Sleep and Cardiovascular Health

Several recent publications and presentations of data on the relationship between sleep patterns and vascular disease occurred at the recent meeting of the European Society of Cardiology. The PESA (Progression of Early Subclinical Atherosclerosis) study performed by Dr Fernando Dominguez, MD, of the Spanish National Center for Cardiovascular Research in Madrid talked about the dangers of too little or too much sleep.

The principal researcher, Valentin Fuster, MD PhD, looked at 3,974 middle-aged bank employees known to be free of heart disease and stroke. They wore a monitor to measure sleep and activity. Interestingly, while only about 11% reported sleeping six or fewer hours per night, the monitor showed the true figure was closer to 27%. They found those who slept less than six hours per night had more plaque in their arteries than those people who slept six to eight hours. They additionally looked at people who slept an average of greater than eight hours.

Sleeping longer had little effect on men’s progression of atherosclerosis but had a marked effect of increasing atherosclerosis in women. Researchers then adjusted the data for family history, smoking, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes and other known cardiovascular risk factors. They found that there was an 11% increase in the risk of diagnosis of fatal or non-fatal cardiovascular disease in people who slept less than six hours per night compared to people who slept 6-8 hours per night. For people who slept an average of greater than eight hours per night they bore a 32% increased risk as compared to persons who slept 6-8 hours on average. Their conclusion was distilled down into this belief: “Sleep well, not too long, nor too short and be active.”

In a related study, Moa Bengtsson, an MD PhD student at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden presented data on 798 men who were 50 years old in 1993 when they were given a physical exam and a lifestyle questionnaire including sleep habits. Twenty one years later 759 of those men were still alive and they were examined and questioned. Those reporting sleeping five hours or less per night were 93% more likely to have suffered an MI by age 71 or had a stroke, cardiac surgery, and admission to a hospital for heart failure or died than those who averaged 7-8 hours per night.

While neither study proved a direct cause and effect between length of sleep and development of vascular disease, there was enough evidence to begin to believe that altering sleep habits may be a way to reduce future cardiovascular disease.

Advertisements

Inflammation and Increased Risk of Cardiovascular Disease

For years, experts have noted that up to 50% of men who have a heart attack do not have diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, do not smoke and are active. This has led to an exploration of other causes and risk factors of cardiac and cerebrovascular disease.

In recent years, studies have shown an increased risk of cardiovascular disease in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, in untreated psoriatic arthritis and in severe psoriasis. We can also add atopic eczema to the list of cardiovascular risk factors.

In a publication in the British Medical Journal, investigators noted that patients with severe atopic eczema had a 20% increase risk in stroke, 40 – 50% increase risk of a heart attack, unstable angina, atrial fibrillation and cardiovascular death. There was a 70% increased risk of heart failure. The longer the skin condition remained active the higher their risks.

The study looked at almost 380,000 patients over at least a 5 year period and their outcomes were compared to almost 1.5 million controls without the skin conditions. Data came from a review of medical records and insurance information in the United Kingdom.

It’s clear that severe inflammatory conditions including skin conditions put patients at increased risk. It remains to be seen whether aggressive treatment of the skin conditions with immune modulators and medications to reduce inflammation will reduce the risks?

It will be additionally interesting to see what modalities cardiologists on each side of the Atlantic suggest we should employ for detection and with what frequency? Will it be exercise stress testing or checking coronary artery calcification or even CT coronary artery angiograms? Statins have been used to reduce inflammation by some cardiologists even in patients with reasonable lipid levels? Should we be prescribing statins in men and women with these inflammatory skin and joint conditions but normal lipid patterns?

The correlation of inflammatory situations with increased risk of vascular disease currently raises more questions with few answers at the present time.

More Good News for Coffee Drinkers

When I first started practicing, fresh out of my internal medicine residency and board certification, we were taught that consuming more than five cups of coffee per day increased your chances of developing pancreatic cancer. Thankfully that theory has been proven to be false.

Last week I reviewed a publication in a peer reviewed journal which showed that if you infused the equivalent of four cups of coffee into the energy producing heart cell mitochondria of older rodents, those mitochondria behaved like the mitochondria found in very young healthy rats. The authors of that article made the great leap of faith by suggesting that four cups of caffeinated coffee per day was heart healthy.

This week’s Journal of the American Medical Association Internal Medicine published a study which said if you drank eight cups of coffee per day your mortality from all causes diminished inversely. Their study included individuals who were found to be fast and slow metabolizers of caffeine. It additionally made no distinction between ground coffee, instant coffee or decaffeinated coffee.

The research study investigated 498,134 adults who participated in the UK Biobank study. The mean age of the group was 57 years with 54% women and 78% coffee drinkers. The study participants filled out questionnaires detailing how much coffee they drank and what kind. During a 10 year follow-up there were 14,225 deaths with 58% due to cancer and 20% due to cardiovascular disease. As coffee consumption increased, the risk of death from all causes decreased. While instant coffee and decaffeinated coffee showed this trend, ground coffee showed the strongest trend of lowering the mortality risk.

This is an observational study and, by design, observational studies do not prove cause and effect. It is comforting to know however that having an extra cup or two seems to be protective rather than harmful. At some point a blinded study with true controls will need to be done to prove their point. If the caffeine doesn’t keep you up or make you too jittery, and the coffee itself dehydrate you or give you frequent stools, then drink away if you enjoy coffee in large volume.

Fish, Fish Oils and Cardiovascular Disease

Years ago the scientific researcher responsible for the promotion of fish oils as an antioxidant and protector against vascular disease recommended we all eat two fleshy fish meals of cold water fish a week. He continued to endorse this dietary addition and included canned tuna fish and canned salmon in the types of fish that produced this positive effect.

Over the years I heard him lecture at a large annual medical conference held in Broward County and he fretted about the growth of the supplement industry encouraging taking fish oils rather than eating fish. He worried about the warnings against eating all fish to women of child bearing age because of the fear of heavy metal contamination and knew that the fish oils and omega 3 Fatty Acids played a developmental role in a growing fetus and child.

I then attended lectures, in particular one sponsored by the Cleveland Clinic, during which they promoted Krill oil as the chosen form of fish oil supplements because it remained liquid and viscous at body temperature of 98.6 while others solidified. I listened to this debate only to hear the father of the science speak again and this time advocate that one or two fleshy fish meals a month was adequate to obtain the protective effect of Omega 3 Fatty acids. He felt that the supplements did not actually provide a protective effect as eating real fish did. Since I love to eat fresh fish I had no problem with this message but others are not comfortable buying and preparing fish at home or eating it at a restaurant. Supplements to them were the answer.

Steve Kopecky, M.D. examined the question in an article published in JAMA Cardiology this week. He looked at 77,917 high risk individuals already diagnosed with coronary artery disease and vascular disease who were taking supplements to prevent a second event. His study concluded that taking these omega 3 supplements had no effect on the prevention of recurrent cardiovascular events. The study did not discuss primary prevention for those who have not yet had a vascular illness or event.

Once again it seems that eating fish in moderation, like most anything, is the best choice. I will continue to eat my fresh fish meals one or two times per week, not necessarily for the health benefit but because I enjoy eating fresh fish.

I advise those worried about preventing primary or secondary heart and vascular disease to find a form of fish they can enjoy if they want this benefit. If you really wish to reduce your risk of a cardiovascular event; I suggest you stop smoking, control your blood pressure and lipid profile, stay active and eat those fresh fish meals.

International Panel Questions the Wisdom of Strict Sodium Guidelines

A technical paper published in the online version of the European Heart Journal suggested that individuals should strive to keep their sodium intake to less than 5 grams per day. This is in marked contrast to the recommendations of the American Heart Association of 1.5 grams per day and American College of Cardiology recommendations of 2.3 grams per day. The authors of the papers included some of the world’s experts on the topic of hypertension including Giuseppe Mancia, MD, Suzanne Oparil, MD and Paul Whelton, MD.  They agreed that consuming more than five grams per day was associated with an increased cardiovascular risk. They believe there is no firm evidence that lowering the sodium intake to below 2.3 or 1.5 grams per day reduces cardiovascular disease without putting you at risk of developing other health issues from having too little sodium.

The report triggered a firestorm of controversy in the hypertension and cardiovascular field with proponents on each side of the issue. Both sides agreed that we need more meticulous research to determine the best lower end of daily sodium intake because current information makes recommending one level or another a guess at best with little data to back you up. That leaves clinicians and patients scrambling for clarity and the media reporting this paper in a manner threatening to further erode the public’s confidence in the scientific method and physicians in general.

As a practicing physician I will continue to recommend a common sense approach to salt intake. Those patients who have a history of congestive heart failure or hypertension which is volume related will still be encouraged to read the sodium content of the foods they are purchasing and try to avoid cooking with or adding sodium chloride to their food at the table. This will be especially important for patients with cardiomyopathies and kidney disease who are following their daily weights closely. For the rest of my patient population I will ask them to use salt judiciously and in moderation only. I will suggest not adding salt at the table and if they do to please add it in moderation. I will allow more salt intake in those patients who work outside all day and are exposed to our high temperatures and humidity.

Like everyone else, I will wait for the meticulous research studies to be performed over time to determine how low and high our sodium chloride consumption should be without hurting ourselves.

Patient Hand-Offs and Communication

document businesspeople 1I was finishing tying my shoes as I got dressed to take my lovely wife out to dinner for our 41st wedding anniversary. It was 7:30 p.m. after a hectic day at work and we had a wonderful dinner planned at a local restaurant.

The telephone rang with the caller ID identifying a call on my office work line. “Hello this is the Emergency Department, please hold on for Dr S.” Before I could get in a word edgewise I was put on hold. Five minutes later Dr S. got on the line. “Steve this is Pete. “Dr. Rheumatology” saw your mutual patient Mrs. T this afternoon and she was complaining of shortness of breath beginning three weeks ago. She complains of overwhelming fatigue. He sent her here for evaluation. Her exam is negative. At rest she doesn’t look short of breath. Her EKG doesn’t show any acute changes but I do not have an old one to compare it to. Her chest x ray is negative and her oxygen saturation on room air is 97 % (normal is greater than 90%). She has lupus and multiple autoimmune problems and is on many immune modulators. Maybe she has a constrictive cardiomyopathy or restrictive lung disease. I called Dr. Rheumatology and he said this isn’t his department to call the PCP (primary care physician) to admit the patient and you are the PCP. “I told the ER physician I had not seen the patient in over six months or heard from her but I would be right in to see her”.

I explained to my wife that duty calls and there was a sick patient in the ER. She was extremely understanding. On the drive to the ER I called the Rheumatologist to ask him his clinical impression because he had been seeing her every two weeks and had examined her just that afternoon. He returned my call and we discussed the clinical aspects of the situation and his thoughts. Then I told him that I thought he should have called me when he sent the patient to the ER if he expected me to assume care. If he did not call then he most certainly should have called me when the ED doctor called him to report on the findings and he said call the PCP. Hand-offs should be direct especially in an acute situation and especially if you sent the patient to the ER and do not intend to take ownership of the situation you sent the patient to the ER for.

He told me that in 30 years of practice no one had ever criticized him for this and he does it all the time. He told me he had been working long hours and did not have time to call referring physicians. I told him that was no excuse and if he was working that late maybe he needed to restrict his patient volume so he could communicate in a professional manner.

I arrived at the ER 20 minutes later and learned that the patient had been there for three and half hours already. She had been in the ER while I had been at the hospital earlier that afternoon checking on another patient. Had I known she was there I could have easily seen her, cared for her and still made my anniversary dinner.

A review of her old EKG and comparing it to the new one, plus taking a thorough history and exam, revealed the problem. She was having a heart attack. Her bouts of shortness of breath with activity with overwhelming fatigue were her equivalent of crushing chest pain.

Getting called to the hospital during “off” hours is part of a physician’s way of life. Having a colleague take your role and time for granted at the expense of the patient is disturbing and unprofessional.

All too often today physicians, both specialists and primary care, don’t take the time to communicate directly and clearly with their colleagues about patient care.  When this happens, clearly the patient is negatively impacted.

ACO’s and the Patient Centered Medical Home will not cure this. Only courtesy, respect and putting the patient first will change things.

Chianti Study Refutes Wines Heart Healthy Label

ChiantiResveratrol, the antioxidant found in red wine, grapes, and dark chocolate did not increase longevity or lower the risk of cancer or heart disease in a study conducted in the Italian wine country. The study, led by Richard D. Semba, MD, MPH of the Johns Hopkins University looked at older adults in the Chianti wine making region of Italy with the top dietary intake of resveratrol as indicated by its urinary metabolites. Large consumers were no more or less likely to die over the 9 year study period as small consumers or those who abstained. The actual data showed that those in the lowest consumption range did better than others as reported in the online edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

“Inflammatory markers, cardiovascular disease, and cancer all showed the same lack of a significant relationship with resveratrol levels. “The results were different than all of our theories” and hopes. Resveratrol had been hailed as a major component of red wine and dark chocolate and is supposed to be heart healthy. This has led to the growth of sales for it as a supplement. Sales in the USA exceed $30 million dollars per year despite no clinical evidence of its benefits. It is still promoted heavily by noted cardiologist and health televangelist Dr Oz. Derek Lowe, PhD, a drug researcher, doesn’t understand the popularity of the substance. “Personally, I do not see why anyone would take resveratrol supplements.” If it does have an effect it’s sure not a very robust or reproducible one.” The Aging in Chianti Study involved 783 men and women followed from 1998 until 2009. There was no significant difference in cardiovascular disease rates among those with the lowest levels of the drugs metabolite and those with the highest. There were no differences in the incidence of cancer between high consumers of red wine and modest to low consumers either.

While the study clearly did not show any benefit during the study period, critics of the study and its conclusion felt that maybe the benefits were more long term and required a higher dose of resveratrol over a longer period to see any real benefits. Once again I believe consuming dark chocolate and red wine in moderation is probably your best course. It is clear that a larger study with different concentrations of resveratrol over a longer period of time will be needed to reach a definitive conclusion. The study did not show that resveratrol was bad for you either. That being the case, individuals should enjoy their dark chocolate and red wine in moderate measured amounts because they enjoy dark chocolate and red wine.