Heart attack awareness in Australian masters football players

Heart attack awareness in Australian masters football players

A half of over-35s are not confident in their ability to recognise symptoms of impending cardiac risk – such as a heart attack or sudden cardiac death – while participating in strenuous exercise. A paper published today in The Internal Medicine Journal surveyed 153 Masters Age football players aged ≥35 years playing on a scale of competitive to social football games.

Participants exercised or played sport an average of 3.6 days per week, with a weekly average of 2.6 hours of moderate activity and 2.4 hours of vigorous activity.

Professor Geoffrey Tofler, senior author of the paper and of University of Sydney and Royal North Shore Hospital, says, “Although regular exercise improves health, strenuous exercise causes a transient increase in cardiac risk. Being able to recognise the warning signs of an impending cardiac event is critical to mitigating those risks during exercise.”

“The risks are elevated when accounting for participants with pre-existing risk factors like hypercholesterolaemia, hypertension, smoker status, weight issues, and family history of heart disease.”

Despite the popularity of Masters football, the prevalence of cardiac risk factors and
potential cardiac symptoms in players has not been adequately studied.

“In total, one in five study participants had one or more possible cardiac symptoms during a game in the prior year, but only a quarter of them sought medical attention.

In a hypothetical scenario of participants having chest pain while playing, around half of them said they would keep playing for five to ten minutes waiting for the symptoms to pass.”

“Almost half of the participants were unsure whether they would recognise symptoms they might experience during games, such as chest pain, as an indicator of potentially serious cardiac risk.”

The need for better cardiac education and knowledge has been emphasised as a key solution to preventing or mitigating cardiac events. Most of the cohort surveyed agreed that external defibrillators and CPR training were important and should be staples at football fields during all games.

“Performing CPR and using a defibrillator could be the line between life and death for someone experiencing sudden cardiac arrest, as the survival rate decreases by seven to ten per cent for every minute without the use of either method.” says Professor Tofler.

“Education strategies should focus on giving players clear instructions to assist rapid symptom recognition and management of cardiac events.”

“While it is important to note that the benefits of exercise still far outweigh cardiac risk overall, these measures may further increase the benefit to risk ratio.”

Key Findings

Out of the 153 participants:
50% were not confident in their ability to recognise symptoms of a heart attack in themselves with even less (33%) expressing confidence in recognising one in others.
1 in 5 participants reported experiencing one or more potential cardiac symptom during physical activity in the preceding 12 months.
Only 24% (one quarter) of those experiencing one or more symptoms sought medical attention
In a hypothetical scenario of a participant experiencing chest pain while playing
47% said they would leave the field immediately however 49% would continue playing for 5-10 minutes to see if the pain eased, and several would continue playing further.
One third would be embarrassed to go to hospital if they thought they were having a heart attack but were incorrect
45% said that if they thought they were having a heart attack, they would rather someone drive them to hospital that have an ambulance come to their home”
Only 40% were aware that warning symptoms may precede a heart attack by days or more.
67% knew how to provide CPR

View the RACP / IMJ article here at onlinelibrary.wiley.com

Clinical Case: What do you think?

A Clinical Case – what do you think?

by Andrew Martin 

 

Mr A is a 72 year old who had a dual chamber permanent pacemaker implanted five years previously for symptomatic sinus node dysfunction – syncope with documented sinus pauses of 3-5 seconds duration. The right ventricular lead was inserted via the left cephalic vein and the right atrial lead via the left axillary vein with the generator sited within a pre- pectoral pocket. He is otherwise fit and well with no other co-morbidities, a structurally normal heart as assessed by echocardiography, and takes no regular medical therapies. His functional capacity is unlimited and he continues employment in a physical occupation.

He presents for routine assessment at the pacemaker clinic. His pacemaker is programmed DDDR, with rate range 50-140 per minute. With this programming his atrial pacing burden is 50% and his ventricular pacing burden is < 1%. As part of this interrogation, multiple episodes of non-physiological high frequency ‘noise’ sensed episodes have been recorded on the atrial channel. In addition, the atrial lead impedance is now > 3,000 Ohms, having previously been stable at 800-850 Ohms. Adduction of the left shoulder during the pacemaker interrogation was able to replicate the high frequency ‘noise’.

A chest x-ray has been obtained and your opinion is sought regarding how he best be managed.

Comment

The electrical findings are consistent with a fracture of the conductor component of the right atrial lead. The chest x-ray demonstrates a macroscopic abnormality of the right atrial lead in the pectoral region, superficial to the second rib. This observation accounts for both the abnormalities observed with electrical interrogation of the lead and provocative arm movement testing.

Once a diagnosis of lead failure has been made, the first step in management is to determine if the patient continues to have an indication for on-going pacing support and if so whether this can be adequately provided by programmed changes to the pacing mode. In Mr A’s situation, his pacemaker programming could be changed for dual chamber synchronous pacing to ventricular only pacing. While this mode would provide safety and prevention of bradycardia induced syncope it is suboptimal as he is likely to have a high degree of right ventricular pacing. High burdens of asynchronous right ventricular pacing can result in pacemaker syndrome and potentially impairment of ventricular function (1).

The 2017 Heart Rhythm Society Guideline on Cardiac Implanted Electronic Device Lead Management and Extraction and the 2018 European Heart Rhythm Association expert consensus statement on lead extraction offer two potential management approaches to Mr A’s clinical situation (2,3).

  1. Abandon the existing right atrial lead and implant a new lead.
  2. Extract the existing right atrial lead and implant a new lead.

A patient centred approach to decision making between these two options is critically important, weighing the pros and cons of each approach with the patient’s goals of care and preferences for management paramount. Inserting a new right atrial lead and abandoning the existing lead is a lower risk and typically more straightforward procedure, however the presence of an abandoned lead would render his pacing system MRI non-conditional and the presence of three leads potentially make any future lead extraction a more challenging endeavour. On the other hand, a transvenous lead extraction procedure has a higher up- front procedure risk, with up to 3% risk of major thoracic and/or pericardial bleeding necessitating emergent cardiac surgery.

Following a conversation with Mr A regarding these management options, his preference was to proceed with a procedure involving the extraction of his existing leads followed by reimplantation. This procedure was undertaken successfully and without complication.

References
  1. Kiehl EL et al. Incidence and predictors of right ventricular pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in patients with complete atrioventricular block and preserved left ventricular systolic function. Heart Rhythm. 2016, 13(12):2272-2278.
    DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2016.09.027
  2. Kusumoto FM et al. 2017 HRS expert consensus statement on cardiovascular implantable electronic device lead management and extraction. Heart Rhythm. 2017, 14(12): e503-e600. DOI: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2017.09.001
  3. Bongiorni MG et al. 2018 EHRA expert consensus statement on lead extraction:
    recommendations on definitions, endpoints, research trial design, and data
    collection requirements for clinical scientific studies and registries: endorsed by
    APHRS/HRS/LAHRS. EP Europace 10.1093/europace/euy050

 

Statin side effects are largely nocebo

Summary by Paul Bridgman, 22 February 2022

 

Side effects from taking statin tablets are driven by the act of taking tablets, rather than whether the tablets contain a statin. So says Prof Darrel Francis of Imperial College in the report of the SAMSON Trial.(1)

 

In a three-armed cross-over trial of active tablets placebo and no tablets, the SAMSON Study showed that it is the act of taking the tablets which causes the side effects. This is what is termed a “nocebo effect”. A placebo effect is a beneficial effect produced by a placebo or drug treatment which cannot be attributed to the properties of the treatment itself. A nocebo effect is a similar effect that is negative or noxious, such as myalgia or muscle cramps with statins.

 

In the SAMSON Study, there were 60 participants with self-reported statin intolerance. They were randomised into a 12 month protocol. For each month the patients would be given a bottle containing either atorvastatin 20mg, matching placebo, or no tablet. Months were allocated in random order and the study was double-blind.

 

The planned statistical analysis was complicated because the investigators incorrectly assumed that every individual participant would have substantially more symptoms whilst taking active drug than not. As patients exited the study it became clear that a number of patients had significantly less symptoms on active drug than at other times. Supplementary analyses were therefore performed. From these Francis reports that stopping medications was no more frequent with statin therapy than with placebo (p = 0.17), and that subsequent symptom relief was similar between statin and placebo. The nocebo ratio was 0.9.

 

The study results are concordant with several randomised controlled studies in which side effect rate from placebo was very similar to that with statin. An implication of the SAMSON Study is that it is wrong to interpret rapid symptom-decline with stopping tablets as evidence that statin was the cause. The data also argues against the use of a second therapeutic challenge with statins as a means of scientifically proving the association with the tablets and side effects is cause and effect due to the statin. In clinical practice an informal experiment of a second trial of taking active drug, which patients and clinicians often use to test causation, may paradoxically confirm a non-existent association.

 

What does this mean for management of our statin-intolerant patients? These are real side effects. The data increases our certainty as to their cause and informs discussion with patients around what are very troublesome symptoms.

 

Reference

  1. James P. Howard (et al). 2021 Side Effect Patterns in a Crossover Trial of Statin, Placebo, and No Treatment. Journal of American College of Cardiology. https://www.jacc.org/doi/pdf/10.1016/j.jacc.2021.07.022

Prof Bruce Neal presented his SSaSS at the ESC Congress

Prof Bruce Neal is Executive Director at The George Institute for Global Health Australia; and Professor of Medicine, UNSW Sydney. Prof Neal presented his SSaSS study at the ESC Congress 2021.

SSaSS: Salt Substitute and Stroke Study into the effect of salt substitutes on cardiovascular events and death was presented by Prof Bruce Neal can be viewed here on ESCTV link:  https://www.escardio.org/Congresses-&-Events/ESC-Congress/Congress-news?section=esctv#esctv

 link to  YouTube  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7WIomwOwDs&t=31s

Posts navigation