Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk and Longitudinal Risk Factor Management Among Patients With Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of noncancer mortality for breast cancer survivors. Data are limited regarding patient-level atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk estimation and preventive medication use. This study aimed to characterize ASCVD risk and longitudinal preventive medication use for a cohort of patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 326 patients at an academic medical center in Boston, Massachusetts diagnosed with nonmetastatic breast cancer or ductal carcinoma in situ from January 2009 through December 2015. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, laboratory studies, medication exposure, and incident cardiovascular outcomes were collected. Estimated 10-year ASCVD risk was calculated for all patients from nonlaboratory clinical parameters. RESULTS: Median follow up time was 6.5 years (IQR 5.0, 8.1). At cancer diagnosis, 23 patients (7.1%) had established ASCVD. Among those without ASCVD, 10-year estimated ASCVD risk was ≥20% for 77 patients (25.4%) and 7.5% to <20% for 114 patients (37.6%). Two-hundred and sixteen patients (66.3%) had an indication for lipid-lowering therapy at cancer diagnosis, 123 of whom (57.0%) received a statin during the study. Among 100 patients with ASCVD or estimated 10-year ASCVD risk ≥20%, 92 (92.0%) received an antihypertensive medication during the study. Clinic blood pressure >140/90 mmHg was observed in 33.0% to 55.6% of these patients at each follow up assessment. CONCLUSION: A majority of patients in this breast cancer cohort had an elevated risk of ASCVD at the time of cancer diagnosis. Modifiable ASCVD risk factors were frequently untreated or uncontrolled in the years following cancer treatment.

Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound with artificial intelligence-assisted assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction.

Focused cardiac ultrasound (FoCUS) is becoming standard practice in a wide spectrum of clinical settings. There is limited data evaluating the real-world use of FoCUS with artificial intelligence (AI). Our objective was to determine the accuracy of FoCUS AI-assisted left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) assessment and compare its accuracy between novice and experienced users. In this prospective, multicentre study, participants requiring a transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) were recruited to have a FoCUS done by a novice or experienced user. The AI-assisted device calculated LVEF at the bedside, which was subsequently compared to TTE. 449 participants were enrolled with 424 studies included in the final analysis. The overall intraclass coefficient was 0.904, and 0.921 in the novice (n = 208) and 0.845 in the experienced (n = 216) cohorts. There was a significant bias of 0.73% towards TTE (p = 0.005) with a level of agreement of 11.2%. Categorical grading of LVEF severity had excellent agreement to TTE (weighted kappa = 0.83). The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.98 for identifying an abnormal LVEF (<50%) with a sensitivity of 92.8%, specificity of 92.3%, negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.97 and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.83. In identifying severe dysfunction (<30%) the AUC was 0.99 with a sensitivity of 78.1%, specificity of 98.0%, NPV of 0.98 and PPV of 0.76. Here we report that FoCUS AI-assisted LVEF assessments provide highly reproducible LVEF estimations in comparison to formal TTE. This finding was consistent among senior and novice echocardiographers suggesting applicability in a variety of clinical settings.

The effect of tablet computer-based telemonitoring added to an established telephone disease management program on heart failure hospitalizations: The Specialized Primary and Networked Care in Heart Failure (SPAN-CHF) III Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Mobile health applications are becoming increasingly common. Prior work has demonstrated reduced heart failure (HF) hospitalizations with HF disease management programs; however, few of these programs have used tablet computer-based technology. METHODS: Participants with a diagnosis of HF and at least 1 high risk feature for hospitalization were randomized to either an established telephone-based disease management program or the same disease management program with the addition of remote monitoring of weight, blood pressure, heart rate and symptoms via a tablet computer for 90 days. The primary endpoint was the number of days hospitalized for HF assessed at 90 days. RESULTS: From August 2014 to April 2019, 212 participants from 3 hospitals in Massachusetts were randomized 3:1 to telemonitoring-based HF disease management (n = 159) or telephone-based HF disease management (n = 53) with 98% of individuals in both study groups completing the 90 days of follow-up. There was no significant difference in the number of days hospitalized for HF between the telemonitoring disease management group (0.88 ± 3.28 days per patient-90 days) and the telephone-based disease management group (1.00 ± 2.97 days per patient-90 days); incidence rate ratio 0.82 (95% confidence interval, 0.43-1.58; P = .442). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of tablet-based telemonitoring to an established HF telephone-based disease management program did not reduce HF hospitalizations; however, study power was limited.

Development and Implementation of an Escalation Protocol for Internal Medicine Trainees.

Background: Overnight, physicians in training receive less direct supervision. Decreased direct supervision requires trainees to appropriately assess patients at risk of clinical deterioration and escalate to supervising physicians. Failure of trainees to escalate contributes to adverse patient safety events. Objective: To standardize the evaluation of patients at risk of deterioration overnight by internal medicine residents, increase communication between residents and supervising physicians, and improve perceptions of patient safety at a tertiary academic medical center. Methods: A multidisciplinary stakeholder team developed an overnight escalation-of-care protocol for residents. The protocol was implemented with badge buddies and an educational campaign targeted at residents, supervising physicians, and nursing staff. Residents and supervising physicians completed anonymous surveys to assess the use of the protocol; the frequency of overnight communication between residents and supervising physicians; and perceptions of escalation and patient safety before, immediately after ("early postintervention"), and 8 months after ("delayed postintervention") the intervention. Results: Seventy-five (100%) residents participated in the intervention, and 57-89% of those invited to complete surveys at the various time points responded. After the intervention, 82% of residents reported using the protocol, though no change was observed in the frequency of communication between residents and supervising physicians. After the implementation, residents perceived that patient care was safer (early postintervention, 47%; delayed postintervention, 72%; P = 0.02), and interns expressed decreased fear of waking and being criticized by supervising physicians. Conclusion: An escalation-of-care protocol was developed and successfully implemented using a multimodal approach. The implementation and dissemination of the protocol standardized resident escalation overnight and improved resident-perceived patient safety and interns' comfort with escalation.

Cardioprotection of High-Risk Individuals.

Targeting cardioprotective strategies to patients at the highest risk for cardiac events can help maximize therapeutic benefits. Dexrazoxane, liposomal formulations, continuous infusions, and neurohormonal antagonists may be useful for cardioprotection for anthracycline-treated patients at the highest risk for heart failure. Prevalent cardiovascular disease is a risk factor for cardiac events with many cancer therapies, including anthracyclines, anti-human-epidermal growth factor receptor-2 therapy, radiation, and BCR-Abl tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and may be a risk factor for cardiac events with other therapies. Although evidence for cardioprotective strategies is sparse for nonanthracycline therapies, optimizing cardiac risk factors and prevalent cardiovascular disease may improve outcomes.

Safety and efficacy of clonidine and clonidine extended-release in the treatment of children and adolescents with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorders.

Clonidine has been used off-label in children and adolescents with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorders (ADHD) with or without comorbidities. Clonidine extended-release was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for ADHD in children. This review evaluates the efficacy and safety of clonidine extended-release and clonidine in children and adolescents with ADHD. A search of the Medline database and clinical trials register from 1996-2011 yielded ten clinical trials for critical evaluation of efficacy and safety. Eight of the ten trials reviewed were double-blinded and placebo-controlled. Nine of the ten trials utilized multiple outcome measures. Both clonidine extended-release and clonidine, as monotherapy or adjunctive therapy, were reported to be efficacious in treating ADHD symptoms in children and adolescents with or without comorbid disorders in nine of the ten clinical trials. One study showed clonidine to be ineffective in improving performance of a single task, at a specific point in time, in a small number of subjects. All of the studies that evaluated safety reported clonidine and clonidine extended-release to be well tolerated. The side effects of clonidine included somnolence, fatigue, headache, bradycardia, hypotension, and clinically insignificant electrocardiographic changes. However, there are historical anecdotal reports of serious cardiac side effects, including death in cases with other risk factors. None of the studies compared clonidine extended-release with clonidine in subjects with ADHD. Therefore, it is not clear whether clonidine extended-release is advantageous over clonidine, with regard to either efficacy or safety. It is equally unclear whether clonidine or clonidine extended-release is more efficacious in treating ADHD in subjects with comorbid disorders than in those without comorbidities. All the studies reviewed had limitations in their designs and methods. Clonidine and clonidine extended-release could be efficacious and safe for the treatment of ADHD both as monotherapy and as adjunctive therapy with stimulant medications in selected patients. There is a need for clinical trials to determine the long-term efficacy and safety of treatment with clonidine and clonidine extended-release in patients with ADHD.