review all medications at each patient visit to check for side effects, interactions and benefits, and in the case of Mr. Jones’ carvedilol, loginess.

Do All Patients Post-Revascularization or Post-MI Need To Take Beta-Blockers

Beta-blockers (BBs) are frequently started in patients after a stenting procedure or coronary bypass surgery, and continued indefinitely. However, the evidence for their benefit in such  patients with normal LV function long term is lacking.

If any post-revascularization population benefits from BBs, it is those, like Mr. Jones who have had a myocardial infarction (MI, heart attack) prior to the procedure, however the smaller the infarct, the less the benefits.

And with the widespread use of early stenting to treat MI, infarcts are much smaller and dysfunction of the left ventricle (LV) less likely.

In those patients with minimal damage and normal LV function, the benefits appear minimal. For this reason in the last 5 to 10 years I’ve been stopping BBs in this population if there are any significant side effects.

An “Expert Analysis” published in JACC in 2017 noted that:

A 2015 meta-analysis of 10 observational acute MI studies including more than 40,000 patients showed that beta-blockers reduced the risk of all-cause death  However, the benefit of these agents was not found in all subgroups and seemed confined to the patients with reduced LVEF, with low use of other secondary prevention drugs, or NSTEMI.

In a study of almost 180,000 patients post MI with normal LV systolic function in the UK between 2007 and 2013 there was no difference in mortality at one year in patients discharged with or without beta-blockers.

The only way to answer this question definitely would be with a randomized controlled trial and, to my surprise and delight, such a study (CAPITAL-RCT (Carvedilol Post-Intervention Long-Term Administration in Large-scale Randomized Controlled Trial) was published in PLOS One in August of 2018.

I’ll save readers the details, but the bottom line is that patients treated with optimal contemporary therapy for acute MI, whose LV function was not significantly impaired, did not benefit in any way from treatment with carvedilol, the beta-blocker my patient was taking.

It’s rare that we get such definitive evidence for a change in treatment that reverses what is in current guidelines. This has the potential to affect tens of thousands of patients and improve their quality of life. It should be trumpeted far and wide. The cynic in me suspects that if it were a study demonstrating the benefits of a new drug, physicians would be bombarded with the new information.

Helping Patients Feel Less Logy

We will be ordering an echocardiogram on Mr. Jones, and if his LV function is normal we will stop his carvedilol and see if he feels significantly better.  

I feel like stopping a drug that is not beneficial and that is causing a lifetime of loginess is an incredibly important intervention a cardiologist can make. It’s not as life-saving as stenting for acute MI, but saving quality of life is something this non-invasive cardiologist can do every day for every patient.

Skeptically Yours,

-ACP

N.B. The summary of the recent CAPITAL-RCT:

STEMI patients with successful primary PCI within 24 hours from the onset and with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥40% were randomly assigned in a 1-to-1 fashion either to the carvedilol group or to the no beta-blocker group within 7 days after primary PCI. The primary endpoint is a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, hospitalization for heart failure, and hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome. Between August 2010 and May 2014, 801 patients were randomly assigned to the carvedilol group (N = 399) or the no beta-blocker group (N = 402) at 67 centers in Japan. The carvedilol dose was up-titrated from 3.4±2.1 mg at baseline to 6.3±4.3 mg at 1-year. During median follow-up of 3.9 years with 96.4% follow-up, the cumulative 3-year incidences of both the primary endpoint and any coronary revascularization were not significantly different between the carvedilol and no beta-blocker groups (6.8% and 7.9%, P = 0.20, and 20.3% and 17.7%, P = 0.65, respectively). There also was no significant difference in LVEF at 1-year between the 2 groups (60.9±8.4% and 59.6±8.8%, P = 0.06).

 

 

 

 

Can The Apple Watch Or Kardia ECG Monitor Detect Heart Attacks?

The skeptical cardiologist recently received this email from a reader:

With the new Apple Watch that’s out now, people have suggested my husband (who had a heart attack at 36) should get it since it could detect a heart attack. But I keep remembering what you said – that these devices can’t detect heart attacks and that Afib isn’t related to a heart attack most of the time – is that still the case? I don’t really know how to explain to people that it can’t do this, since absolutely everyone believes it does.

The answer is a resounding and unequivocal NO!

If we are using the term heart attack to mean what doctors call a myocardial infarction (MI) there should be no expectation that any wearable or consumer ECG product can reliably diagnose a heart attack.

The Apple Watch even in its latest incarnation and with the ECG feature and with rhythm monitoring activated is incapable of detecting a myocardial infarction.

Similarly, although the AliveCor Kardia ECG monitor is superb at diagnosing rhythm abnormalities it is not capable of detecting an MI

To make this even clearer note that when you record an ECG on the Apple Watch it intermittently flashes the following warning:

 

Note: “Apple Watch never checks for heart attacks”

How did such this idea take root in the consciousness of so many Americans?

Perhaps this article in 9-5 Mac had something to do with it

The article begins
Scott Killian never imagined his Apple Watch might save his life, but that’s exactly what happened a few weeks ago when he had a heart attack in the middle of the night. Killian recently shared his personal experience with 9to5Mac, and the details of his story are absolutely amazing.
In reality,  the man received an alarm that his resting heart rate was high at night. Apparently he also was experiencing chest pain and went to an ER where a cardiac enzyme was elevated.  Subsequently he underwent testing that revealed advanced coronary artery disease and he had a bypass operation. 
Even if we assume all the details of this story are accurate it is absolutely not a case of Apple Watch diagnosing an MI.
 
A high resting heart rate is not neccessarily an indicator of an MI and most MIs are not characterized by high heart rates.  We have had the technology with wearables to monitor resting heart rate for some time and no one has ever suggested this can be used to detect MI.
 
The rate of false alarms is so high and the rate of failure to diagnose MI so low that this is a useless measure and should not provide any patient reassurance.
 
The writer of this story and the editors at 9-5 Mac should be ashamed of this misinformation.
 
Several other news sources have needlessly muddied the water on this question including Healthline and Fox News:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Fox News article entitled “Could The Apple Watch Series 4 save you from a heart attack” quotes a non-physician who suggests that AW can detect early signs of a heart attack:
 

In clear cut cases the Apple Watch could make the difference between life and death,” says Roger Kay, president of Endpoint Technologies Associates. Because you wear the Apple Watch at all times, it can detect an early sign of a stroke or a heart attack, and that early indication is critical, he says.

And the Healthline article on the new Apple Watch also incorrectly implies it can diagnose MI:

The device, which was unveiled last week, has an electrocardiogram (ECG) app that can detect often overlooked heart abnormalities that could lead to a heart attack.

And if you are felled by a heart problem, the fall detector built into the Apple Watch Series 4 could alert medical professionals that you need help

Fox News and Healthline should modify their published articles to correct the misinformation they have previously provided.

And it is still true that  although both Apple Watch and Kardia can diagnose atrial fibrillation the vast majority of the time acute heart attacks are not associated with atrial fibrillation.

Readers, please spread the word far and wide to friends and family-Apple Watch cannot detect heart attacks!

Skeptically Yours,

-ACP

The MESA App-Estimating Your Risk of Cardiovascular Disease With And Without Coronary Calcium Score

Yesterday, I laid out the case for utilizing coronary artery calcium score (CACS) to further refine the assessment of youngish patients risk of developing cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). I referenced the ACC/AHA ASCVD risk estimator tool (app available here) as the starting point but if I have information on my patient’s CACS I use a new and improved tool called the MESA risk score calculator.

It is available online and through an app for Apple and Android (search in the app store on “MESA Risk Score” for the (free) download.)

The MESA tool allows you to easily calculate how the CACS effects you or your patient’s 10 year risk of ASCVD.

The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) is a study of the characteristics of subclinical cardiovascular disease (disease detected non-invasively before it has produced clinical signs and symptoms) and the risk factors that predict progression to clinically overt cardiovascular disease or progression of the subclinical disease. MESA researchers study a diverse, population-based sample of 6,814 asymptomatic men and women aged 45-84. Approximately 38 percent of the recruited participants are white, 28 percent African-American, 22 percent Hispanic, and 12 percent Asian, predominantly of Chinese descent.

To use the score you will need information on the following risk factors:

age, gender, race/ethnicity, diabetes (yes/no), current smoker (yes/no), total and HDL cholesterol, use of lipid lowering medication (yes/no), systolic blood pressure (mmHg), use of anti-hypertensive medication (yes/no), any family history of heart attack in first degree relative (parent/sibling/child) (yes/no), and a coronary artery calcium score (Agatston units).

In many cases the CACS dramatically lowers or increases the risk estimate.

In this example a 64 year old man with no discernible risk factors has a CACS of 175
The 10 year risk of a CHD event almost doubles from 4.7% to 7.6% when the CACS is added to the standard risk factors and moves into a range where we need much more aggressive risk factor modification.

On the other hand if we enter in zero for this same patient the risk drops to a very low 1.9%.

It’s also instructive to adjust different variables. For example, if we change the family history of heart attack (parents, siblings, or children) from no to yes, this same patient’s risk jumps to 7.2% (2.6% with zero calcium score and to 10.4% with CACS 175.)

It can also be used to help modify risk-enhancing behaviors. For example if you click smoker instead of non-smoker the risk goes from 4.7% to 7.5%. Thus, you can tell your smoking patient that his risk is halved if he stops.

Discussions on the value of tighter BP control can also be informed by the calculator. For example, if  our 64 year old’s systolic blood pressure was 160 his risk has increased to 6.8%.

How Does Your CACS Compare To Your Peers?

A separate calculator let’s you see exactly where your score stands in comparison individuals with your same age, gender, and ethnicity

The Coronary Artery Calcium (CAC) Score Reference Values web tool will provide the estimated probability of non-zero calcium, and the 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles of the calcium score distribution for a particular age, gender and race. Additionally, if an observed calcium score is entered the program will provide the estimated percentile for this particular score. These reference values are based on participants in the MESA study who were free of clinical cardiovascular disease and treated diabetes at baseline. These participants were between 45-84 years of age, and identified themselves as White, African-American, Hispanic, or Chinese. The current tool is thus applicable only for these four race/ethnicity categories and within this age range.

The calculator tells us that 75% of 64 year old white males have a zero CACS and that the average CACS is 61.

Unlike SAT scores or Echo Board scores you don’t want your CACS percentile status to be high. Scores >75th percentile typically move you to a higher risk category, whereas scores <25th percentile move you to a lower risk category, often with significant therapeutic implications.

Scores between the 25th and 75th percentile typically don’t significantly change the risk calculation.

Exploring Gender Differences In CACS

If we change the gender from male to female on our 64 year old the risk drops considerably from 4.7% down to 3.3%. This graph demonstrates that over 20% of women between the ages of 75 and 84 years will have zero calcium scores.

The graph for men in that same range shows that only around 10% will have a zero CACS.

I’ve been asked what the upper limit is for CACS but I don’t think there is one. I’ve seen numerous patients with scores in the high two thousands and these graphs show individuals in the lowest age decile having scores over 2981.

If you want to be proactive about the cardiovascular health of yourself or a loved one, download the MESA app and evaluate your risk. Ask your doctor if a CACS will help refine that risk further.

Antiatherosclerotically Yours,

-ACP

Prevention of Heart Attack and Stroke-Early Detection Of Risk Using Coronary Artery Calcium Scans In The Youngish

Since 1/3 of Americans die from atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD, mostly heart attacks and strokes) and dropping dead is often the first symptom of ASCVD it’s incredibly important to identify early, “subclinical” ASCVD and begin measures to reduce risk.

How early to begin that process is open to debate. The recent sudden death of the 41-year old son of a patient of mine, however, has reinforced to me how crucial it is to begin risk assessment and potential treatments as early as possible, especially in individuals with a strong family history of premature ASCVD.

We use standard risk factors like lipids, smoking, age, gender and diabetes to stratify individuals according to their 10 year risk of ASCVD (using this online risk calculator) but many apparent low risk individuals (often due to inherited familial risk) drop dead from ASCVD and many apparent high risk individuals have no subclinical ASCVD and don’t need preventive therapy.

Recent studies provide compelling support for the early utilization of cardiac imaging in to identify high risk individuals.

Heart attacks and most sudden cases of sudden death are due to rupture of atherosclerotic plaques. Thus, it makes sense to seek out  such plaques, a process I call searching for subclinical atherosclerosis. There are a number of ways to search for sublinical plaques but the two most widely studied are carotid ultrasound screening and coronary artery calcification (CAC) measurement.

I’ve been utilizing CAC (also termed  heart scan, coronary calcium score, or cardioscan) to help assess my patient’s risk of ASCVD for years although the procedure is not covered by insurance and until recently was not strongly endorsed by major guidelines. (For a complete description of the test and the risks/benefits see here). As I pointed out here, in November the new ACC/AHA guidelines finally embraced CAC for

adults 40 to 75 years of age without diabetes mellitus and with LDL-C levels ≥70 mg/dL- 189 mg/dL (≥1.8-4.9 mmol/L), at a 10-year ASCVD risk of ≥7.5% to 19.9%, if a decision about statin therapy is uncertain

Typically, if we have calculated (using the ASCVD risk estimator) a 10 year risk >7.5% we have a discussion with the patient about beginning drug treatment to reduce risk.

To inform the decision and help us “get off the fence” I usually recommend a CAC. To see how this works in a typical sixty something see my posts here and here.

Significant Of CAC Score

As the new ACC/AHA guidelines state:

If CAC is zero, treatment with statin therapy may be withheld or delayed, except in cigarette smokers, those with diabetes mellitus, and those with a strong family history of premature ASCVD.

A duo of studies from Walter Reed Army Hospital have provided more support for the value of the zero CAC for risk prediction and identifying who should get treatment for prevention of both heart attacks and strokes.

Over 10,00 subjects underwent CAC and were assessed for the primary outcomes of all-cause mortality, incident MI, stroke, and the combination of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as stroke, MI, or cardiovascular death over an average 11.4 years

Patients were classified on the basis of the presence or absence of calcium and further subdivided into CAC score groups of 0, 1 to 100, 101 to 400, and >400

Patients without a zero CAC had a very low number of events , with a 1.0% rate of mortality and 2.7% rate of MACE over a 10-year period.

On the other hand subjects without any traditional risk factors (n = 6,208; mean age 43.8 years), the presence of any CAC (>0) was associated with a 1.7 fold increased risk of MACE after adjustment for traditional risk factors.

f2.large-3
Patients with CAC who were prescribed a statin had a significantly reduced risk of MACE (aSHR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.60 to 0.95; p = 0.015), whereas patients without CAC had no associated MACE reduction (aSHR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.27; p = 0.99). p = 0.097 for interaction between statin treatment and CAC presence. aSHR = adjusted subhazard ratio; CAC = coronary artery calcium; CI = confidence interval; MACE = major adverse cardiovascular event(s)

The red line of the >400 score individuals has a much higher risk of death, stroke and heart attack (myocardial infarction) than the blue (CAC 1-100) or the gray line of the zero CAC scorers.

Furthermore, when these investigators looked at outcomes in those individuals who received statins versus those who didn’t, the zeros didn’t benefit from statin therapy over the 10 year follow-up.

f3.large
Benefit of statin therapy was significantly related to CAC group with benefit in patients with CAC score >100 but not in patients with CAC <100. aSHR = adjusted subhazard ratio; CAC = coronary artery calcium; CI = confidence interval; MACE = major adverse cardiovascular event(s).

But there was a tremendous reduction in bad CV events in those with scores >100 who received statin (red line) versus those who did not (blue line).

Here’s the figure which encapsulates both the risk prediction power of the CAC (and the benefits of statin treatment restricted to those with >0 (blue lines)

f2.large-4

 

Benefits of CAC Testing In The Young

So these new studies provide powerful data supporting the use of CAC in younger individuals to help us refine risk estimates and target the individual at high risk of MI and sudden death. It seems highly appropriate to consider CAC testing beginning at age 40 years as the AHA/ACC guidelines suggest.

But what about the individual who has a strong family history of premature CAD and is age say 35 or 39 years of age. Do we ignore advanced risk assessment? Very few individuals die in their 30s from ASCVD but I have a number of patients who suffered heart attacks in their forties. In addition, the earlier we can start risk modification the better as the process begins very early in life and accumulates over time.

The Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) Study published in 2017 has demonstrated the early development of nonzero CAC score in the youngish and the predictive value of the high CAC score for mid life ASCVD events.  It was  a prospective community-based study that recruited 5115 black and white participants aged 18 to 30 years from March 25, 1985, to June 7, 1986. The cohort has been under surveillance for 30 years, with CAC measured 15 (n = 3043), 20 (n = 3141), and 25 (n = 3189) years after recruitment. The mean follow-up period for incident events was 12.5 years, from the year 15 computed tomographic scan through August 31, 2014.

The conclusions:

Any CAC in early adult life, even in those with very low scores, indicates significant risk of having and possibly dying of a myocardial infarction during the next decade beyond standard risk factors and identifies an individual at particularly elevated risk for coronary heart disease for whom aggressive prevention is likely warranted.

screen shot 2019-01-19 at 12.36.44 pmI read CAC scans every day and it is not uncommon to see a non-zero scores in individuals in their late 30s or early 40s.

The two sons of another one of my patients both in their late 50s with unremarkable risk factor profiles and both developing anginal type symptoms limiting their activities each underwent multi vessel stent procedures in the last month. If I had seen them  10 to 20 years ago we would have identified the subclinical atherosclerosis building up in their coronaries, started treatment and avoided the need for invasive, expensive procedures.

Other Risk-Enhancing Factors To Consider In The Young

The ACC/AHA guidelines list some “risk-enhancing factors” some of which I find useful.

screen shot 2019-01-19 at 7.33.39 am

Clearly family history of premature ASCVD is important but the devil is in the details. What relatives count? What was the event in the family member? If it was sudden death was an autopsy done?

What about nontraditional lipid/biomarkers?  I consider an assessment of Lp(a) and some more sophisticated measurement of atherogenic dyslipidemia (apoB, LDL-P) and inflammation (CRP) essential.

Interestingly the guidelines include ABI (which I do not find helpful) but not carotid vascular screening which has frequently guided me to earlier therapy in youngish individuals with abnormal biomarkers or strong family history.

Vascular screening in young subjects may detect subclinical atherosclerosis as measured by thickening of the carotid wall (IMT) or early carotid plaque prior to the formation of calcium in the coronary arteries. Advanced IMT precedes the formation of soft plaque in arteries and only later is calcium deposited in the plaque.

It’s never too early to start thinking about your risk of cardiovascular disease. If heart disease runs in your family or you have any of the “risk-enhancing” factors listed above, consider a CAC, nontraditional lipid/biomarkers, or vascular screening to better determine were you stand and what you can do about it.

Included in my discussions with my patients with premature ASCVD is a strong recommendation to encourage their brothers, sisters and children to undergo a thoughtful assessment for ASCVD risk. With these new studies and the new ACC/AHA guideline recommendations if they are age 40-75 years there is ample support for making CAC a part of such assessment.

Hopefully very soon, CMS and the health insurance companies will begin reimbursement for CAC. As it currently stands, however, the 125$ you will spend for the test at my hospital is money well spent.

Skeptically Yours,

-ACP

What You Should Know About Lipoprotein(a) And Heart Attack Risk

If you have had a heart attack at an early age or one of your parents did but your standard risk factors for coronary heart disease are normal you should consider getting tested for Lipoprotein(a) or Lp(a).

The standard lipid profile that most patients get checks LDL (bad) HDL (good) and total cholesterol along with  triglycerides. While these are useful, I have many patients who have normal standard values but have developed advanced coronary heart disease at an early age despite following a perfect lifestyle (not smoking, regular aerobic exercise, healthy diet.)

The skeptical cardiologist tests such patients for Lp(a) (pronounced LP little a)  and it is quite frequently elevated.

For patients, these are the facts to know about Lp(a)

  1. It is the strongest single inherited (monogenetic) risk factor for the early development of coronary artery disease, heart attacks and strokes.
  2. In addition to increasing risk of atherosclerosis, high Lp(a) is strongly associated with the development of calcific aortic valve disease which can result in narrowing of the aortic valve and aortic stenosis.
  3. Depending on the cut-off used  up to one in five individuals may have elevated Lp(a)
  4. Levels of Lp(a) can be measured with a simple blood test that should cost no more than 50 to 100$. This is not included in standard lipid or cholesterol testing.
  5. Risk for heart attack starts to rise with levels above 30 mg/dl and Canadian guidelines from 2016 (see here)) consider >30 mg/dl to be a risk factor and they recommend measuring Lp(a) in those with a family history of premature CAD or those at intermediate risk.
  6. The European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS, 2010), suggested levels of <50 mg/dl as optimal. The EAS advised measuring Lp(a) once in all patients with premature CVD.
  7. As levels get even higher risk also rises as these graphs show

 

 

 

 

Treatment For High Lp(a)

The lifestyle changes (both exercise and diet) that improve bad and good cholesterol levels have no effect on Lp(a). Our best drugs, the statins, for reducing risk of heart attack and stroke also don’t lower Lp(a) levels.

Only niacin has been shown to reduce Lp(a) across broad populations but there is no evidence that Lp(a) lowering by niacin lowers cardiovascular risk so it cannot be recommended for treatment.(In the AIM-HIGH study niacin did not reduce cardiovascular events in patients with Lp(a) with levels>50 mg/dl, despite achieving a mean Lp(a) reduction of 39%.)

Cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitors which raise HDL levels also reduce lipoprotein(a) concentrations, but three such inhibitors have not shown a clinical benefit.

In fact, currently there are no studies showing that lowering Lp(a) with any drug will effectively lower the associated risk of heart attack, stroke and aortic stenosis.

In the not too distant future, effective therapies may emerge. There are promising newer agents (antisense oligonucleotides or ASOs) currently in clinical trials and in limited populations the PCSK9 inhbitors, mipomersen and estrogen have lowered Lp(a) levels.

Why Test For Lp(a)?

If we have no effective therapies that work by lowering Lp(a) why recommend testing for it?

I test Lp(a) for  two reasons.

First, since it is inherited, patients with high levels should consider having first degree relatives tested for Lp(a) to identify those who are going to be at high risk. This provides an early warning of who in the family is most at risk for cardiovascular complications early in life. Such patients should be considered for early screening for subclinical atherosclerosis. In addition, they should be additionally motivated to do everything possible to reduce their elevated risk by lifestyle changes.

Second, I tend to recommend  more aggressive cholesterol lowering in patients who have evidence for early plaque build up for atherosclerotic events early in life than I otherwise would be.     I tend to agree with the approach diagrammed below:

 

With this approach for patients who have had events related to atherosclerosis or advanced CAC for age we work super aggressively on optimizing all risk factors. I try to lower LDL to <70 with statins and with the addition of ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhbitors if needed.

If the patient has more problems with atherosclerotic events despite optimizing risk factors and Lp(a) >60 mg/dl, some experts recommend using apheresis a technique which runs the patient’s blood through a filter which removes LDL and Lp(a). Personally, I have not sent any patients for apheresis and await better studies proving its benefit.

Antiproatherogenically Yours,

-ACP

For those patients seeking more detailed information and references I recommend Dr. Siggurdson’s excellent post on Lp(a)

There is a Lipoprotein(a) Foundation with reasonably informative and accurate website you can peruse here for more information.

Finally, if you want to delve deeply into the data check out this recent JACC review here.

The graphs above and this figure
showing the proposed pro-inflammatory, pro-atherogenic and pro-thrombotic pathways of Lp(a) are from that article.

 

Thoughts On Prolonged Bleeding Whilst Taking Baby Aspirin

I was hurriedly shaving the other day and felt a sharp stinging sensation in my philtrum.  Shortly thereafter, blood began pouring forth from the area and dribbling into my mouth.

I don’t typically name-check the area between the nose and the margin of the upper lip, but if one cuts the area (and wants to write about the experience), it is useful to have a single noun that describes it precisely.

This is not my philtrum but the graphic nicely demonstrates why the area is often called “cupid’s bow”. Courtesy of Wkipedia

The human philtrum is apparently vestigial; per Wikipedia

The philtrum (Latin: philtrum, Greek: φίλτρονphiltron, lit. “love charm”[2]), or medial cleft, is a vertical groove in the middle area of the upper lip, common to many mammals, extending in humans from the nasal septum to the tubercle of the upper lip. Together with a glandular rhinarium and slit-like nostrils, it is believed[by whom?] to constitute the primitive condition for mammals in general.

Although lacking function, it does cause a protrusion in the otherwise smooth facade of the face, and as a consequence, is at an increased risk for cuts.

Despite holding pressure on the cut for many minutes and daubing it with toilet paper, it continued to bleed. The bleeding continued on for much longer than I am use to, and after a while I realized that my bleeding was prolonged due to the aspirin I have been taking.

I’ve been following my own advice to those with documented significant atherosclerotic plaque, and have been taking 81mg aspirin daily. I began chewing daily my chewable aspirin after writing my post on the best form of baby aspirin to take. Prior to that it was only intermittently.

BARCing Up the Willow Tree

As a cardiologist I commonly hear patients complain about the nuisance of bruising and bleeding caused by the aspirin and other blood thinners I have prescribed them. Now I had joined their ranks.

Doctors mostly worry about major bleeding caused by aspirin; things like bleeding from the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, or into the head. A recent review found that baby aspirin doubles the risk of bleeding from the upper GI tract, and increases the risk of intracranial hemorrhage by a factor of 1.4.

There is relatively little concern about the type of minor bleeding I experienced. However, beginning in 2010, the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) investigators came up with a more precise way of categorizing bleeding events, the BARC bleeding types.

By far, the most common bleeding on aspirin is the kind I had: Type 1 BARC.

Type 1: bleeding that is not actionable and does not cause the patient to seek unscheduled performance of studies, hospitalization, or treatment by a healthcare professional. Examples include, but are not limited to, bruising, hematoma, nosebleeds, or hemorrhoidal bleeding for which the patient does not seek medical attention. Type 1 bleeding may include episodes that lead to discontinuation of medications by the patient because of bleeding without visiting a healthcare provider.

Indeed, my Type 1 bleeding prompted me to skip my aspirin doses for the next few days.

Many patients do the same thing. Just this morning a patient told she had stopped taking her aspirin because she thought it was causing “little red spots” on her arms.

Does Prolonged Bleeding Mean You Are Taking Too Much Aspirin?

My philtrum persisted in bleeding, and as I felt the need to use my hands for something other than holding pressure, I put a band-aid on the area (actually a Nexcare), which temporarily stemmed the bleeding tide: I began pondering if I was taking too much aspirin.

Since aspirin is so widely used to prevent heart attacks and strokes caused by sticky platelets, why isn’t there a way to see how effective it is at making sticky platelets less sticky?  We have such methods for blood pressure meds (blood pressure levels) and cholesterol lowering drugs (cholesterol levels).

And for the older blood thinner warfarin, we have a blood test which helps us make sure the dosage of medication is keeping the blood thinning in a range that maximizes  effectiveness and minimizes bleeding risk.

It turns out there are lots of ways to measure how effective aspirin is in an individual, but no consensus on which particular method should be used, and authorities don’t recommend we make such measurements.

This article on platelet function tests lists 13 different platelet function tests, ranging from the mostly historical “bleeding time” to sophisticated tests of platelet aggregation.

The  Verify Now test (not available in the US) of platelet reactivity predicted in one study which patients would have BARC type I bleeding like mine.  The test did not predict major bleeding complications, things like GI bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage.

Those patients who had minor bleeding problems were more likely to be noncompliant, stopping their aspirin therapy.

I could easily visualize the following  scenario as the blood began pooling underneath my band-aid and progressing down my philtrum.

Let’s say I’ve just had a heart attack and had a drug-eluting stent placed in one of my coronary arteries. I’ve been started on aspirin and another anti-platelet drug. I cut myself and bleed excessively and prolongedly. I decide that the aspirin is the reason, and start skipping doses. The lower aspirin levels subsequently allow my platelets to become sticky again. As a result a clot forms in my coronary stent and a heart attack ensues.

Thus, prolonged bleeding from a cut, considered a minor side effect of aspirin therapy, could increase heart attack risk.

There is a clinically available test for aspirin effect called AspirinWorks.

The AspirinWorks Test Kit is an enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA) to determine levels of 11-dehydrothromboxane B2 (11dhTxB2) in human urine, which aids in the qualitative detection of aspirin effect in apparently healthy individuals post ingestion. Unlike platelet aggregation tests, which require freshly drawn blood that must be evaluated within at least four hours, the AspirinWorks Test is performed on a random urine sample that can easily be obtained in any doctor’s office.

AspirinWorks points out the putative benefits of testing for aspirin effect:

An increasing body of evidence in the medical literature overwhelmingly supports clinically significant variability in aspirin effect, which has been well-established in findings from trials, including the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) Study and the CHARISMA trial published in Circulation (Journal) (2002 and 2008). These trials have demonstrated that:

  1. Increased levels of urinary 11dhTxB2 are associated with as much as a four fold increased risk for adverse cardiovascular events or death.
  2. Statin treatment is associated with lower concentrations of 11dhTxB2
  3. 11dhTxB2 is an independent, modifiable predictor of risk for stroke, heart attack and cardiac death (CHARISMA).

I have never ordered this test and am unaware of any other physicians ordering it on their patients.

Doctors don’t test for aspirin effect in individual patients because it is expensive and it won’t change our approach in most cases.
Taking  81 mg aspirin daily might be too high a dose to optimize the balance between bleeding and clotting in me.  If I took it every other day I might have less Type I BARC episodes. However, we don’t have any good evidence that adjusting the dosage based on aspirin effectiveness testing will improve my outcomes.
Thus, we bleeders on baby aspirin (the BOBA) of the world must find better ways of dealing with minor bleeding.
When I changed the band-aid on my philtrum several hours after the initial cut, I began actively bleeding again. This time I decided to apply ice to the area to vasoconstrict the arteries. This, plus more pressure and time, almost completely stopped the bleeding.
Another Nexcare was applied to the area, and when it was removed the next morning, the bleeding did not resume.
There are a variety of other measures that can be tried with varying degrees of success, as described here (deodorant, lip balm, listerine, Visine) and here (styptic pencils and powders, cayenne pepper, tea bag, sugar, alum-ironically this article mentions making a paste out of aspirin and applying it to the cut).
There also appears to be a thriving industry devoted to commercial  products for stopping bleeding from minor cuts outlined here.
Should We Worry About Minor Bleeding?
Ultimately, the seemingly excessive bleeding one experiences upon incidentally cutting oneself while taking aspirin is best viewed as a reassuring sign that the drug is doing its job: Your platelets are less sticky, less likely to cause bad clots that cause strokes and heart attacks.
Platelets don’t know bad from good clots, they just react indiscriminately.
The small amount of blood that exudes from superficial cuts can be scary but it can be controlled with fairly simple measures.
The little red dots my patient experiences, although unattractive, are benign.
Styptically Yours,
-ACP

Do The Zen Diaries of Garry Shandling Yield Insight Into The Cause of His Death?

The skeptical cardiologist watched a little bit of the Judd Apatow HBO Documentary on Garry Shandling last night. For fans of the comedian like me, it is fascinating. As I watched I was reminded of two posts I had written about the cause of his death and the physician detective in me searched for clues to his ultimate demise.

Right after his sudden death at the age of 66, media sources reported that he had died of a massive heart attack “according to insiders.”

At the time, TMZ reported that  “Sources familiar with the situation tell TMZ Shandling died from a massive heart attack, with no prior warning whatsoever”

In a post I wrote entitled “Do You Know What is on Garry Shandling’s and Your Parent’s Death certificate?” I pointed out that his cause of death was unknown and that:

Although a heart attack resulting in ventricular fibrillation is the most common cause of a sudden, unexpected death in individuals over the age of 40, it is not the only one.

In fact, People  magazine reported that Sanders experienced shortness of breath and pain in his legs just a day before his death, and that he spoke to a doctor friend about his symptoms, who stopped by that night to check on him,

Shortness of breath and pain in the legs raise the possibility of a clot or DVT in the leg, which can break loose and embolize into the pulmonary arteries. Such a pulmonary embolism, if massive, can result in swift and sudden death.

I wrote another post on this after his autopsy was released.

His autopsy revealed that he  died from a pulmonary embolism, the disease I had raised as a likely  alternative cause of his sudden death in my post in April, 2016. The actual death certificate can be viewed here.

The medical report on his death reveals that Shandling had a prior
history of clots in the leg (s) (DVT) and that previously he had had an IVC filter implanted.

An IVC filter is an umbrella shaped device that is inserted into the major vein draining blood from the the lower half of the body (the inferior vena cava) to physically obstruct the vein and thereby prevent clots from reaching the pulmonary artery. These are used in cases where the normal medical treatment for blood clots (anticoagulants or blood thinners) can’t be utilized due to bleeding risk or have proven ineffective.

Although effective 95% of the time in preventing legs clots from migrating to the pulmonary artery there are reported failures and Shandling was clearly one.

Risk factors for DVT and PE include cancer, surgery and immobility. Shandling, it appears, was recently in Hawaii and long plane flights like the one he must have taken back to LA are notorious causes of immobility that can lead to DVT.

What Can We Learn From Shandling’s Death

Some take home points

-When some one dies suddenly and unexpectedly  it is not automatically due to a massive heart attack. Do not assume your family member or spouse who  was found dead in bed suffered a myocardial infarction.

-Unless the victim was quite old or had advanced cancer consider asking for an autopsy to find out the true cause of death. Whatever disease caused the death could be  inherited by the victim’s offspring.

-Pulmonary embolism can be a rapidly lethal disease. Consider a medical evaluation for it if you are experiencing leg pain/swelling, sudden, unexplained shortness of breath or chest pain which worsens upon taking a breath. If you have risk factors for leg clots or prior leg clots be even more vigilant.

 

Watching the Zen Diaries of Garry Shandling gave me no further insights into his death. Sudden death typically happens without warning to the victim and even those who are closest to him/her.

Antithrombotically Yours

-ACP

 

N.B. In the second post I talked about Carrie Fisher’s death (also widely reported falsely as due to a “massive heart attack”) and speculated that we might never know the cause of her death because I anticipated that her autopsy (with toxicology) would not be released.

I was right about her not dying of a “massive heart attack” .

Her cause of death was listed as sleep apnea with other factors.

The other factors appear to be LOTS of drugs:

“Fisher’s toxicology review found evidence of cocaine, methadone, MDMA (better known as ecstasy), alcohol and opiates when she was rushed to Ronald Reagan UCLA Hospital on Dec. 23, a toxicology report showed.”

No autopsy was done per family request but CT scanning was performed.

Top Skeptical Cardiology Stories of 2017

Science continued to progress in the field of cardiology in 2017. Some cardiology interventions were proven to be more beneficial (TAVR) and some less (coronary stents). A class of cholesterol lowering drugs had a big winner and a big loser. A supplement that many thought, based on observational studies, was crucial to prevent heart disease, turned out to be unhelpful. More evidence emerged that saturated fat is not a dietary villain.

From the skeptical cardiologist’s viewpoint, the following were the major scientific studies relevant to cardiology:

1.  “Thousands of heart patients get stents that may do more harm than good”

Thus read the Vox headline for the ORBITA study which was published in November.

Indeed this was an earth-shattering study for interventional cardiologists, many of whom agreed with the NY Times headline “Unbelievable: Heart Stents Fail To Ease Chest Pain.”

Cardiologists have known for a decade (since the landmark  COURAGE study) that outside the setting of an acute heart attack (acute coronary syndrome or ACS), stents don’t save lives and that they don’t prevent heart attacks.

Current guidelines reflect this knowledge, and indicate that stents in stable patients with coronary artery disease should be placed only after a failure of  “guideline-directed medical therapy.”  Despite these recommendations, published in 2012, half of the thousands of stents implanted annually in the US continued to be employed in patients with either no symptoms or an inadequate trial of medical therapy.

Yes, lots of stents are placed in asymptomatic patients.  And lots of patients who have stents placed outside the setting of ACS are convinced that their stents saved their lives, prevented future heart attacks and “fixed” their coronary artery disease. It is very easy to make the case to the uneducated patient that a dramatic intervention to “cure” a blocked artery is going to be more beneficial than merely giving medications that dilate the artery or slow the heart’s pumping to reduce myocardial oxygen demands.

Stent procedures are costly  in the US (average charge around $30,000, range $11,000 to $40,000) and there are significant risks including death, stroke and heart attack. After placement, patients must take powerful antiplatelet drugs which increase their risk of bleeding. There should be compelling reasons to place stents if we are not saving lives.

I, along with the vast majority of cardiologists, still recommended stents for those patients with tightly blocked coronary arteries and stable symptoms, which were not sufficiently helped by medications. ORBITA calls into question even this indication for stenting.

The ORBITA study investigators recruited 230 patients to whom most American cardiologists would have recommended stenting. These patients appeared to have a single tightly blocked coronary artery and had chest pain (angina) that limited their physical activity.

They treated the patients for 6 weeks with aspirin/statins/ and medications that reduce anginal symptoms such as beta-blockers, calcium-channel blockers or long-acting nitrates. At this point patients were randomized to receive either a stent or to undergo a catheteriation procedure which did not result in a stent, a so-called sham procedure.

The performance of a sham procedure was a courageous move that made the study truly double-blinded; neither the patients nor the investigators knew which patients had actually received a stent. Thus, the powerful placebo effects of having a procedure were neutralized.

Surprisingly, the study found that those patients receiving stents had no more improvement in their treadmill exercise time, angina severity or frequency or in their peak oxygen uptake on exercise.

ORBITA hopefully will cause more cardiologists to avoid the “oculo-stenotic” reflex wherein coronary artery blockages are stented without either sufficient evidence that the blockage is causing symptoms or that a medical trial has failed.

Although this was a small study with a very narrowly defined subset of patients, it raises substantial questions about the efficacy of coronary stenting. If ORBITA causes more patients and doctors to question the need for catheterization or stenting, this will be a  very good thing.

2. Vitamin D Supplementation Doesn’t Reduce Cardiovascular Disease (or fractures, or help anything really).

One of my recurring themes in this blog is the gullibility of Americans who keep buying and using useless vitamins, supplements and nutraceuticals, thereby feeding a $20 billion industry that provides no benefits to consumers (see here and here).

Vitamin D is a prime player in the useless supplement market based on observational studies suggesting low levels were associated with increased mortality and cardiovascular disease

Despite well done studies showing a lack of benefit of Vitamin D supplementation, the proportion of people taking more than 1,000 IU daily of Vitamin D surged from just 0.3 percent  in 1999-2000 to 18 percent in  2013-2014.

I’ve written previously (calcium supplements: would you rather a hip fracture or a heart attack) on the increased risk of heart attack with calcium supplementation.

Most recently a nicely done study showed that Vitamin D supplementation doesn’t reduce the risk of heart disease.

In a randomized clinical trial that included 5108 participants from the community, the cumulative incidence of cardiovascular disease for a median follow-up period of 3.3 years was 11.8% among participants given 100 000 IU of vitamin D3 monthly, and 11.5% among those given placebo.

Aaron Carroll does a good job of summarizing the data showing Vitamin D is useless in multiple other areas in a JAMA forum piece:

Last October, JAMA Internal Medicine published a randomized, controlled trial of vitamin D examining its effects on musculoskeletal health. Postmenopausal women were given either the supplement or placebo for one year. Measurements included total fractional calcium absorption, bone mineral density, muscle mass, fitness tests, functional status, and physical activity. On almost no measures did vitamin D make a difference.

The accompanying editor’s note observed that the data provided no support for the use of any dose of vitamin D for bone or muscle health.

Last year, also in JAMA Internal Medicine, a randomized controlled trial examined whether exercise and vitamin D supplementation might reduce falls and falls resulting in injury among elderly women. Its robust factorial design allowed for the examination of the independent and joined effectiveness of these 2 interventions. Exercise reduced the rate of injuries, but vitamin D did nothing to reduce either falls or injuries from falls.

In the same issue, a systematic review and meta-analysis looked at whether evidence supports the contention that vitamin D can improve hypertension. A total of 46 randomized, placebo controlled trials were included in the analysis. At the trial level, at the individual patient level, and even in subgroup analyses, vitamin D was ineffective in lowering blood pressure.

Finally, if the Vitamin D coffin needs any more nails, let us add the findings of this recent meta-analysis:

calcium, calcium plus vitamin D, and vitamin D supplementation alone were not significantly associated with a lower incidence of hip, nonvertebral, vertebral, or total fractures in community-dwelling older adults.

3. PCSK9 Inhibitors: Really low cholesterol levels are safe and reduce cardiac events

I reported the very positive results for evolocumab and disappointing results for bosocizumab on the physician social media site SERMO in March but never put this in my blog.

As a practicing cardiologist I’ve been struggling with how to utilize the two available PCSK9 inhibitors (Amgen’s Repatha (evolocumab) and Sanofi’s Praluent (alirocumab) in my clinical practice.  I would love to use them for my high risk statin-intolerant patients but the high cost and limited insurance coverage has resulted in only a few of my patients utilizing it.

The lack of outcomes data has also restrained my and most insurance companies enthusiasm for using them.

The opening session at this year’s American College of Cardiology Scientific Sessions in DC I think has significantly changed the calculus in this area with two presentations: the first showing  Amgen’s “fully humanized” evolocumab significantly lowers CV risk in high risk patients on optimal statin therapy and the second showing that Pfizer’s “mostly humanized” bococizumab loses efficacy over time and will likely never reach the market.

The FOURIER study of evolocumab randomized  27, 564 high risk but stable patients who had LDL>70 with prior MI, prior stroke or symptomatic PAD to receive evolocumab or placebo on top of optimized lipid therapy. 69% of patients were recieving high intensity statin therapy and the baseline LDL was 92. LDL was reduced by 59% to average level of 30 in the treated patients. The reduction in LDL was consistent through the duration of the study.

IN 1/4 of the patients LDL was <20! These are unprecedented low levels of LDL.

Active treatment significantly reduced the primary endpoint by 15% and reduced the secondary endpoinf  of CV death, MI, stroke by 20%. absolute difference 2% by 3 years. 

There was no difference in adverse effects between placebo and Evo. 

The next presentation featured data using Pfizer’s candidate in the PCSK9 wars and the acronym SPIRE (Studies of PCSK9 Inhibition and the Reduction in vascular Events (SPIRE) Bococizumab Development Program).

Paul Ridker presented the outcomes data for bococizumab which was actually similar to evolocumab data but given the declining efficacy and development of antibodies to the Pfizer drug over time these were very disappointing for Pfizer and I would presume their drug will never reach the market.

How will these results impact clinical practice?

I am now more inclined to prescribe evolocumab to my very high risk patients who have not achieved LDL< 70. I’m willing to do what I can to jump through insurance company hoops and try to make these drugs affordable to my patients.

I am less worried about extremely low LDL levels and have more faith in the LDL hypothesis: the lower the LDL the lower the risk of CV disease.

Cost is still going to be an issue for most of my patients I fear and the need for shared decision-making becomes even more important.

 

4. “Pure Shakes Up Nutritional Field: Finds High Fat Intake Beneficial.”

As one headline put it.

I recorded my full observations on this observational international study here

Here is a brief excerpt:

The Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study, involved more than 200 investigators who collected data on more than 135000 individuals from 18 countries across five continents for over 7 years.

There were three high-income (Canada, Sweden, and United Arab Emirates), 11 middle-income (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Iran, Malaysia, occupied Palestinian territory, Poland, South Africa, and Turkey) and four low-income countries (Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, and Zimbabwe)

This was the largest prospective observational study to assess the association of nutrients (estimated by food frequency questionnaires) with cardiovascular disease and mortality in low-income and middle-income populations,

The PURE team reported that:

-Higher carbohydrate intake was associated with an increased risk of total mortality but not with CV disease or CV disease mortality.

This finding meshes well with one of my oft-repeated themes here, that added sugar is the major toxin in our diet (see here and here.)

I particular liked what the editorial for this paper wrote:

Initial PURE findings challenge conventional diet–disease tenets that are largely based on observational associations in European and North American populations, adding to the uncertainty about what constitutes a healthy diet. This uncertainty is likely to prevail until well designed randomised controlled trials are done. Until then, the best medicine for the nutrition field is a healthy dose of humility

I wish for all those following science-based medicine a healthy dose of humility. As science marches on, it’s always possible that a procedure we’ve been using might turn out to be useless (or at least much less beneficial than we thought), and it is highly likely that weak associations turn out to be causally nonsignificant. Such is the scientific process. We must continually pay attention, learn and evolve in the medical field.

Happy New Year to Be from the Skeptical Cardiologist the EFOSC!

The skeptical cardiologist and his Eternal Fiancee marveling at the total eclipse of the sun (very accurately predicted by science) in St. Genevieve, Missouri

-ACP

 

Two Three Letter Words For Saving Lives: CPR and AED

Every two years the skeptical cardiologist has to get recertified in Basic Life Support for medical personnel. This involves a review of what, the American Heart Association has decided, are important changes in guidelines for Emergency Cardiac Care and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).

I highly recommend all of you undergo such training. Although the survival rate of patients with “out of hospital cardiac arrests” is very low, your appropriate actions could be crucial in saving the life of a stranger or a loved one.

About a year ago one of my patients suddenly, and without any warning symptoms, collapsed at work. Fortunately for him, a co-worker had undergone CPR training and initiated chest compressions right away. When paramedics arrived 15 minutes later he was defibrillated from ventricular fibrillation and taken to a nearby hospital.

Our best information on cardiac arrest suggests that without CPR, irreversible brain damage (due to lack of oxygen) develops in about four minutes after the heart stops beating. Even with good CPR, the longer the time interval from arrest to defibrillation, the less likely the patient is to survive with good brain function.

Thus, the two keys to helping someone who drops dead next to you are beginning effective CPR (and compression only is OK) and defibrillating a fibrillating heart as soon as possible.

My patient was comatose on arrival to the hospital and was put into a hypothermic state, a process which has been shown to improve neurological outcome in cardiac arrest victims. Doctors informed his wife that they thought his prognosis was bad-less than 5% chance of surviving with intact brain function.  After three days he awoke from his coma and was transferred to my hospital.

I visited him in the ICU and other than a sore chest and an inability to remember the events surrounding his cardiac arrest, he was mentally normal and felt great. He continues to do very well to this day, but without the bystander CPR that he received (followed by the defibrillation) he would be one of the 350,000 who die of cardiac arrest in the US each year.

If the co-worker had not initiated CPR for the many minutes it took for EMRs to arrive, my patient’s brain would have been dying from lack of oxygen and it is most likely he would have suffered severe encephalopathy or brain death.

Recognizing Cardiac Arrest

Recognizing when someone needs CPR is a critical first step in the chain of events that can improve survival in cardiac arrest.

You are looking for two things before starting CPR:

  1. Unresponsiveness. The victim  does not move and does not respond at all to either verbal or physical stimulation.
  2. Breathing is absent or atonal (meaning ineffective , intermittent gasps).

Agonal respirations have also been described as “snoring, snorting, gurgling, or moaning or as barely, labored, noisy, or heavy breathing.”  Studies have shown that agonal respirations are common in the early minutes after cardiac arrest and are associated with good outcomes.

Two Steps To Save A Life

The two key components of resuscitation are CPR and defibrillation.

Performing these steps is simple and straightforward.

The earlier they are started, the more likely the victim is to survive.

If someone collapses near you and they are unresponsive and not breathing, they need CPR and an AED. Call for help as you are starting CPR.

images

 

Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR)

CPR consists of repeated compressions of a victim’s chest.

img_7451
I came across this machine recently. You can learn and practice hands-only CPR using it.

Everyone has seen dramatizations of CPR and it is quite simple to do even without training. Basically, you want to “push hard and fast in the center of the chest.”

CPR training undergoes some tweaking over time as more scientific data is obtained but the fundamentals remain the same. The changes that the AHA is emphasizing in their current CPR courses are:

-depress the chest at least 2 inches

-depress the chest 100-120 times per minuCPR-Certificationte (as opposed to just >100 time per minute).

Of note, the recommended sequence has changed from A, B, C, to C, A, B. Compressions right away followed by assessment of airway and then mouth-to-mouth breathing.  In fact, because compressions without breaths have been shown to be as effective as with breaths, if you are uncomfortable giving breaths, recommendations now are to just do CPR.

 

Initiating CPR and calling 911 are the greatest initial things you can do for the person who collapses next to you.

However, the earlier you can defibrillate that person from ventricular fibrillation, the better their chance of survival.

Ambulatory electronic defibrillators or AEDS , if available, are very easy to use devices that can shorten the time to defibrillation and are the second key to successful resuscitation of cardiac arrest victims in the community.

I’ll talk about using them in a subsequent post.

antimortatorially yours

-ACP

 

Do You Know What’s On Garry Shandling’s And Your Parent’s Death Certificate?

0324-garry-shandling-twitter-4
Better Call Saul’s Bob Odenkirk and Kathy Griffin “hanging” with an apparently healthy Larry Sanders on March 20. These two appeared on Shandling’s brilliant Larry Sanders TV show.

When someone who had appeared to be healthy dies suddenly, it is often assumed that he/she died of “a massive heart attack.” Certainly, this was the case in the recent unexpected sudden death of Garry Shandling, the actor and comedian.  Shandling, aged 66, died March 24 of this year.

ET online reported:

“His publicist Alan Nierob told the ET that Shandling had no history of heart problems, but that doctors believe he died as the result of a heart attack.”

Although a heart attack resulting in ventricular fibrillation is the most common cause of a sudden, unexpected death in individuals over the age of 40, it is not the only one.

In fact, People  magazine reported that Sanders experienced shortness of breath and pain in his legs just a day before his death, and that he spoke to a doctor friend about his symptoms, who stopped by that night to check on him,

Shortness of breath and pain in the legs raise the possibility of a clot or DVT in the leg, which can break loose and embolize into the pulmonary arteries. Such a pulmonary embolism, if massive, can result in swift and sudden death.

The LA Coroner’s office could not get Sanders’ physician to sign his death certificate and the cause of death has still apparently not been determined, pending toxicology testing which typically takes 6 weeks.

What’s On Your Parent’s Death Certificate

More important than what is on Garry Shandling’s death certificate is what is on your parent’s death certificate, and whether it is accurate. If one of your parents died prematurely and suddenly, it is  important to know with precision what caused it. If the cause was an heritable cardiovascular condition, hopefully, appropriate testing can determine if you have that condition, and steps can be taken to prevent your premature demise.

Examples of inherited cardiovascular conditions (in addition to heart attack (myocardial infarction) or pulmonary embolism) that can cause sudden and unexpected death include aortic aneurysm dissection, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasis, and long QT syndrome.

Unfortunately I find that, at least in my patients, uncertainty about the cause of death of one’s parents is the norm.

Many of my patients, for example, tell me one of their parents died of a “massive heart attack” and they assume that they are at increased risk of the same fate. When I press for details, typically no autopsy was performed.  Mom or dad may have been found dead at home, or they may have suddenly keeled over but not survived to make it to the hospital for a definitive diagnosis.

Without an autopsy in such circumstances, it is not possible to be sure of the cause of death.

Even if you have a cause of death listed on your parent’s death certificate, there is no guarantee that it is accurate.  The doctor that filled it out, without an autopsy in many circumstances, is just speculating on the cause based on what he/she knew about prior medical conditions and the circumstances surrounding the death.

I was recently asked to fill out the death certificate of an elderly patient of mine who had atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure and was living in a nursing home.

One night she was noted by the staff to be very short of breath and was taken to a local  emergency room where she was pronounced dead.

Based on the information available to me, I had no idea what caused her death. Although she had quite signifiant cardiac problems, when I last saw her she was stable and I have numerous patients with the same conditions who live for decades.

I filled out the death certificate, listing all of her conditions, and entered in that the cause of death was unknown.

Although the CDC guide for physicians filling out death certificates clearly states that this is acceptable, I was subsequently informed that the funeral home did not accept unknown cause of death and that they had found another doctor to fill in a cause  of death.

I guarantee you, whatever he put on as the cause of death was total speculation.

Jerry Seinfeld was good friends with Garry Shandling and, oddly enough, not too long ago, featured him in an episode of his internet series “Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee” entitled “It’s Great That Garry Shandling Is Still Alive.

Screen Shot 2016-07-03 at 7.04.14 AM

Shandling mentions “I had hyperparathyroidism,” making a joke that “the symptoms are so much like being an older Jewish man, no one noticed!”

James Fallows, the excellent The Atlantic writer, highlights his own experience with hyperparathyroidism (a disease that leads to high calcium levels and is easily treated with surgery), in a recent Atlantic article. The subtitle of this article, “a rare and under-publicized condition that can sometimes be fatal,” suggests that hyperhyperparathyroidism might have led to Shandling’s death.

I don’t think this is likely because Shandling suggests that the disease is in the past tense (i.e. he has already had the surgery), and sudden death from hyperparathyroidism would be extremely unlikely.

Fortunately, Shandling is getting a full examination and autopsy to fully determine the cause of his death. If he has offspring, this will be extremely helpful to them in understanding what medical conditions they can expect later in life.

If he was not a celebrity, his death, like many of your parents’, most likely would have been ascribed to a “massive heart attack.”

 

 

Unbiased, evidence-based discussion of the effects of diet, drugs, and procedures on heart disease

%d bloggers like this: