logo
New Insights Into Older Hearts

New Insights Into Older Hearts

New York Times15-02-2025

It turns out that the Isley Brothers, who sang that 1966 Motown hit 'This Old Heart of Mine (Is Weak for You),' were onto something when they linked age to an aching and flagging heart.
Heart disease, the nation's leading cause of death and disability, has been diagnosed in about 6 percent of Americans ages 45 to 64, but in more than 18 percent of those over 65, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Old hearts are physiologically different. 'The heart gets stiffer as we age,' said Dr. John Dodson, director of the geriatric cardiology program at NYU Langone Health. 'It doesn't fill with blood as easily. The muscles don't relax as well.'
Age also changes the blood vessels, which can grow rigid and cause hypertension, and the nerve fibers that send electrical impulses to the heart. It affects other organs and systems that play a role in cardiovascular health, too. 'After age 75 is when things accelerate,' Dr. Dodson said.
But in recent years, dramatic improvements in treatments for many kinds of cardiovascular conditions have helped reduce both heart attacks and cardiac deaths.
'Cardiology has been blessed with a lot of progress and research and drug development,' said Dr. Karen Alexander, who teaches geriatric cardiology at Duke University. 'The medications are better than ever, and we know how to use them better.'
That can complicate decision-making for heart patients in their 70s and beyond, however. Certain procedures or regimens may not markedly extend the lives of older patients or improve the quality of their remaining years, especially if they have already suffered heart attacks and are contending with other illnesses as well.
'We don't need to open an artery just because there's an artery to be opened,' said Dr. Alexander, referring to inserting a stent. 'We need to think of the whole person.'
Recent research indicates that some frequently used medical approaches don't pay off for older patients, while too few of them take advantage of one intervention that does.
Here's some of what researchers are learning about old hearts:
An implantable cardioverter defibrillator, or I.C.D., is a small battery-powered device that is placed under the skin and delivers a shock in the case of sudden cardiac arrest. 'It's easy to sell these things to patients,' said Dr. Daniel Matlock, a geriatrician and researcher at the University of Colorado. 'You say, 'This can prevent sudden cardiac death.' The patient says, 'That sounds great.''
In 2005, an influential study persuaded Medicare to cover I.C.D.s in patients with heart failure, even those without high-risk arrhythmias, and 'it just took off,' Dr. Matlock said.
From 2015 through September 2024, surgeons implanted 585,000 such devices in patients' chests, according to the American College of Cardiology's registry. That's probably an undercount, as not all hospitals participate in the registry.
But in 2017, among patients with nonischemic heart failure (meaning that the heart isn't pumping effectively but there is no blocked artery), another influential study showed that I.C.D.s did not reduce mortality for patients over 70. The device only prevented sudden cardiac deaths, the authors noted — and those occur more frequently in younger patients.
Moreover, 'at 85 or 90, sudden death is not necessarily the worst thing that can happen,' Dr. Matlock said, compared to death from 'progressive heart failure, which can go quickly or last for years; it's unpredictable.' The wallop of an I.C.D. shock can also frighten and distress older patients, who often are unaware that the device can be deactivated with a computer.
Cardiologists and researchers still debate how much I.C.D.s benefit older patients. But because cardiac drugs have grown so much more potent since 2005, a major multisite study is underway to determine, among patients at lower risk of sudden death, whether medications alone might now be more effective.
Medications alone already appear to be at least as effective in treating older people who have suffered the kind of heart attacks not caused by a suddenly and completely blocked artery. (Technically these are referred to as NSTEMI, for non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.)
Half of these occur in people over 70, said Dr. Vijay Kunadian, a professor of interventional cardiology at Newcastle University in England and the lead author of a recent study in The New England Journal of Medicine.
'Older people often are underrepresented in research,' Dr. Kunadian said. 'There are a lot of preconceived biases.' So her team recruited an older-than-typical sample (average age 82) in which to compare the benefits of conservative and invasive treatment.
Half of the 1,500 patients in the study began a regimen of cardiac medications that included blood thinners, statins, beta blockers and ACE inhibitors. The other half had more invasive treatment, starting with an angiogram (an X-ray of the blood vessels). Then, roughly half of that group received a stent or, in much smaller numbers, underwent bypass surgery. These patients were also prescribed the same kinds of medications as the patients who were treated with drugs alone.
Over four years, the team found no difference in the patients' risk of cardiovascular death or a nonfatal heart attack. Although surgical risks generally rise with age, complications were low in both groups.
Facing such situations, older patients and their families need to ask important questions, Dr. Alexander said: 'How is this going to help me, and what are the other options, especially if it's invasive? Is it necessary? What if I don't do this?'
Dr. Kunadian agreed. 'One size does not fit all in this group,' she said. Invasive treatment did not benefit patients, but it didn't harm them, either.
Still, Dr. Kunadian said, 'if they're very frail, living in a nursing home with dementia, with a number of other conditions, it's reasonable to say it's in their best interest to use medical therapy alone.'
One intervention known to benefit patients with heart disease is cardiac rehabilitation: a program of regular, supervised exercise that significantly reduces heart attacks, hospitalization and cardiovascular deaths.
But cardiac rehab remains perennially underused. Only about one-quarter of eligible patients participate, Dr. Dodson said, and among older adults, who could benefit even more, the proportion is lower still.
'There are barriers for people in the 70s and 80s,' he said. They have to show up at a facility to exercise, so sometimes 'transportation is a problem.'
And, he added, 'people can get deconditioned or afraid of activity. They may worry about falling.'
The in-person NYU Langone program involves three exercise sessions a week for three months, with nutritional and psychological counseling. Since enrollment among seniors had been disappointing, researchers tried replicating it with a remote program.
They offered it to patients (average age 71) with ischemic heart disease (caused by narrowed arteries, which impede blood and oxygen flow to the heart) who had suffered a heart attack or undergone a stent procedure. Each received a tablet computer and broadband access so that they could undertake a rehab program at home. An exercise therapist checked in by phone weekly.
At-home participation fell off over time, however. After three months, those assigned to remote rehab showed no greater functional capacity — measured by how far they could walk in six minutes — than a similar group who followed the usual care.
Was that because seniors struggled with the technology? Or feared exercising with heart problems? Would working out in person, alongside others on treadmills and elliptical trainers, inspire more engagement?
'We need to figure out the delivery system that's most effective,' Dr. Dodson said. 'What's most motivating for older patients?' He'll be trying again.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Opinion: Budget bill's Medicaid cuts hurt all Utahns
Opinion: Budget bill's Medicaid cuts hurt all Utahns

Yahoo

time42 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Opinion: Budget bill's Medicaid cuts hurt all Utahns

One Big Beautiful Bill, or One Big Budget Bust? This one act of legislation will affect everyone, not just those on Medicaid. Even if you don't think cuts to Medicaid will affect you, they will, and not in a good way. This legislation will ultimately decrease the health of Utahns, inadvertently increase the cost of healthcare and increase wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars. The 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' includes provisions that slash Medicaid coverage through the guise of work/education requirements. While this may sound like a great way to increase accountability for Medicaid enrollees, this is costly to states and is confusing for enrollees. When Arkansas implemented Medicaid work and reporting requirements in 2018, enrollees reported both confusion and misunderstanding about what was required. Due to these requirements, 18,000 individuals, or 25% of enrollees, lost their insurance coverage. Researchers in 2020 looked at the impact of Arkansas' program and found that the loss of coverage led to poorer medication adherence, delays in receiving care and increased medical debt. In 2019, the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) — a federal office that provides fact-based, non-partisan information used to improve government spending and save taxpayers billions of dollars — estimated that state expansion of Medicaid work/education requirements would cost anywhere from under $10 million to over $250 million just on administrative costs. Accounting for inflation, this alone can cost Utah anywhere from about $13 million to $310 million just to set up this program. While this cost may be partially covered by the federal government, this has proven to be a waste of government spending. In one year of Georgia's implementation of a similar program, their own state Medicaid agency reported that it cost both state and federal taxpayers a combination of $40 million, with 80% of it going towards administrative costs rather than medical care. If implemented in our state, which prides itself on being fiscally responsible, removing red tape and deregulation, adding additional work/education requirements goes against these core beliefs. Hidden in the 'Big Beautiful Bill' are provisions to cut Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Programs by $3.5 billion, claiming this work 'can be conducted [and funded] more effectively by States,' according to the Fiscal Year 2026 budget request. States would need to develop programs and funding for employees to assist in this goal of shifting from the federal focus to state focus at the taxpayers' expense. Additionally, the budget includes provisions that block federal funding for preventive care at facilities offering family planning, reproductive health and related medical services. By blocking funding to these facilities, the healthcare system will shift from prevention to crisis response. Important public health research is also on the 'Big Beautiful Bill' chopping block. As the president proposes almost $18 billion in cuts to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) — the United States' medical research arm — projects will lose ground and become stagnant. You may be asking yourself, why does this matter to me? What if I have commercial insurance? Why should I care about research? The damaging effects of these budget cuts touch every aspect of society, creating a domino effect. These policies don't operate in isolation — they compound each other, ultimately raising costs, lowering care quality and destabilizing institutions relied upon by people across the income spectrum. Millions will lose access to primary, routine and preventive care. Conditions will go undetected and unmanaged, especially among children, women and people with chronic illnesses. Hospitals — especially children's hospitals and safety-net facilities — will absorb more unpaid care. This reduces operating margins and strains staff and resources. Hospitals will increase charges to private insurers to recoup losses. This drives up insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs for middle-income families and employers. Fewer pediatricians, OB/GYNs and community health providers will stay in underfunded or unstable systems. Burnout and turnover will rise, especially in high-need communities. Biomedical research will come to a standstill, jeopardizing our ability to find new cures for debilitating diseases like cancer, diabetes and Alzheimer's. These cuts harm the entire healthcare system, threatening access, affordability and quality of care for everyone, regardless of insurance status. Protect your health by contacting your senators and telling them to block this One Big Budget Bust.

CDC rehires 450 employees cut in HHS restructuring, internal documents show
CDC rehires 450 employees cut in HHS restructuring, internal documents show

Yahoo

time42 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

CDC rehires 450 employees cut in HHS restructuring, internal documents show

The government on Wednesday hired back more than 450 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention employees that were fired as part of the widespread restructuring that took place in April at the Department of Health and Human Services, internal documents shared with ABC News show. Among the branches that were reinstated was the National Center for Environmental Health, which oversees a lead prevention program for children across the country that ABC News has reported on extensively and asked HHS Sec. Robert F. Kennedy Jr about directly. The cuts to the branch had left more than a half dozen schools in Milwaukee without federal assistance as they dealt with hazardous levels of lead in their building. MORE: Milwaukee struggles through growing lead crisis -- with federal help nowhere to be found More than 120 people were rehired to the CDC division, which also monitors other environmental toxins, including wildfire smoke and radiation exposure. "It's like Dunkirk when many civilian hands helped save the army. Glad to be on the other side," NCEH Division Director Erik Svendsen told ABC News after finding out. It's unclear what prompted the employees to be rehired. In the original cuts HHS announced in late March, the CDC's workforce decreased by approximately 2,400 employees. Officials have previously said any rehiring would come with additional firings to even out the numbers. Lawsuits against HHS's rampant firing, which impacted around 10,000 employees across the CDC, Food and Drug Administration and National Institutes of Health, continue to play out. In a statement on Wednesday confirming the reinstatements, an HHS spokesperson said, "Under Secretary Kennedy's leadership, the nation's critical public health functions remain intact and effective." MORE: RFK Jr. announces HHS reinstating some programs, employees cut by mistake "The Trump Administration is committed to protecting essential services -- whether it's supporting coal miners and firefighters through NIOSH, safeguarding public health through lead prevention, or researching and tracking the most prevalent communicable diseases," the spokesperson said, listing programs that were cut and then later reinstated after public and political pressure to do so. The chaotic dismissal of experts across the agency has prompted outcry from the science community and questions from a number of Republicans, especially as their states were impacted by cut programs. Programs like the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, which monitors coal mine safety, saw reinstatements. Other branches reinstated Wednesday include the National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and Tuberculosis Prevention, which works to track and prevent infectious diseases that affect millions of Americans and cause tens of thousands of deaths annually. The CDC's global health division, which has foreign offices in about 60 countries to monitor for health or security threats overseas, is also set to regain about two dozen employees. CDC rehires 450 employees cut in HHS restructuring, internal documents show originally appeared on

Advocates optimistic that Congress could renew downwinder compensation in budget bill
Advocates optimistic that Congress could renew downwinder compensation in budget bill

Yahoo

time42 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Advocates optimistic that Congress could renew downwinder compensation in budget bill

One year to the day since federal lawmakers let compensation for downwinders expire, advocates say they feel more optimistic than they have in months about getting an expansion of the program through Congress. Although a majority of senators voted to renew and expand the program last year, the bill was never considered in the House of Representatives. But some now see President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful' budget bill as a potential vehicle and are urging lawmakers to include compensation in the Senate version of the bill. 'As we know, fallout knows no boundaries,' said Steve Erickson, a longtime volunteer with Downwinders Inc, during a press conference outside the Wallace F. Bennett Federal Building Tuesday. 'There's plenty of evidence — it's overwhelming, in fact — that hundreds of thousands of cancers were caused by atomic fallout, and so it's time that — past time now for some years — that RECA be expanded to cover far more of those who suffered from those unwitting exposures.' Erickson was referring to the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990, which provided some restitution to people with illnesses linked to exposure to nuclear fallout from tests conducted by the U.S. government at the Nevada Test Site and others. Downwinders from 10 counties in southern Utah were covered under the act, along with people who lived in northern Arizona and Nevada at the time of the tests. The act was renewed for two years in 2022, but advocates have sought to have the pool of eligible applicants be expanded to cover downwinders across several Western states – including all of Utah — and miners exposed to uranium in Missouri. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, sponsored the Senate expansion bill last year and is said to be working on reintroducing some version of the legislation as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Utah downwinders say they've been in touch with Hawley's office and that the senator is optimistic about the progress being made behind the scenes. They praised Utah's congressional delegation for working toward a solution — Sen. Mike Lee and Rep. Celeste Maloy in particular, who sponsored a two-year extension of the program last year — but urged Utah's elected officials to support something similar to the expanded bill Hawley pushed last year. Lee gave a statement to advocates, saying, 'I am proud to work toward RECA reauthorization and to ensure that the Americans who rely upon it continue to receive the care they need.' The first nuclear test was conducted 80 years ago next month, and downwinders are urging Congress to act quickly to preserve compensation for aging Americans who are suffering from illnesses likely caused by exposure to radiation. They say the federal government has a responsibility to help those who were exposed to radiation from tests without knowledge of the long-term effects. 'I've watched families, friends, colleagues and neighbors suffer from the consequences of the decisions that were made. Those people had no say in any of those decisions,' Claudia Peterson, a downwinder from St. George, said in a statement. 'Tomorrow, I will be sitting at the bedside of my childhood friend as she goes through another surgery related to another cancer, and she is scared to death. There are no words to say what it takes to watch the heartache, to paint a true picture of watching a loved one suffer.' 'And the legacy is what has been left by decisions made by our government,' she added. A bipartisan group of 41 state lawmakers wrote to Congress urging the extension and expansion of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act in April, but Erickson said he hasn't heard a response from Washington. Although the program has expired, the Justice Department has continued to process claims that were submitted prior to its sunset, but those are dwindling, and the program will soon be shuttered. 'Those few claims that are left are still being settled, and when they are done, the program is done, the doors will close, and it will shut down,' Erickson said. 'It'll be harder and more expensive to restart the Justice Department compensation program under RECA if it isn't renewed soon, so it's imperative that Congress act now.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store