Jul 18 2025 This Week in Cardiology
For the week ending July 18, 2025, John Mandrola, MD, comments on the following topics: Finerenone, what not to consider when choosing treatment of AS, brain health after atrial fibrillation ablation, early rhythm control for AF, and Watchman reimbursement cuts.
I received an email from an academic EP who is involved with regulation, regarding my coverage of pulmonary embolism (PE) devices two shows back.
He clarified my thoughts on the 510(k) approval pathway where devices get approved by being similar to an already approved device. I called it extremely problematic and called for FDA to reform it.
My colleague writes that it's not up to FDA to reform the program. The 510(k) pathway and the rules around substantial equivalence are in federal law and Congress would need to change these rules.
Speaking of 510(k) pathway, he agrees it can be problematic. It works well for devices like blood pressure (BP) cuffs and diagnostic EP catheters, in which the underlying technology is well established. It's harder in things like artificial intelligence or machine learning-based devices or anything that is sort of—but not completely—new.
He said we spend a lot of time on these, often focused on whether the intended use is the same, whether we have enough bench and clinical data, etc. And, he writes, 'substantial equivalence' means we need to be assured that the device performs as well as the predicate and that often requires clinical data.
I have come to really appreciate listener feedback because it is so instructional. I did not know that Congress has to change the 510(k) pathway. Keep coming with the listener feedback. Finerenone
FDA Widens Indication of Finerenone for Heart Failure Patients
Medscape news has a good summary of the FDA approval of finerenone. It's actually an expansion of the indication of the nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA).
The FDA initially approved finerenone in 2021 to reduce the risk for cardiovascular death heart failure hospitalization (HHF), myocardial infarction (MI), and kidney complications in adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) associated with type 2 diabetes—a rather specific indication.
The new expansion will be for patients with heart failure (HF) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of at least 40%. This is based on the FINEARTS-HF trial published in New England Journal of Medicine in 2024.
This was a big 6000+ patient trial comparing finerenone to placebo in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Mean age 72, LVEF 53%, most with NYHA Class 2 and 3 HF.
The primary endpoint was a composite of total worsening HF events (HHF or urgent visit) and CV death.
Follow-up was 2.5 years. There was a 16% reduction in the primary endpoint. The hazard ratio was 0.84 and confidence intervals were significant. The absolute risk reduction (ARR) was 2.8%, or a number needed to treat (NNT) of 35. The primary composite was driven almost completely by HF events as there was no statistical difference in CV death or all-cause death.
This came at a cost of more increases in creatinine and potassium. High potassium more than 6 was 3.0% vs 1.4%.
FINEARTS-HF is fine. It was a positive trial. My criticism of the trial and finerenone use in HFpEF centers on three main issues.
First issue: Wrong comparator. Finerenone should have had to beat spironolactone. I say that because the Americas part (US, Canada, Brazil, Argentina) of the TOPCAT trial clearly show that spironolactone improved outcomes in HFpEF. Of course it does. MRA drugs as a class help in HFrEF and likely do in HFpEF. The question facing clinicians is which MRA to start—one that costs pennies, spironolactone, or one that will surely cost bunches, finerenone. The lack of head-to-head comparison is what we get when we let industry control regulatory trials. If I were at FDA, I would have pushed for a spironolactone arm.
The second issue was that the benefit from finerenone was modest. Despite enrolling 6,000 patients, there were only 200 fewer events in the finerenone arm, and no difference was seen in cardiovascular death. The 16% reduction in the primary endpoint was driven solely by heart failure events, not mortality. Finerenone is a diuretic after all. HFrEF patients have 4 classes of 'disease-modifying' drugs. Finerenone cannot be called disease-modifying.
The third issue I have with FINEARTS is that the authors surely have — but don't share — the effect on total hospitalizations. As I have shown in other HFpEF trials, most hospitalizations in these patients is not HF. So, if a drug or device reduces one type of hospitalizations (here for HF), but this type is only a small fraction of the total burden of hospitalizations, the patient does not win. HHF are a reasonable surrogate in HFrEF, because in those patients a weak LV is the primary issue. But in HFpEF, these patients are older and burdened with much higher co-morbidity, so HHF becomes a weak surrogate measure.
I don't have a problem with FDA approving the drug for this indication. But they should have been stronger in the regulatory input regarding the seminal trial. Drug companies will jump over the bar we set for them. We help them when we set the bar low.
For clinicians, we shall see what the cost of this drug is. I still believe we start with spironolactone and keep finerenone in the bullpen for relief when the first line fails.
One of the most common decisions in the field of valvular HD is whether to do transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). There are obvious cases when patients are clearly poor surgical candidates. TAVI is the choice. There are also obvious surgical choices when the patient is very young or has the need for concomitant surgical procedures, such as left atrial (LA) ablation, mitral disease, or coronary artery disease (CAD) requiring revascularization. Then SAVR.
For the large number in the middle, patients and doctors have to translate the nuances of the PARTNER, EVOLUT, Notion 1 and 2, DEDICATE, and UK-TAVI trials. You could have day-long conferences on sorting through the details of these trials.
Ultimately, there is a tension between the much lower burden of TAVI vs its long-term durability relative to SAVR.
Editors of the European Heart Journal and authors, mostly from Columbia University, tempt us to consider another factor in the decision: the carbon footprint of the two procedures.
I kid you not. EHJ has the top impact factor of all cardiology journals, and it has now published a comparison of the carbon footprint of 10 patients who had SAVRs and 20 patients who had TAVIs (10 in the OR and 10 in the cath lab). They used a model that measured the kilograms of CO 2 equivalents based on the primary data, such as the materials, procedures, energies, in the preoperative, operative, and postoperative setting.
TAVI used less CO 2 equivalents than SAVR (about half less). The numbers were 300 kg of CO 2 equivalents in TAVI vs 600 kg of CO 2 equivalents in SAVR.
Postoperative intensive care unit and floor care accounted for the largest portion of the carbon footprint. The intraoperative footprint of SAVR was driven by biological waste, postoperative length of stay, and inhaled anesthetic gases.
The authors concluded:
The carbon footprint of SAVR is about twice as high as those from OR–TAVI or CATH–TAVI. These findings should potentially be considered when making population level decisions and guidelines moving into the future.
I don't know what is happening to us as a field. The authors write this in the discussion:
While carbon emissions should not be the deciding factor in the treatment strategy for individual patients, relative emissions should play a role in the future when deciding between different treatment options.
I did a simple Google search on carbon emissions. Even if we accept their calculations, the difference was about 300 kg of CO 2 equivalents.
To fly across the US is 1000 kg of CO 2 equivalents per passenger. So if you take your family of 4 that's like 13x more than the difference in these two procedures.
Walk through Atlanta, Dulles, Newark, or LAX airports and just eyeball the number of people flying. I am all for climate stewardship. I ride a bike to work. I live close to everything in town. I don't litter. I like European hotels that minimize wasteful energy use.
But my friends, the role of carbon footprint should have exactly zero influence on medical decisions such as TAVI vs SAVR. Number 1, it is miniscule relative to other human activities, and number 2, we take care of patients not the environment. Public health should have no bearing on individual decisions.
Finally, I used to think coffee, blueberry, and quinoa studies were the most wasteful of time and effort. Now I think studying the carbon footprint of two medical procedures may have earned top honors in the most useless and wasteful studies.
Come on you all.
Post-Ablation Visual Auras a Sign of Transient Brain Injury?
The group of Dr Greg Marcus at UCSF continue to do interesting work in EP. Their latest, led by fellow Adi Elias, investigated the possible association of a transseptal puncture during catheter ablation for ventricular arrhythmias with post-procedural visual auras. As well as to assess the relationship between occipital and parietal lobes acute brain emboli and migraine-related visual auras.
The questions are important because it goes to the health of the brain during left-sided ablation, which is undergoing a massive increase due to the use of pulsed-field ablation (PFA) in the left atrium (LA).
This work is actually an observational substudy of a recent randomized controlled trial called TRAVERSE. I will discuss both because both papers are making the rounds in the EP. Note also that this isn't just an EP topic because visual auras and micro-emboli to the brain also occur with coronary angiography, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and valvular procedures.
Let's talk first about the TRAVERSE trial, published in Circulation , in February 2025, first author Greg Marcus. TRAVERSE randomized only 146 patients who were to have a left sided ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation to either retrograde aortic (RA) approach vs transseptal approach. The primary endpoint was an acute brain lesion on MRI.
The main result: in the retrograde aortic approach, 28 of 62 (45%) exhibited an acute brain lesion compared with 19 of the 69 (28%) of those randomized to a transseptal puncture ( P = .036).
No differences in clinically manifest complications or procedural efficacy were observed. No patient had a clinical stroke.
Notable in the study was 10% of patients did not get an MRI—which means that they did not have a primary endpoint measured.
The authors conclude from this data that: A transseptal approach may be the more favored strategy over a retrograde aortic approach for catheter ablation of endocardial left ventricular arrhythmias to reduce brain injury.
The heightened risk of new brain lesions detected using MRI without overt clinical manifestations in the retrograde aortic arm may suggest a higher risk of other organ damage that is not immediately clinically occult.
It is possible other procedures conventionally performed through a retrograde aortic approach might incur similar harms, and that novel transseptal approaches may yet prove beneficial.
The first thing to say is that they have convinced many in the EP world that transseptal is the preferred approach to the LV. I sent a message to private EP group about access for a VT case and the overwhelming answer was transseptal and [quote] 'I am impressed by the UCSF data.'
Well, my friends, I like many of the authors of this multicenter trial, but the trial is a mess, and it does not tell us the best approach.
The first thing to say is that there were only 47 primary outcome events, and the primary outcome events were white spots on an MRI that disappear and have no know permanent sequalae. So even if there were a statistically robust difference, would it be clinically significant? I am not sure, and likely neither are you.
I put the numbers into a Fragility Index calculator, which tells us how many non-events or events in each group would have been required to make the results nonsignificant or greater than P value of .05. The Fragility Index is 1. If one more patient in the transseptal group had a white spot, then the trial is negative.
That is not a statistically robust finding. Not at all.
What's even worse is that 10% of patients did not have an MRI. So the missing data is 10x the Fragility Index. The authors acknowledge this limitation but soft roll it. The academic editorialists don't mention the fragility of the data, nor the massive missingness.
I think it is an existential problem with this study. We simply do not know. Imagine a drug or device outcome trial where 10% of the patients did not have a primary outcome measured.
My final take of this study is that EP doctors might spend less time destroying LA during AF ablation and more time learning to look at evidence. TRAVERSE was a good effort, but its internal validity issues, small differences in a surrogate outcome and no difference in stroke tells us near zero about what approach to use when ablating LV sources of arrhythmia.
To me, the doctor should choose the approach most likely to achieve success. Retrograde aortic access is clearly superior to transseptal for some areas of the V. TRAVERSE should not discourage them from using it.
In the meantime, the question of best approach is an answerable question: it simply requires a larger study with more primary outcome events and less loss to follow-up.
The second paper, first author fellow Adi Elias, was published in Heart Rhythm last week. This observational study asked two questions: (a) did the access site (RA vs transseptal) affect visual auras and (b) was there an association between occipital and parietal white spots and migraine-related visual auras.
In total, 121 patients of the 146 had assessment of visual auras. A total of 18 reported a visual aura in the first month after the procedure and 103 did not. Pause there. Because the authors will soon be making conclusions about 18 reported visual auras.
This paper also suffers from serious missingness, as 15% of those in the transseptal arm and 21% of those in the RA arm did not complete the 1-month questionnaire about having a visual aura, which was the primary endpoint.
The first main result was that there was no difference between post-ablation visual auras observed between transseptal (16% of 63) and retrograde aortic approaches (14% of 57; P = .78).
The second main result was that more participants with acute brain emboli in the occipital or parietal lobes experienced migraine-related visual auras (38% vs. 11%; P = .014). The actual numbers are 7 of 18 of those with occipital/parietal lesions vs 12 of 103 patients without parietal/occipital lesions.
I calculated the Fragility Index on this difference, and it was 2. If 2 of the 103 without a white spot in the occipital/parietal area had a visual aura, then the association is non-significant. And again, recall that loss to follow-up was more than 15% in both groups.
The authors make positive conclusions from this fragile data.
Transseptal puncture was not associated with visual auras, however acute brain emboli involving the visual cortex was associated with such symptoms. These data suggest that transseptal punctures are not causal in migraine-related visual auras and that post-procedure acute brain emboli are apparently not always clinically silent.
They then double down in their interviews on Medscape.
Marcus says, 'These findings demonstrate that, contrary to a long-held belief that these post-ablation MRI-detected small brain lesions are asymptomatic — in fact, they are often referred to as 'asymptomatic cerebral emboli' or 'ACEs' — these small acute brain lesions actually can, and perhaps often do, manifest in clinical symptoms.'
Dr Elias, too, is too strong. He says, 'The data show that these post-ablation brain lesions are not clinically silent. It may be the case that we haven't known what to look for and assessed for symptoms immediately without enough time for the subsequent visual auras that would occur.'
Again, maybe they are correct, but the data is not statistically robust. They're making big conclusions based on 18 MRI scans and nearly 1 in 10 patients did not have an MRI and 1 in 5 patients did not have an assessment for visual auras. Only 2 events would change the conclusions. The data, therefore, do not support their conclusions.
I would conclude only that there may be a signal, but we need more data to understand the relationship of postprocedure brain emboli and visual auras.
Finally, my criticism of these studies is not meant to downplay the issue of brain emboli after procedures. These are potentially quite serious because even if the effect size on cognition is small, the large numbers of procedures being done means there could be a huge public health crisis in the future.
As it is in all of medicine: everything turns on patient selection. When we do TAVI in an older person who has less than 6 months to live due to severe AS, and he or she gets asymptomatic brain emboli, we worry a little.
In contrast, when we blast a 50-year-old with persistent AF with PFA, ablating the pulmonary veins, posterior wall and God knows what else, creating oodles of microbubbles that then cause multiple brain lesions, we should worry a lot.
The best way to avoid brain emboli is to avoid procedures. That's not happening now. The reverse is. Early AF ablation is a money maker for doctors and hospitals. PFA lowers the threshold for doing AF ablation because it's faster and less likely to cause catastrophic complications.
But our profession should be wise enough to be concerned about these observations. We should demand better data on brain MRIs as well as cognitive testing, especially with the advent of PFA. A small harm could turn into a huge problem.
European Heart Journal has published a rapid communication from EAST-AFNET authors, regarding the short-term benefit of early rhythm control (ERC) vs rate control.
To briefly review, NEJM published EAST-AFNET 5 years ago in 2020. About 2800 patients with newish AF were randomized to two strategies: early rhythm control (mostly with antiarrhythmic drugs) vs rate control. The primary endpoint was a composite of CVD, stroke, heart failure hospitalization, or acute coronary syndrome.
The 5-year trial found a 21% statistically significant reduction in the primary endpoint. The primary safety endpoint did not differ. However, the authors combined death and stroke as both primary efficacy and safety endpoints. If you don't double count stroke and death, there were nearly 3x more safety events (68 vs 19) in the early rhythm control group (ERC) vs rate control.
A couple notables: EAST-AFNET was not an ablation trial. Less than 1 in 5 patients in the ERC had ablation. So you have to posit that antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD) reduced hard outcomes—a first for sure. Another notable, there was only a 20% difference in the presence of sinus rhythm (80% vs 60%) at 2 years. So you also have to posit that a difference in sinus rhythm of only 20% drove hard outcomes.
I am pretty sure — no, highly sure — that the better outcomes in EAST-AFNET were just performance bias, in that the ERC transmitted ECGs with symptoms had many, many more interactions with their clinicians.
I am not against ERC, and do it often, but I oppose the use of EAST-AFNET to foster lucrative early AF ablations. I believe strongly that patients with AF who do not have HF or decompensation should be treated slowly and given a chance to let nature (or natural history) or risk factor modification help with their AF.
One more thing about EAST-AFNET: the Kaplan-Meier curves for the primary endpoint do not separate for about 1.5 to 2 years , which is what you expect with patients with new AF. If there is a benefit of SR or enhanced medical interactions, it should take time to reduce cardiac outcomes.
Now to the rapid communication of a post-hoc study. Here the EAST-AFNET authors look specifically at outcomes in the first 30 days both in the overall population and in the subset with HF.
First result: A primary outcome event occurred in 9 of the 1400 patients randomized to early rhythm control and in 21 of the 1400 patients in the usual care group hazard ratio (HR) 0.43, 95% CI, 0.20–0.93).
Second result: Deaths in first 30 days were observed in 1 of 1400 patient randomized to early rhythm control and in 4 of the 1400 patients randomized to usual care (HR 0.25, 95% CI, 0.03–2.24).
The third result involved HF patients in EAST-AFNET 4. Slightly less than one third of all patients had prevalent heart failure, of which 400 patients were randomized to early rhythm control therapy and 400 to usual care.
Within 30 days after randomization, a primary outcome occurred in 3 vs 14 patients with prevalent heart failure randomized to early rhythm control vs rate control, respectively (HR 0.22, 95% CI, 0.06–0.77; Figure 1).
The authors concluded that:
This exploratory analysis suggests immediate beneficial effects of early rhythm control therapy within 30 days after randomization, including a lower incidence of the primary outcome, fewer deaths, and a reduced composite of death or heart failure hospitalization—in both the overall population and in those who have HF at baseline.
This supports its early implementation in patients at risk of heart failure or with acute and advanced heart failure.
Again, I offer no malice to the authors, but this is a really problematic study. The numbers are tiny. I don't care what the P value or confidence interval say. EAST-AFNET was powered to tell differences over many years , not 30 days. So small are the differences in the first year, the Kaplan-Meier curves do not separate at all in the main paper.
I am not sure why the authors set out to look at a comparison with so few events, or why the EHJ published something so unhelpful. But it depresses me to see stuff like this.
Not only does it not help us , the small numbers of events (9 vs 21, for instance, in a study of 3000 patients) is more likely to deceive us .
EAST-AFNET was a great effort. Strategy trials are hard; they are noisy. Performance bias was likely. But looking at 30 days with its few events only adds more noise to a noisy piece of evidence.
I will close on a positive note. Our government, and likely yours too, makes a lot of mistakes. We should celebrate when government does something smart.
This week, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced that reimbursement will be cut by 27% for percutaneous LAAO. Since I strongly believe there is little to no benefit for these procedures—perhaps even a net harm—I consider this a positive. Better would have been zero reimbursement unless the patient is in a trial. Then we would have an idea of whether this procedure works.
Keep in mind, my friends, that the PROTECT AF trial of warfarin vs Watchman did not pass FDA scrutiny due to internal validity issues. PREVAIL missed its first primary endpoint of stroke, systemic embolism, or CV death. Watchman did not meet noninferiority vs warfarin. Most patients having left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) would not have been included in the regulatory trials. And no clear data exist comparing LAAO to direct oral anticoagulants or no anticoagulation.
Also, a note to my enthusiastic EP colleagues. Go ahead. Keep posting on Twitter that you can do LAAO or AF ablation in 6.5 minutes. We get that you are fast. Do you think that payers don't follow you on social media?
Finally, I am still trying to understand the new National Coverage Determinations (NCD) criteria for tricuspid transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (T-TEER). The matter in question is the coverage with evidence criteria wherein patients having T-TEER have to be enrolled in a proper study. I don't know of one of those but will continue searching.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NY Liberty Doctor: Sports Can Help Us Treat Pregnancy
Breanna Stewart #30 of the New York Liberty shoots a basket while Natasha Howard #6 of the Indiana Fever defends during the first half at Barclays Center on July 16, 2025 in Brooklyn, New York. Credit - Ishika Samant—Getty Images I treat professional athletes for a living. I'm the primary care sports medicine doctor for the New York Liberty. As a former Division I athlete myself, I'm honored to remain connected to the sport I love—and treat some of the world's most elite players. I know I've been tasked with caring for a historically marginalized population at a time when the healthcare system is finally starting to value female athletes. I take this responsibility seriously—and coordinate care year-round for the team, treating everything from acute and chronic musculoskeletal injuries to sore throats and earaches. But after the birth of my second child, I found myself on the other side of the exam table—trying to manage diastasis recti, a postpartum condition where the abdominal muscles separate, causing pain and weakness. Even with world-class care and clinical training, I'm still on the mend eight months later. That makes me one of the lucky ones. Most women don't have access to the resources I do and they're left navigating complex, often painful recoveries on their own. The reality is pregnancy affects nearly every organ system, yet most women receive little to no guidance on how to protect or rebuild their health. Our healthcare system waits for problems and then scrambles to respond. It rarely works to prevent them. We're long overdue for a shift to a proactive model of perinatal care—care that supports women before, during, and after pregnancy—and integrates musculoskeletal medicine, physical therapy, and science is clear. Pelvic floor and core-strengthening exercises can significantly reduce the risk of wide-ranging complications, including urinary incontinence, severe perineal tears, diastasis recti, and low back pain. These interventions also improve delivery outcomes by increasing the likelihood of vaginal delivery and shortening the second stage of labor. General exercise, even at lower intensities, is a proven preventive tool. Just 140 minutes of prenatal exercise weekly can reduce the risk of gestational diabetes by 25%. Women who exercise more than three times per week for 25 minutes have a 39% lower risk of developing gestational hypertension, which can progress to preeclampsia. Exercise also helps manage excess weight gain during pregnancy, which is linked to a host of issues, from birth canal trauma to more complicated postpartum recovery. And it has been shown to improve overall mental health—an important consideration, given that perinatal depression affects "approximately 1 in 7 people during pregnancy or within the first year after childbirth." Resistance training, in particular, can be highly beneficial when properly modified. Women who continue these routines during pregnancy are more likely to have the foundational strength to continue them safely and confidently after birth. Those who stop often face greater hurdles getting back. And providing holistic healthcare during the postpartum stage matters just as much. Regular physical activity after childbirth supports a smoother recovery by improving cardiovascular fitness, reducing depressive symptoms, enhancing sleep quality, and promoting overall physical and psychological well-being. Experts recommend 150-300 minutes of moderate activity per week postpartum, along with strength training and stretching. Yet this evidence still isn't reflected in standard care. Too often, healthcare professionals only intervene when something goes wrong. And it's on women to seek out pelvic floor physical therapy, find out which movements are safe, or identify the right specialists. Many don't know where to begin—and many OB/GYNs aren't equipped to guide them. That leaves countless women isolated, misinformed, or resigned to believe that chronic discomfort is simply part of motherhood. That's what I set out to change after the birth of my first child. I helped launch a perinatal program at the Hospital for Special Surgery (one of the country's largest women's sports medicine centers) to bring proactive, integrated medicine into the pregnancy and postpartum experience. The term "sports medicine" is really a misnomer; the goal isn't just to treat athletes, but to help people recover and stay strong through major life transitions. We should think of it as "movement medicine."At HSS, we've built a model that connects women with physical therapists, nutritionists, and physicians trained to support every stage, from preconception to postpartum. And we're not alone. Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston has built a similarly comprehensive model, integrating musculoskeletal and wellness care into routine perinatal services. This scalable, evidence-based approach should be available to all women. It's time other healthcare systems followed suit and abandoned outdated protocols. The standard six-week postpartum visit is too late to identify emerging issues, let alone intervene. During pregnancy, support is often limited to monitoring the baby's development, with relatively little attention paid to the mother's health unless overt complications arise. That's a failure of care. Many barriers are solvable. One persistent myth is that pelvic floor therapy or nutritional support aren't covered by insurance. In reality, they often are when doctors provide diagnoses such as "weak pelvic floor" for pelvic floor therapy or "dietary counseling" for nutrition. Our team works within these frameworks every day. The issue isn't feasibility. What's missing is awareness and a healthcare culture that prioritizes proactive care over damage control. Physicians, especially those in systems with movement medicine or women's health expertise, must lead the shift in the standard of care. OB/GYNs aren't always trained to recognize musculoskeletal issues or connect patients to the right specialists. It's on us to change that—to ensure providers are informed, and patients feel supported from the start. As a physician, I know this model works. As a mother, I know how desperately it's needed. It's time to support women with the comprehensive perinatal care they've always deserved. Contact us at letters@
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What's the Best Age to Start Building Healthy Habits to Boost Longevity? An Expert Explains
Aging is a natural part of life. Despite what the anti-aging industry tries to sell you, you can't stop the clock. However, there are ways to maintain and improve our physical and mental wellbeing as we age, which may help slow down the biological aging process and prevent age-related diseases. Maximizing our "healthspan," or the number of years we live in good health and disease-free, is just as important as maximizing our lifespan, according to Dr. Eric Topol, cardiologist and longevity scientist at the Scripps Research Institute. previously spoke with Topol about his science-backed lifestyle habits to age healthier in his New York Times bestseller 'Super Agers: An Evidence-Based Approach to Longevity.' These include things like exercising regularly, avoiding ultra-processed foods, prioritizing nutrition, eating enough fiber, getting enough sleep, and staying mentally active. When is the best time to build these healthy aging habits? Expert Tip of the Day: It's Never Too Early or Late to Prioritize Healthy Aging "It's never too early or too late," Topol said of starting healthy aging habits in a TODAY segment aired June 25. Generally, your 60s are when you start to experience significant loss of muscle mass and bone density. "As you get to be 60, age-related diseases start to really hit," said Topol. These include cardiovascular disease, cancer and Alzheimer's. The earlier you start building healthy aging habits, the better, says Topol. However, if you can start adopting these by your 50s, it can make a big difference. "In advance of that (decline) in your 60s, if you start at age 50 doing all those things, it's about seven to 10 years of healthy aging that you can gain," says Topol. But if you're over 50 or 60 and haven't changed your habits, it's never too late to start. Why It Matters Previously, it was thought that the secret to aging healthy was good genes. But in a 2007 study, Topol and other scientists at Scripps Institute analyzed the DNA of 1,400 people between the ages of 80–105 who had never developed any common chronic diseases. "We found almost nothing to account from their genetics for their extraordinary healthspan," said Topol. However, they did share common lifestyle habits that may help slow down biological aging, he explained. "Exercise is paramount, (especially) strength training," said Topol, adding that it not only maintains muscle mass and bone density but also promotes balance, which prevents falls. It also keeps the immune system strong as we age. In his late 60s, Topol started strength training three days a week. "I'm more fit and stronger than I can ever remember,' Topol, now 71, said. It's also important to eat a balanced diet that provides enough protein, healthy fats, fiber, and vitamins and minerals. Fiber is a standout healthy aging nutrient, said Topol, and getting enough of fiber can help prevent chronic disease. And prioritizing sleep and staying mentally fit can protect our brain health as we age and reduce the risk of cognitive decline. How to Get Started No matter how old you are, you can adopt these habits to live a healthier, longer life. Here are more of Topol's science-backed "lifestyle-plus" factors: Do 100 minutes a week of resistance training. Follow a Mediterranean diet. Eat 25–30 grams of fiber per day. Avoid ultraprocessed foods. Socialize with others. Don't take unnecessary supplements. Spend time outdoors in nature. TODAY's Expert Tip of the Day series is all about simple strategies to make life a little easier. Every Monday through Friday, different qualified experts share their best advice on diet, fitness, heart health, mental wellness and more. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
A cross between a nicotine pouch and an energy drink: What to know about caffeine pouches
David Gomez, a school resource officer for the Boise County Sheriff's Office in Idaho, started noticing caffeine pouches last spring. Students were using the pillow-shaped pouches, which can contain more than 200 milligrams of caffeine, alongside nicotine pouches like Zyn. They'll use them either as a disguise for nicotine pouch usage — caffeine and nicotine pouches often look virtually identical — or a complement to it, Gomez said. 'They'll use the Zyn pouches that they put in their lip, and then they'll take a caffeine pouch,' he added. 'They don't care what it is they're putting in their lip.' The use of caffeine pouches among teens is still relatively rare. But some experts and educators have concerns that that could soon change. Teen-friendly marketing of these products is spreading on social media. And Richard Mumby, the marketing executive who helped launch the e-cigarette Juul, which was widely blamed for sparking a teen vaping epidemic, is back with a caffeine pouch startup called Wip. Wip joins a growing market drafting off the popularity of nicotine pouches and trying to sell Americans on a new alternative to caffeinated beverages. Caffeine is part of 'the fabric of many Americans' everyday lives,' Mumby told NBC News — but he argues there's room for improvement. Wip and its competitors are pitching caffeine pouches as a convenient, portable and affordable alternative to caffeinated drinks. A cross between nicotine pouches and energy drinks, they are placed between the lip and gums to quickly deliver a hands-free hit of caffeine. Pouches typically last anywhere from roughly 20 minutes to an hour, but their caffeine buzz can linger longer. Wip's pouches come in flavors like mint, strawberry kiwi and sour cherry, and each one contains either 100 or 200 milligrams of caffeine — the latter being roughly equivalent to two cups of coffee, or half the amount of caffeine most adults can safely consume in an entire day, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The health effects of caffeine pouches are not well-studied. But not all experts are sold on this new form of caffeine delivery. Rob van Dam, a professor of exercise and nutrition sciences at George Washington University's Milken Institute School of Public Health who studies caffeine, voiced concerns about the potency of some pouches on the market, particularly for consumers who are not used to them. 'It may be a bit different than coffee,' he said. 'It may hit faster, and you may overdose, in a way, more quickly.' The potential appeal to teens is another concern, given the existing popularity of nicotine pouches and energy drinks. (Philip Morris, which makes Zyn, has previously told NBC News that 'Zyn's marketing is directed toward legal age nicotine users who are 21+.') While there are no federal age restrictions on the sale or use of caffeine, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that teens consume no more than 100 mg of caffeine per day — or, even better, avoid using it at all, said Dr. Mark Corkins, chair of the AAP's Committee on Nutrition. Youth caffeine use came under increasing scrutiny following high-profile reports of death and serious injury among young people who consumed Panera Bread's heavily caffeinated Charged Lemonade, which the brand discontinued in 2024 as part of a 'menu transformation.' Separately, medical visits related to kids drinking other caffeinated beverages are also on the rise: From 2022 to 2023, America's Poison Centers charted a 24% increase in calls related to energy-drink consumption among people younger than 20. And the rate of pediatric emergency room visits related to caffeine usage roughly doubled between 2017 and 2023, although such visits remain rare, according to data from Epic Research. 'Caffeine, in general, is an area we are very concerned about,' Corkins said. 'Pouches are just another delivery form.' A growing market — and an ethical 'gray zone' Caffeine pouches aren't entirely new. The brand Grinds started selling coffee pouches about 15 years ago, initially targeting the niche market of baseball players who wanted an alternative to chewing tobacco. At first, business 'was like flying a plane into headwinds,' said co-founder Patrick Pezet. 'No one knew what pouches were. It was totally foreign.' Business has increased steadily over time, growing by 20% to 50% each year since the company launched, Pezet said. Especially in the last five years or so — in parallel with the rise of the popular nicotine pouch brand Zyn — there's been a dramatic shift in the public's awareness of and willingness to use mouth pouches, Pezet said. (Wip said in a press release that almost half of adults ages 18 to 40 are interested in using pouches for energy.) Caffeine pouches are still a small market, particularly compared to the multibillion-dollar U.S. coffee industry or even the nicotine pouch industry. Still, Pezet said, his company has a growing customer base, mostly made up of adults who want an alternative to nicotine products. Another sign of growth: an explosion of competitors. 'We keep close tabs on the entire market,' Pezet said. 'There's probably 50 to 60 total caffeine pouches or energy pouches out there. Two or three years ago, that number was a couple dozen.' As the market proliferates, it has given rise to a 'gray zone' of legal but ethically dubious promotion to young people, Pezet said. (A blog post on Grinds' website says 'there is absolutely no age restriction on purchasing or using Grinds Coffee Pouches,' but Pezet said the brand directs its marketing toward customers 18 and older.) In some social media posts, creators explicitly promote caffeine pouches to students. 'Can you pop a lower decky in school?' asked an influencer in one TikTok post about pouches from the brand LyvWel, using a slang term for mouth pouches. 'One-hundred percent, guys. You can use the lower deckies in school. You don't have to be 21 to buy them.' A representative for LyvWel said the post was not created, approved or sponsored by LyvWel. 'Although caffeine products are legally available to anyone who can purchase tea, coffee, or energy drinks, LyvWel was created specifically as an alternative for adult nicotine pouch users,' the representative wrote in an email. 'We do not market to teens.' Some TikTok creators who review and promote caffeine pouches appear to be teenagers themselves, although it is not clear whether their posts have been approved by the brands they mention. 'Viral, organic social-media marketing' Dr. Robert Jackler, a professor emeritus at Stanford Medicine who studies tobacco-industry advertising, sees echoes of Juul in Wip's marketing. Wip is active on TikTok and Instagram — two platforms used heavily by young people — and features athletes and fitness influencers in its posts, a combination that Jackler said is 'patently youth-oriented' and reminiscent of the lifestyle-focused, influencer-driven marketing campaigns that Juul ran under Mumby, now the Wip CEO. Such marketing prompted multiple lawsuits alleging Juul purposely targeted underage customers. Juul executives have repeatedly denied that allegation and have not admitted wrongdoing in legal settlements. But the company's product became nearly synonymous with youth vaping at a time when almost 30% of high school students used e-cigarettes. '[Mumby] is doing the same kind of viral, organic social-media marketing that he did with Juul,' Jackler said. 'We take responsible caffeine consumption and responsible marketing of our product seriously,' a Wip spokesperson said in a statement provided to NBC News. 'While there are no legal age restrictions on caffeine products, we have adopted marketing guidelines that exceed the age-related standards set by the American Beverage Association for most common energy drinks. Wip is not intended for use by anyone under the age of 18, and our guidelines ensure the product is marketed responsibly. We proactively train all external partners on our marketing guidelines so there is education and alignment at every layer of our business.' Despite their spread online, caffeine pouches do not seem to be nearly as ubiquitous in schools as Juul was at its prime, nor as either energy drinks or nicotine pouches are today. An estimated 64% and 5% of teenagers have tried energy drinks and nicotine pouches, respectively, while there is little data on youth caffeine pouch usage. Dylan Lippold, a middle school teacher in Wisconsin, said he remains more concerned about energy drink consumption among his students. 'I would walk into a class and see five or so kids drinking [an energy drink] in the morning,' he said. 'That's a little concerning that a middle schooler needs that much caffeine to get going for the day.' Health concerns Caffeine is often seen as a harmless, or even beneficial, stimulant — and within reason, it can be. Although most experts agree it's possible to become dependent on caffeine, it's not considered as addictive as nicotine. And in addition to providing energy and mental clarity, caffeine consumption can come with significant health benefits, studies conducted among adults have shown. 'In population studies, people drinking three or four cups of coffee per day have a lower risk of cardiovascular diseases, like coronary heart disease and stroke,' van Dam said. 'But going beyond that, like more than five cups of coffee per day, we do not see the same benefits.' And, he noted, it's not clear whether the caffeine in energy drinks or pouches carries the same benefits as classic coffee. At high levels of consumption, caffeine can cause side effects that range from relatively benign (anxiety, jitters, GI distress, difficulty sleeping) to more worrisome (heart palpitations, high blood pressure, increased heart rate). In rare cases, heavy caffeine consumption can cause fatal complications, including cardiac arrest, studies show. For children and teenagers, who are typically smaller and weigh less than adults, the thresholds of safe caffeine consumption are lower. The AAP recommends against pediatric caffeine usage not only because of the potential for toxicity, but also because kids who need to use a lot of caffeine probably aren't getting enough sleep, Corkins said. 'Even if you get a stimulant, it's not a substitute for sleep,' he said. Research also suggests that children who consume more than 100 mg of caffeine during a school day are more likely than those who don't to struggle with self-control and behavioral issues. For users of all ages, caffeine pouches, like nicotine pouches, may pose a threat to oral health, added Jackler, who in addition to studying tobacco marketing is an ear, nose and throat doctor. Routinely placing a foreign substance between the lips and gums may lead to gum recession and dental problems, so 'it's not necessarily an optimal way of taking in your caffeine, especially if it's something you're doing all day,' Jackler said. Consumers should also be aware that caffeine pouches may not be tightly regulated, van Dam said. While the FDA has cracked down on the sale of 'pure and highly concentrated' caffeine products — like tubs of caffeine powder that contain thousands of servings that users must measure out themselves — caffeine pouches are regulated 'as either dietary supplements or conventional foods, depending on their composition and marketing,' an FDA spokesperson said. Supplements typically do not go through FDA review and approval before being sold to consumers. Labeling is another concern, Jackler said: Some energy pouches on the market do not clearly state how much caffeine they contain. Even with accurate labels, the potency of some caffeine pouches raises eyebrows. Two-hundred milligrams of caffeine is 'really the maximum amount that's being recommended in one sitting,' van Dam said, and some brands meet or exceed that amount in a single pouch. The pouch industry isn't alone in that; energy drinks and coffee drinks can also pack in huge amounts of caffeine per serving, often also without clear labeling. But these products are both more familiar to consumers and easier to pace, in that people can stop sipping if they start to notice side effects, van Dam said. A caffeine pouch, by contrast, delivers a concentrated dose of caffeine fairly quickly, and 'once it's absorbed, it's absorbed,' he said. Research also suggests that consuming nicotine and caffeine at the same time can compound their negative effects on the heart — a concern, given that some users alternate between nicotine and caffeine pouches. Given these dangers, Jackler fears what could happen if caffeine pouches go the way of nicotine pouches, 'where kids put in four pouches in the upper lip and three pouches in the bottom lip,' he said. 'Young people, particularly, think that if a little bit helps, they're going to take even more. This article was originally published on Solve the daily Crossword
