Cardiology News

1. Stride confidently into the room to greet your 84-year-old female patient.

2. Introduce yourself saying, “Hi, I’m Dr. Jeff Benabio.”

3. Extend your clenched fist toward her chest and wait for her to reciprocate.

4. Smile awkwardly behind your mask while you wait.

5. Advise that you are doing a fist bump instead of a handshake to prevent the spread of viruses.

6. Wait.

7. Explain that she can bump, also known as “dap,” you back by extending her clenched fist and bumping into yours.

8. Wait a bit more.

9. Lower your fist and pat her on the shoulder with your left hand. Do so gently so it doesn’t seem like you just did a quick right jab followed by a left hook.

10. Sit down diffidently and pray that you can help her so this office visit is not an utter disaster.

It seemed a good idea for 2020: Let’s stop shaking hands while we wait out this viral apocalypse. Sensible, but entering a patient room and just sitting down didn’t work. It felt cold, impolite – this isn’t the DMV. In medicine, a complete stranger has to trust us to get naked, tell intimate secrets, even be stuck by needles all within minutes of meeting. We needed a trust-building substitute greeting.

There was the Muslim hand-on-my-heart greeting. Or the Hindu “namaste” or Buddhist “amituofo” folded hands. Or perhaps the paternalistic shoulder pat? I went with the fist bump. With some of my partner docs, my old MBA squad, my neighbor, the fist bump felt natural, reciprocated without hesitation. But it fails with many patients. To understand why, it’s helpful to know the history of the fist bump, also known as the dap.

Dap is an acronym for Dignity And Pride. It’s a variation of a handshake that originated among Black soldiers in the Vietnam war as a means of showing fraternity and establishing connectedness. In Vietnam, 30% of the combat battalions were Black. Marginalized in the military and at home, they created a greeting that was meaningful and unique. The dap was a series of shakes, bumps, slaps, and hugs that was symbolic. It was a means of showing respect and humility, that no one is above others, that I’ve got your back and you’ve got mine. It was a powerful recognition of humanity and effective means of personal connection. It spread from the Black community to the general population and it exists still today. The choreographed pregame handshake you see so many NBA players engage in is a descendant of the dap. Like many rituals, it reinforces bonds with those who are your people, your team, those you trust.

webphotographeer/Getty

The more generalized version is the simple fist bump. It is widely used, notably by President Obama, and in the appropriate circumstance, will almost always be reciprocated. But it doesn’t work well to create trust with a stranger. With a patient for example, you are not showing them respect for some accomplishment. Nor are we connecting with them as a member of your team. Unless this is a patient whom you’ve seen many times before, a fist bump attempt might be met with “are you serious?” In fact, a survey done in 2016 asking infectious disease professionals what they thought of fist bumps as a greeting, very few replied it was a good idea. Most felt it was unprofessional. Not to mention that a fist bump does not symbolize an agreement in the way that a handshake does (and has done since at least the 9th century BC).

With COVID waning and masks doffed, I’ve found myself back to handshaking. Yes, I sanitize before and after, another ritual that has symbolic as well as practical significance. I get fewer sideways glances from my geriatric patients for sure. But I do still offer a little dap for my liquid nitrogen–survivor kids and for the occasional fellow Gen Xer. “Wonder Twin powers, activate!”

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com

1. Stride confidently into the room to greet your 84-year-old female patient.

2. Introduce yourself saying, “Hi, I’m Dr. Jeff Benabio.”

3. Extend your clenched fist toward her chest and wait for her to reciprocate.

4. Smile awkwardly behind your mask while you wait.

5. Advise that you are doing a fist bump instead of a handshake to prevent the spread of viruses.

6. Wait.

7. Explain that she can bump, also known as “dap,” you back by extending her clenched fist and bumping into yours.

8. Wait a bit more.

9. Lower your fist and pat her on the shoulder with your left hand. Do so gently so it doesn’t seem like you just did a quick right jab followed by a left hook.

10. Sit down diffidently and pray that you can help her so this office visit is not an utter disaster.

It seemed a good idea for 2020: Let’s stop shaking hands while we wait out this viral apocalypse. Sensible, but entering a patient room and just sitting down didn’t work. It felt cold, impolite – this isn’t the DMV. In medicine, a complete stranger has to trust us to get naked, tell intimate secrets, even be stuck by needles all within minutes of meeting. We needed a trust-building substitute greeting.

There was the Muslim hand-on-my-heart greeting. Or the Hindu “namaste” or Buddhist “amituofo” folded hands. Or perhaps the paternalistic shoulder pat? I went with the fist bump. With some of my partner docs, my old MBA squad, my neighbor, the fist bump felt natural, reciprocated without hesitation. But it fails with many patients. To understand why, it’s helpful to know the history of the fist bump, also known as the dap.

Dap is an acronym for Dignity And Pride. It’s a variation of a handshake that originated among Black soldiers in the Vietnam war as a means of showing fraternity and establishing connectedness. In Vietnam, 30% of the combat battalions were Black. Marginalized in the military and at home, they created a greeting that was meaningful and unique. The dap was a series of shakes, bumps, slaps, and hugs that was symbolic. It was a means of showing respect and humility, that no one is above others, that I’ve got your back and you’ve got mine. It was a powerful recognition of humanity and effective means of personal connection. It spread from the Black community to the general population and it exists still today. The choreographed pregame handshake you see so many NBA players engage in is a descendant of the dap. Like many rituals, it reinforces bonds with those who are your people, your team, those you trust.

webphotographeer/Getty

The more generalized version is the simple fist bump. It is widely used, notably by President Obama, and in the appropriate circumstance, will almost always be reciprocated. But it doesn’t work well to create trust with a stranger. With a patient for example, you are not showing them respect for some accomplishment. Nor are we connecting with them as a member of your team. Unless this is a patient whom you’ve seen many times before, a fist bump attempt might be met with “are you serious?” In fact, a survey done in 2016 asking infectious disease professionals what they thought of fist bumps as a greeting, very few replied it was a good idea. Most felt it was unprofessional. Not to mention that a fist bump does not symbolize an agreement in the way that a handshake does (and has done since at least the 9th century BC).

With COVID waning and masks doffed, I’ve found myself back to handshaking. Yes, I sanitize before and after, another ritual that has symbolic as well as practical significance. I get fewer sideways glances from my geriatric patients for sure. But I do still offer a little dap for my liquid nitrogen–survivor kids and for the occasional fellow Gen Xer. “Wonder Twin powers, activate!”

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com

1. Stride confidently into the room to greet your 84-year-old female patient.

2. Introduce yourself saying, “Hi, I’m Dr. Jeff Benabio.”

3. Extend your clenched fist toward her chest and wait for her to reciprocate.

4. Smile awkwardly behind your mask while you wait.

5. Advise that you are doing a fist bump instead of a handshake to prevent the spread of viruses.

6. Wait.

7. Explain that she can bump, also known as “dap,” you back by extending her clenched fist and bumping into yours.

8. Wait a bit more.

9. Lower your fist and pat her on the shoulder with your left hand. Do so gently so it doesn’t seem like you just did a quick right jab followed by a left hook.

10. Sit down diffidently and pray that you can help her so this office visit is not an utter disaster.

It seemed a good idea for 2020: Let’s stop shaking hands while we wait out this viral apocalypse. Sensible, but entering a patient room and just sitting down didn’t work. It felt cold, impolite – this isn’t the DMV. In medicine, a complete stranger has to trust us to get naked, tell intimate secrets, even be stuck by needles all within minutes of meeting. We needed a trust-building substitute greeting.

There was the Muslim hand-on-my-heart greeting. Or the Hindu “namaste” or Buddhist “amituofo” folded hands. Or perhaps the paternalistic shoulder pat? I went with the fist bump. With some of my partner docs, my old MBA squad, my neighbor, the fist bump felt natural, reciprocated without hesitation. But it fails with many patients. To understand why, it’s helpful to know the history of the fist bump, also known as the dap.

Dap is an acronym for Dignity And Pride. It’s a variation of a handshake that originated among Black soldiers in the Vietnam war as a means of showing fraternity and establishing connectedness. In Vietnam, 30% of the combat battalions were Black. Marginalized in the military and at home, they created a greeting that was meaningful and unique. The dap was a series of shakes, bumps, slaps, and hugs that was symbolic. It was a means of showing respect and humility, that no one is above others, that I’ve got your back and you’ve got mine. It was a powerful recognition of humanity and effective means of personal connection. It spread from the Black community to the general population and it exists still today. The choreographed pregame handshake you see so many NBA players engage in is a descendant of the dap. Like many rituals, it reinforces bonds with those who are your people, your team, those you trust.

webphotographeer/Getty

The more generalized version is the simple fist bump. It is widely used, notably by President Obama, and in the appropriate circumstance, will almost always be reciprocated. But it doesn’t work well to create trust with a stranger. With a patient for example, you are not showing them respect for some accomplishment. Nor are we connecting with them as a member of your team. Unless this is a patient whom you’ve seen many times before, a fist bump attempt might be met with “are you serious?” In fact, a survey done in 2016 asking infectious disease professionals what they thought of fist bumps as a greeting, very few replied it was a good idea. Most felt it was unprofessional. Not to mention that a fist bump does not symbolize an agreement in the way that a handshake does (and has done since at least the 9th century BC).

With COVID waning and masks doffed, I’ve found myself back to handshaking. Yes, I sanitize before and after, another ritual that has symbolic as well as practical significance. I get fewer sideways glances from my geriatric patients for sure. But I do still offer a little dap for my liquid nitrogen–survivor kids and for the occasional fellow Gen Xer. “Wonder Twin powers, activate!”

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com

Is it time to start recommending regular sauna bathing to improve heart health?

Mounting evidence shows that hitting the heated chambers can produce some of the same cardiovascular benefits as aerobic exercise. While a post-workout sauna can compound the benefits of exercise, the hormetic effects of heat therapy alone can produce significant gains for microvascular and endothelial function, no workout required.

“There’s enough evidence to say that regular sauna use improves cardiovascular health,” Matthew S. Ganio, PhD, a professor of exercise science at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, who studies thermoregulatory responses and cardiovascular health, said.

“The more they used it, the greater the reduction in cardiovascular events like heart attack. But you don’t need to be in there more than 20-30 minutes. That’s where it seemed to have the best effect,” Dr. Ganio said, adding that studies have shown a dose-response.

A prospective cohort study published in 2015 in JAMA Internal Medicine included 20 years of data on more than 2,300 Finnish men who regularly sauna bathed. The researchers found that among participants who sat in saunas more frequently, rates of death from heart disease and stroke were lower than among those who did so less often.
 

Cutaneous vasodilation

The body experiences several physiologic changes when exposed to heat therapy of any kind, including sauna, hot water submerging, shortwave diathermy, and heat wrapping. Many of these changes involve elements of the cardiovascular system, said Earric Lee, PhD, an exercise physiologist and postdoctoral researcher at the University of Jyväskylä in Finland, who has studied the effects of sauna on cardiovascular health.

The mechanisms by which heat therapy improves cardiovascular fitness have not been determined, as few studies of sauna bathing have been conducted to this degree. One driver appears to be cutaneous vasodilation. To cool the body when exposed to extreme external heat, cutaneous vessels dilate and push blood to the skin, which lowers body temperature, increases heart rate, and delivers oxygen to muscles in the limbs in a way similar to aerobic exercise.

Sauna bathing has similar effects on heart rate and cardiac output. Studies have shown it can improve the circulation of blood through the body, as well as vascular endothelial function, which is closely tied to vascular tone.

“Increased cardiac output is one of the physiologic reasons sauna is good for heart health,” Dr. Ganio said.

During a sauna session, cardiac output can increase by as much as 70% in relation to elevated heart rate. And while heart rate and cardiac output rise, stroke volume remains stable. As stroke volume increases, the effort that muscle must exert increases. When heart rate rises, stroke volume often falls, which subjects the heart to less of a workout and reduces the amount of oxygen and blood circulating throughout the body.

Heat therapy also temporarily increases blood pressure, but in a way similar to exercise, which supports better long-term heart health, said Christopher Minson, PhD, the Kenneth M. and Kenda H. Singer Endowed Professor of Human Physiology at the University of Oregon in Eugene.

A small study of 19 healthy adults that was published in Complementary Therapies in Medicine in 2019 found that blood pressure and heart rate rose during a 25-minute sauna session as they might during moderate exercise, equivalent to an exercise load of about 60-100 watts. These parameters then steadily decreased for 30 minutes after the sauna. An earlier study found that in the long term, blood pressure was lower after a sauna than before a sauna.
 

Upregulated heat shock proteins

Both aerobic exercise and heat stress from sauna bathing increase the activity of heat shock proteins. A 2021 review published in Experimental Gerontology found that heat shock proteins become elevated in cells within 30 minutes of exposure to heat and remain elevated over time – an effect similar to exercise.

“Saunas increase heat shock proteins that break down old, dysfunctional proteins and then protect new proteins from becoming dysfunctional,” Hunter S. Waldman, PhD, an assistant professor of exercise science at the University of North Alabama in Florence, said. This effect is one way sauna bathing may quell systemic inflammation, Dr. Waldman said.

According to a 2018 review published in BioMed Research International, an abundance of heat shock proteins may increase exercise tolerance. The researchers concluded that the positive stress associated with elevated body temperature could help people be physically active for longer periods.

Added stress, especially heat-related strain, is not good for everyone, however. Dr. Waldman cautioned that heat exposure, be it through a sauna, hot tub, or other source, can be harmful for pregnant women and children and can be dangerous for people who have low blood pressure, since blood pressure often drops to rates that are lower than before taking a sauna. It also can impair semen quality for months after exposure, so people who are trying to conceive should avoid sauna bathing.

Anyone who has been diagnosed with a heart condition, including cardiac arrhythmia, coronary artery disease, and congestive heart failure, should always consult their physician prior to using sauna for the first time or before using it habitually, Dr. Lee said.
 

Effects compounded by exercise

Dr. Minson stressed that any type of heat therapy should be part of a lifestyle that includes mostly healthy habits overall, especially a regular exercise regime when possible.

“You have to have everything else working as well: finding time to relax, not being overly stressed, staying hydrated – all those things are critical with any exercise training and heat therapy program,” he said.

Dr. Lee said it’s easy to overhype the benefits of sauna bathing and agreed the practice should be used in tandem with other therapies, not as a replacement. So far, stacking research has shown it to be an effective extension of aerobic exercise.

A June 2023 review published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings found that while sauna bathing can produce benefits on its own, a post-workout sauna can extend the benefits of exercise. As a result, the researchers concluded, saunas likely provide the most benefit when combined with aerobic and strength training.

While some of the benefits of exercise overlap those associated with sauna bathing, “you’re going to get some benefits with exercise that you’re never going to get with sauna,” Dr. Ganio said.

For instance, strength training or aerobic exercise usually results in muscle contractions, which sauna bathing does not produce.

If a person is impaired in a way that makes exercise difficult, taking a sauna after aerobic activity can extend the cardiovascular benefits of the workout, even if muscle-building does not occur, Dr. Lee said.

“All other things considered, especially with aerobic exercise, it is very comparable, so we can look at adding sauna bathing post exercise as a way to lengthen the aerobic exercise workout,” he said. “It’s not to the same degree, but you can get many of the ranging benefits of exercising simply by going into the sauna.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Is it time to start recommending regular sauna bathing to improve heart health?

Mounting evidence shows that hitting the heated chambers can produce some of the same cardiovascular benefits as aerobic exercise. While a post-workout sauna can compound the benefits of exercise, the hormetic effects of heat therapy alone can produce significant gains for microvascular and endothelial function, no workout required.

“There’s enough evidence to say that regular sauna use improves cardiovascular health,” Matthew S. Ganio, PhD, a professor of exercise science at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, who studies thermoregulatory responses and cardiovascular health, said.

“The more they used it, the greater the reduction in cardiovascular events like heart attack. But you don’t need to be in there more than 20-30 minutes. That’s where it seemed to have the best effect,” Dr. Ganio said, adding that studies have shown a dose-response.

A prospective cohort study published in 2015 in JAMA Internal Medicine included 20 years of data on more than 2,300 Finnish men who regularly sauna bathed. The researchers found that among participants who sat in saunas more frequently, rates of death from heart disease and stroke were lower than among those who did so less often.
 

Cutaneous vasodilation

The body experiences several physiologic changes when exposed to heat therapy of any kind, including sauna, hot water submerging, shortwave diathermy, and heat wrapping. Many of these changes involve elements of the cardiovascular system, said Earric Lee, PhD, an exercise physiologist and postdoctoral researcher at the University of Jyväskylä in Finland, who has studied the effects of sauna on cardiovascular health.

The mechanisms by which heat therapy improves cardiovascular fitness have not been determined, as few studies of sauna bathing have been conducted to this degree. One driver appears to be cutaneous vasodilation. To cool the body when exposed to extreme external heat, cutaneous vessels dilate and push blood to the skin, which lowers body temperature, increases heart rate, and delivers oxygen to muscles in the limbs in a way similar to aerobic exercise.

Sauna bathing has similar effects on heart rate and cardiac output. Studies have shown it can improve the circulation of blood through the body, as well as vascular endothelial function, which is closely tied to vascular tone.

“Increased cardiac output is one of the physiologic reasons sauna is good for heart health,” Dr. Ganio said.

During a sauna session, cardiac output can increase by as much as 70% in relation to elevated heart rate. And while heart rate and cardiac output rise, stroke volume remains stable. As stroke volume increases, the effort that muscle must exert increases. When heart rate rises, stroke volume often falls, which subjects the heart to less of a workout and reduces the amount of oxygen and blood circulating throughout the body.

Heat therapy also temporarily increases blood pressure, but in a way similar to exercise, which supports better long-term heart health, said Christopher Minson, PhD, the Kenneth M. and Kenda H. Singer Endowed Professor of Human Physiology at the University of Oregon in Eugene.

A small study of 19 healthy adults that was published in Complementary Therapies in Medicine in 2019 found that blood pressure and heart rate rose during a 25-minute sauna session as they might during moderate exercise, equivalent to an exercise load of about 60-100 watts. These parameters then steadily decreased for 30 minutes after the sauna. An earlier study found that in the long term, blood pressure was lower after a sauna than before a sauna.
 

Upregulated heat shock proteins

Both aerobic exercise and heat stress from sauna bathing increase the activity of heat shock proteins. A 2021 review published in Experimental Gerontology found that heat shock proteins become elevated in cells within 30 minutes of exposure to heat and remain elevated over time – an effect similar to exercise.

“Saunas increase heat shock proteins that break down old, dysfunctional proteins and then protect new proteins from becoming dysfunctional,” Hunter S. Waldman, PhD, an assistant professor of exercise science at the University of North Alabama in Florence, said. This effect is one way sauna bathing may quell systemic inflammation, Dr. Waldman said.

According to a 2018 review published in BioMed Research International, an abundance of heat shock proteins may increase exercise tolerance. The researchers concluded that the positive stress associated with elevated body temperature could help people be physically active for longer periods.

Added stress, especially heat-related strain, is not good for everyone, however. Dr. Waldman cautioned that heat exposure, be it through a sauna, hot tub, or other source, can be harmful for pregnant women and children and can be dangerous for people who have low blood pressure, since blood pressure often drops to rates that are lower than before taking a sauna. It also can impair semen quality for months after exposure, so people who are trying to conceive should avoid sauna bathing.

Anyone who has been diagnosed with a heart condition, including cardiac arrhythmia, coronary artery disease, and congestive heart failure, should always consult their physician prior to using sauna for the first time or before using it habitually, Dr. Lee said.
 

Effects compounded by exercise

Dr. Minson stressed that any type of heat therapy should be part of a lifestyle that includes mostly healthy habits overall, especially a regular exercise regime when possible.

“You have to have everything else working as well: finding time to relax, not being overly stressed, staying hydrated – all those things are critical with any exercise training and heat therapy program,” he said.

Dr. Lee said it’s easy to overhype the benefits of sauna bathing and agreed the practice should be used in tandem with other therapies, not as a replacement. So far, stacking research has shown it to be an effective extension of aerobic exercise.

A June 2023 review published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings found that while sauna bathing can produce benefits on its own, a post-workout sauna can extend the benefits of exercise. As a result, the researchers concluded, saunas likely provide the most benefit when combined with aerobic and strength training.

While some of the benefits of exercise overlap those associated with sauna bathing, “you’re going to get some benefits with exercise that you’re never going to get with sauna,” Dr. Ganio said.

For instance, strength training or aerobic exercise usually results in muscle contractions, which sauna bathing does not produce.

If a person is impaired in a way that makes exercise difficult, taking a sauna after aerobic activity can extend the cardiovascular benefits of the workout, even if muscle-building does not occur, Dr. Lee said.

“All other things considered, especially with aerobic exercise, it is very comparable, so we can look at adding sauna bathing post exercise as a way to lengthen the aerobic exercise workout,” he said. “It’s not to the same degree, but you can get many of the ranging benefits of exercising simply by going into the sauna.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Is it time to start recommending regular sauna bathing to improve heart health?

Mounting evidence shows that hitting the heated chambers can produce some of the same cardiovascular benefits as aerobic exercise. While a post-workout sauna can compound the benefits of exercise, the hormetic effects of heat therapy alone can produce significant gains for microvascular and endothelial function, no workout required.

“There’s enough evidence to say that regular sauna use improves cardiovascular health,” Matthew S. Ganio, PhD, a professor of exercise science at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, who studies thermoregulatory responses and cardiovascular health, said.

“The more they used it, the greater the reduction in cardiovascular events like heart attack. But you don’t need to be in there more than 20-30 minutes. That’s where it seemed to have the best effect,” Dr. Ganio said, adding that studies have shown a dose-response.

A prospective cohort study published in 2015 in JAMA Internal Medicine included 20 years of data on more than 2,300 Finnish men who regularly sauna bathed. The researchers found that among participants who sat in saunas more frequently, rates of death from heart disease and stroke were lower than among those who did so less often.
 

Cutaneous vasodilation

The body experiences several physiologic changes when exposed to heat therapy of any kind, including sauna, hot water submerging, shortwave diathermy, and heat wrapping. Many of these changes involve elements of the cardiovascular system, said Earric Lee, PhD, an exercise physiologist and postdoctoral researcher at the University of Jyväskylä in Finland, who has studied the effects of sauna on cardiovascular health.

The mechanisms by which heat therapy improves cardiovascular fitness have not been determined, as few studies of sauna bathing have been conducted to this degree. One driver appears to be cutaneous vasodilation. To cool the body when exposed to extreme external heat, cutaneous vessels dilate and push blood to the skin, which lowers body temperature, increases heart rate, and delivers oxygen to muscles in the limbs in a way similar to aerobic exercise.

Sauna bathing has similar effects on heart rate and cardiac output. Studies have shown it can improve the circulation of blood through the body, as well as vascular endothelial function, which is closely tied to vascular tone.

“Increased cardiac output is one of the physiologic reasons sauna is good for heart health,” Dr. Ganio said.

During a sauna session, cardiac output can increase by as much as 70% in relation to elevated heart rate. And while heart rate and cardiac output rise, stroke volume remains stable. As stroke volume increases, the effort that muscle must exert increases. When heart rate rises, stroke volume often falls, which subjects the heart to less of a workout and reduces the amount of oxygen and blood circulating throughout the body.

Heat therapy also temporarily increases blood pressure, but in a way similar to exercise, which supports better long-term heart health, said Christopher Minson, PhD, the Kenneth M. and Kenda H. Singer Endowed Professor of Human Physiology at the University of Oregon in Eugene.

A small study of 19 healthy adults that was published in Complementary Therapies in Medicine in 2019 found that blood pressure and heart rate rose during a 25-minute sauna session as they might during moderate exercise, equivalent to an exercise load of about 60-100 watts. These parameters then steadily decreased for 30 minutes after the sauna. An earlier study found that in the long term, blood pressure was lower after a sauna than before a sauna.
 

Upregulated heat shock proteins

Both aerobic exercise and heat stress from sauna bathing increase the activity of heat shock proteins. A 2021 review published in Experimental Gerontology found that heat shock proteins become elevated in cells within 30 minutes of exposure to heat and remain elevated over time – an effect similar to exercise.

“Saunas increase heat shock proteins that break down old, dysfunctional proteins and then protect new proteins from becoming dysfunctional,” Hunter S. Waldman, PhD, an assistant professor of exercise science at the University of North Alabama in Florence, said. This effect is one way sauna bathing may quell systemic inflammation, Dr. Waldman said.

According to a 2018 review published in BioMed Research International, an abundance of heat shock proteins may increase exercise tolerance. The researchers concluded that the positive stress associated with elevated body temperature could help people be physically active for longer periods.

Added stress, especially heat-related strain, is not good for everyone, however. Dr. Waldman cautioned that heat exposure, be it through a sauna, hot tub, or other source, can be harmful for pregnant women and children and can be dangerous for people who have low blood pressure, since blood pressure often drops to rates that are lower than before taking a sauna. It also can impair semen quality for months after exposure, so people who are trying to conceive should avoid sauna bathing.

Anyone who has been diagnosed with a heart condition, including cardiac arrhythmia, coronary artery disease, and congestive heart failure, should always consult their physician prior to using sauna for the first time or before using it habitually, Dr. Lee said.
 

Effects compounded by exercise

Dr. Minson stressed that any type of heat therapy should be part of a lifestyle that includes mostly healthy habits overall, especially a regular exercise regime when possible.

“You have to have everything else working as well: finding time to relax, not being overly stressed, staying hydrated – all those things are critical with any exercise training and heat therapy program,” he said.

Dr. Lee said it’s easy to overhype the benefits of sauna bathing and agreed the practice should be used in tandem with other therapies, not as a replacement. So far, stacking research has shown it to be an effective extension of aerobic exercise.

A June 2023 review published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings found that while sauna bathing can produce benefits on its own, a post-workout sauna can extend the benefits of exercise. As a result, the researchers concluded, saunas likely provide the most benefit when combined with aerobic and strength training.

While some of the benefits of exercise overlap those associated with sauna bathing, “you’re going to get some benefits with exercise that you’re never going to get with sauna,” Dr. Ganio said.

For instance, strength training or aerobic exercise usually results in muscle contractions, which sauna bathing does not produce.

If a person is impaired in a way that makes exercise difficult, taking a sauna after aerobic activity can extend the cardiovascular benefits of the workout, even if muscle-building does not occur, Dr. Lee said.

“All other things considered, especially with aerobic exercise, it is very comparable, so we can look at adding sauna bathing post exercise as a way to lengthen the aerobic exercise workout,” he said. “It’s not to the same degree, but you can get many of the ranging benefits of exercising simply by going into the sauna.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Organ transplant recipients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) have significantly worse prognostic features compared with SCC in the general population, results from a dual cohort study demonstrated.

The findings build on previous research and underscore the need for early diagnosis and aggressive surveillance in this patient population, corresponding author Adele C. Green, MBBS, PhD, professor and senior scientist at the QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology. “Squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) of the skin develop up to 77 times more frequently in immunosuppressed organ transplant recipients (OTRs) than the general population,” they wrote. “Because SCCs cause substantially more morbidity and death in the former, they are postulated to be innately more aggressive than in immunocompetent patients, but OTRs’ higher SCC mortality may simply reflect greater SCC tumor burdens per patient.”

In what is believed to be the first study of its kind, Dr. Green and colleagues drew data from two cohort studies to evaluate five key clinicopathologic indicators of poor SCC outcomes in organ transplant recipients, and in those from the general population in Queensland, Australia: cephalic location, perineural invasion, invasion to/beyond subcutaneous fat, poor differentiation, and tumor size greater than 20 mm. The study population included organ transplant recipients at high risk of skin cancer, who were enrolled in the Skin Tumours in Allograft Recipients (STAR) study, and those from a population-based cohort, the QSkin Sun and Health Study. STAR consisted of lung transplant recipients and kidney and liver transplant recipients at high risk of skin cancer who were recruited from tertiary centers and diagnosed with histopathologically confirmed SCC from 2012 to 2015. QSkin consisted of individuals from Queensland’s general adult population diagnosed with SCCs from 2012 to 2015.

SCC cases in QSkin were ascertained through Australia’s universal health insurance agency and linked with histopathology records. Next, the researchers performed data analysis from both cohort studies to determine the prevalence ratio (PR) of head/neck location, perineural invasion, tumor invasion to/beyond subcutaneous fat, poor cellular differentiation, and tumor diameter greater than 20 mm among SCCs among organ transplant recipients compared with the general population.

After combining the two studies, the researchers compared 741 SCCs excised from 191 organ transplant recipients and 2,558 SCCs excised from 1,507 individuals in the general population. Their median ages were similar (62.7 and 63.7 years, respectively) and most were male (78% and 63.4%, respectively).

As for site of involvement, SCCs developed most often on the head and neck in the transplant recipients (38.6%) and on the arms and hands in the general population (35.2%). After adjustment for age and sex, perineural invasion of SCCs was more than twice as common in transplant recipients than among cases in the general population, as was invasion to/beyond subcutaneous fat (PR of 2.37 for both associations).

In other findings, compared with SCCs in the general population, poorly vs. well-differentiated SCCs were more than threefold more common in transplant recipients (PR, 3.45), while the prevalence of tumors greater than 20 mm vs. 20 mm or smaller was moderately higher in transplant recipients (PR, 1.52).

“These findings are considered generalizable, confirming that OTRs’ poorer SCC outcomes are associated with not only their sheer numbers of SCC tumors, but also with a strong shift toward more invasive, less differentiated, and larger SCC tumors, in agreement with previous findings,” the researchers wrote. “This shift is likely associated with decreased immunosurveillance resulting from immunosuppressive therapy (since carcinogenesis decelerates with therapy cessation) interacting with effects of high UV radiation exposure.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, chiefly the lack of central review of SCCs to ensure standard assessment of histopathologic features “including caliber of nerves with perineural invasion and cell differentiation; such a review would not have been feasible logistically.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. The researchers reported having no disclosures related to the submitted work.

Organ transplant recipients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) have significantly worse prognostic features compared with SCC in the general population, results from a dual cohort study demonstrated.

The findings build on previous research and underscore the need for early diagnosis and aggressive surveillance in this patient population, corresponding author Adele C. Green, MBBS, PhD, professor and senior scientist at the QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology. “Squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) of the skin develop up to 77 times more frequently in immunosuppressed organ transplant recipients (OTRs) than the general population,” they wrote. “Because SCCs cause substantially more morbidity and death in the former, they are postulated to be innately more aggressive than in immunocompetent patients, but OTRs’ higher SCC mortality may simply reflect greater SCC tumor burdens per patient.”

In what is believed to be the first study of its kind, Dr. Green and colleagues drew data from two cohort studies to evaluate five key clinicopathologic indicators of poor SCC outcomes in organ transplant recipients, and in those from the general population in Queensland, Australia: cephalic location, perineural invasion, invasion to/beyond subcutaneous fat, poor differentiation, and tumor size greater than 20 mm. The study population included organ transplant recipients at high risk of skin cancer, who were enrolled in the Skin Tumours in Allograft Recipients (STAR) study, and those from a population-based cohort, the QSkin Sun and Health Study. STAR consisted of lung transplant recipients and kidney and liver transplant recipients at high risk of skin cancer who were recruited from tertiary centers and diagnosed with histopathologically confirmed SCC from 2012 to 2015. QSkin consisted of individuals from Queensland’s general adult population diagnosed with SCCs from 2012 to 2015.

SCC cases in QSkin were ascertained through Australia’s universal health insurance agency and linked with histopathology records. Next, the researchers performed data analysis from both cohort studies to determine the prevalence ratio (PR) of head/neck location, perineural invasion, tumor invasion to/beyond subcutaneous fat, poor cellular differentiation, and tumor diameter greater than 20 mm among SCCs among organ transplant recipients compared with the general population.

After combining the two studies, the researchers compared 741 SCCs excised from 191 organ transplant recipients and 2,558 SCCs excised from 1,507 individuals in the general population. Their median ages were similar (62.7 and 63.7 years, respectively) and most were male (78% and 63.4%, respectively).

As for site of involvement, SCCs developed most often on the head and neck in the transplant recipients (38.6%) and on the arms and hands in the general population (35.2%). After adjustment for age and sex, perineural invasion of SCCs was more than twice as common in transplant recipients than among cases in the general population, as was invasion to/beyond subcutaneous fat (PR of 2.37 for both associations).

In other findings, compared with SCCs in the general population, poorly vs. well-differentiated SCCs were more than threefold more common in transplant recipients (PR, 3.45), while the prevalence of tumors greater than 20 mm vs. 20 mm or smaller was moderately higher in transplant recipients (PR, 1.52).

“These findings are considered generalizable, confirming that OTRs’ poorer SCC outcomes are associated with not only their sheer numbers of SCC tumors, but also with a strong shift toward more invasive, less differentiated, and larger SCC tumors, in agreement with previous findings,” the researchers wrote. “This shift is likely associated with decreased immunosurveillance resulting from immunosuppressive therapy (since carcinogenesis decelerates with therapy cessation) interacting with effects of high UV radiation exposure.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, chiefly the lack of central review of SCCs to ensure standard assessment of histopathologic features “including caliber of nerves with perineural invasion and cell differentiation; such a review would not have been feasible logistically.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. The researchers reported having no disclosures related to the submitted work.

Organ transplant recipients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) have significantly worse prognostic features compared with SCC in the general population, results from a dual cohort study demonstrated.

The findings build on previous research and underscore the need for early diagnosis and aggressive surveillance in this patient population, corresponding author Adele C. Green, MBBS, PhD, professor and senior scientist at the QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, and colleagues wrote in the study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology. “Squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) of the skin develop up to 77 times more frequently in immunosuppressed organ transplant recipients (OTRs) than the general population,” they wrote. “Because SCCs cause substantially more morbidity and death in the former, they are postulated to be innately more aggressive than in immunocompetent patients, but OTRs’ higher SCC mortality may simply reflect greater SCC tumor burdens per patient.”

In what is believed to be the first study of its kind, Dr. Green and colleagues drew data from two cohort studies to evaluate five key clinicopathologic indicators of poor SCC outcomes in organ transplant recipients, and in those from the general population in Queensland, Australia: cephalic location, perineural invasion, invasion to/beyond subcutaneous fat, poor differentiation, and tumor size greater than 20 mm. The study population included organ transplant recipients at high risk of skin cancer, who were enrolled in the Skin Tumours in Allograft Recipients (STAR) study, and those from a population-based cohort, the QSkin Sun and Health Study. STAR consisted of lung transplant recipients and kidney and liver transplant recipients at high risk of skin cancer who were recruited from tertiary centers and diagnosed with histopathologically confirmed SCC from 2012 to 2015. QSkin consisted of individuals from Queensland’s general adult population diagnosed with SCCs from 2012 to 2015.

SCC cases in QSkin were ascertained through Australia’s universal health insurance agency and linked with histopathology records. Next, the researchers performed data analysis from both cohort studies to determine the prevalence ratio (PR) of head/neck location, perineural invasion, tumor invasion to/beyond subcutaneous fat, poor cellular differentiation, and tumor diameter greater than 20 mm among SCCs among organ transplant recipients compared with the general population.

After combining the two studies, the researchers compared 741 SCCs excised from 191 organ transplant recipients and 2,558 SCCs excised from 1,507 individuals in the general population. Their median ages were similar (62.7 and 63.7 years, respectively) and most were male (78% and 63.4%, respectively).

As for site of involvement, SCCs developed most often on the head and neck in the transplant recipients (38.6%) and on the arms and hands in the general population (35.2%). After adjustment for age and sex, perineural invasion of SCCs was more than twice as common in transplant recipients than among cases in the general population, as was invasion to/beyond subcutaneous fat (PR of 2.37 for both associations).

In other findings, compared with SCCs in the general population, poorly vs. well-differentiated SCCs were more than threefold more common in transplant recipients (PR, 3.45), while the prevalence of tumors greater than 20 mm vs. 20 mm or smaller was moderately higher in transplant recipients (PR, 1.52).

“These findings are considered generalizable, confirming that OTRs’ poorer SCC outcomes are associated with not only their sheer numbers of SCC tumors, but also with a strong shift toward more invasive, less differentiated, and larger SCC tumors, in agreement with previous findings,” the researchers wrote. “This shift is likely associated with decreased immunosurveillance resulting from immunosuppressive therapy (since carcinogenesis decelerates with therapy cessation) interacting with effects of high UV radiation exposure.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, chiefly the lack of central review of SCCs to ensure standard assessment of histopathologic features “including caliber of nerves with perineural invasion and cell differentiation; such a review would not have been feasible logistically.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. The researchers reported having no disclosures related to the submitted work.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the anti-inflammatory drug colchicine 0.5 mg tablets (Lodoco) as the first specific anti-inflammatory drug demonstrated to reduce the risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, and cardiovascular death in adult patients with established atherosclerotic disease or with multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

The drug, which targets residual inflammation as an underlying cause of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, has a dosage of 0.5 mg once daily, and can be used alone or in combination with cholesterol-lowering medications. 

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The drug’s manufacturer, Agepha Pharma, said it anticipates that Lodoco will be available for prescription in the second half of 2023.

Colchicine has been available for many years and used at higher doses for the acute treatment of gout and pericarditis, but the current formulation is a much lower dose for long-term use in patients with atherosclerotic heart disease.

Data supporting the approval has come from two major randomized trials, LoDoCo-2 and COLCOT.

In the LoDoCo-2 trial, the anti-inflammatory drug cut the risk of cardiovascular events by one third when added to standard prevention therapies in patients with chronic coronary disease. And in the COLCOT study, use of colchicine reduced cardiovascular events by 23% compared with placebo in patients with a recent MI. 

Paul Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who has been a pioneer in establishing inflammation as an underlying cause of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, welcomed the Lodoco approval.
 

‘A very big day for cardiology’

“This is a very big day for cardiology,” Dr. Ridker said in an interview.

“The FDA approval of colchicine for patients with atherosclerotic disease is a huge signal that physicians need to be aware of inflammation as a key player in cardiovascular disease,” he said.

Dr. Ridker was the lead author of a recent study showing that among patients receiving contemporary statins, inflammation assessed by high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) was a stronger predictor for risk of future cardiovascular events and death than LDL cholesterol.

He pointed out that the indication for Lodoco was very broad, simply stating that it can be used in adult patients with established atherosclerotic disease or with multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

“That is virtually identical to the indication approved for statin therapy. That shows just how important the FDA thinks this is,” he commented.

But Dr. Ridker added that, while the label does not specify that Lodoco has to be used in addition to statin therapy, he believes that it will be used as additional therapy to statins in the vast majority of patients.

“This is not an alternative to statin therapy. In the randomized trials, the benefits were seen on top of statins,” he stressed.

Dr. Ridker believes that physicians will need time to feel comfortable with this new approach. 

“Initially, I think, it will be used mainly by cardiologists who know about inflammation, but I believe over time it will be widely prescribed by internists, in much the same way as statins are used today,” he commented.

Dr. Ridker said he already uses low dose colchicine in his high-risk patients who have high levels of inflammation as seen on hsCRP testing. He believes this is where the drug will mostly be used initially, as this is where it is likely to be most effective.

The prescribing information states that Lodoco is contraindicated in patients who are taking strong CYP3A4 inhibitors or P-glycoprotein inhibitors, such as ketoconazole, fluconazole, and clarithromycin, and in patients with preexisting blood dyscrasias, renal failure, and severe hepatic impairment.

Common side effects reported in published clinical studies and literature with the use of colchicine are gastrointestinal symptoms (diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal cramping) and myalgia.

More serious adverse effects are listed as blood dyscrasias such as myelosuppression, leukopenia, granulocytopenia, thrombocytopenia, pancytopenia, and aplastic anemia; and neuromuscular toxicity in the form of myotoxicity including rhabdomyolysis, which may occur, especially in combination with other drugs known to cause this effect. If these adverse effects occur, it is recommended that the drug be stopped.

The prescribing information also notes that Lodoco may rarely and transiently impair fertility in males; and that patients with renal or hepatic impairment should be monitored closely for adverse effects of colchicine.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the anti-inflammatory drug colchicine 0.5 mg tablets (Lodoco) as the first specific anti-inflammatory drug demonstrated to reduce the risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, and cardiovascular death in adult patients with established atherosclerotic disease or with multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

The drug, which targets residual inflammation as an underlying cause of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, has a dosage of 0.5 mg once daily, and can be used alone or in combination with cholesterol-lowering medications. 

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The drug’s manufacturer, Agepha Pharma, said it anticipates that Lodoco will be available for prescription in the second half of 2023.

Colchicine has been available for many years and used at higher doses for the acute treatment of gout and pericarditis, but the current formulation is a much lower dose for long-term use in patients with atherosclerotic heart disease.

Data supporting the approval has come from two major randomized trials, LoDoCo-2 and COLCOT.

In the LoDoCo-2 trial, the anti-inflammatory drug cut the risk of cardiovascular events by one third when added to standard prevention therapies in patients with chronic coronary disease. And in the COLCOT study, use of colchicine reduced cardiovascular events by 23% compared with placebo in patients with a recent MI. 

Paul Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who has been a pioneer in establishing inflammation as an underlying cause of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, welcomed the Lodoco approval.
 

‘A very big day for cardiology’

“This is a very big day for cardiology,” Dr. Ridker said in an interview.

“The FDA approval of colchicine for patients with atherosclerotic disease is a huge signal that physicians need to be aware of inflammation as a key player in cardiovascular disease,” he said.

Dr. Ridker was the lead author of a recent study showing that among patients receiving contemporary statins, inflammation assessed by high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) was a stronger predictor for risk of future cardiovascular events and death than LDL cholesterol.

He pointed out that the indication for Lodoco was very broad, simply stating that it can be used in adult patients with established atherosclerotic disease or with multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

“That is virtually identical to the indication approved for statin therapy. That shows just how important the FDA thinks this is,” he commented.

But Dr. Ridker added that, while the label does not specify that Lodoco has to be used in addition to statin therapy, he believes that it will be used as additional therapy to statins in the vast majority of patients.

“This is not an alternative to statin therapy. In the randomized trials, the benefits were seen on top of statins,” he stressed.

Dr. Ridker believes that physicians will need time to feel comfortable with this new approach. 

“Initially, I think, it will be used mainly by cardiologists who know about inflammation, but I believe over time it will be widely prescribed by internists, in much the same way as statins are used today,” he commented.

Dr. Ridker said he already uses low dose colchicine in his high-risk patients who have high levels of inflammation as seen on hsCRP testing. He believes this is where the drug will mostly be used initially, as this is where it is likely to be most effective.

The prescribing information states that Lodoco is contraindicated in patients who are taking strong CYP3A4 inhibitors or P-glycoprotein inhibitors, such as ketoconazole, fluconazole, and clarithromycin, and in patients with preexisting blood dyscrasias, renal failure, and severe hepatic impairment.

Common side effects reported in published clinical studies and literature with the use of colchicine are gastrointestinal symptoms (diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal cramping) and myalgia.

More serious adverse effects are listed as blood dyscrasias such as myelosuppression, leukopenia, granulocytopenia, thrombocytopenia, pancytopenia, and aplastic anemia; and neuromuscular toxicity in the form of myotoxicity including rhabdomyolysis, which may occur, especially in combination with other drugs known to cause this effect. If these adverse effects occur, it is recommended that the drug be stopped.

The prescribing information also notes that Lodoco may rarely and transiently impair fertility in males; and that patients with renal or hepatic impairment should be monitored closely for adverse effects of colchicine.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the anti-inflammatory drug colchicine 0.5 mg tablets (Lodoco) as the first specific anti-inflammatory drug demonstrated to reduce the risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, and cardiovascular death in adult patients with established atherosclerotic disease or with multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

The drug, which targets residual inflammation as an underlying cause of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, has a dosage of 0.5 mg once daily, and can be used alone or in combination with cholesterol-lowering medications. 

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The drug’s manufacturer, Agepha Pharma, said it anticipates that Lodoco will be available for prescription in the second half of 2023.

Colchicine has been available for many years and used at higher doses for the acute treatment of gout and pericarditis, but the current formulation is a much lower dose for long-term use in patients with atherosclerotic heart disease.

Data supporting the approval has come from two major randomized trials, LoDoCo-2 and COLCOT.

In the LoDoCo-2 trial, the anti-inflammatory drug cut the risk of cardiovascular events by one third when added to standard prevention therapies in patients with chronic coronary disease. And in the COLCOT study, use of colchicine reduced cardiovascular events by 23% compared with placebo in patients with a recent MI. 

Paul Ridker, MD, director of the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, who has been a pioneer in establishing inflammation as an underlying cause of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, welcomed the Lodoco approval.
 

‘A very big day for cardiology’

“This is a very big day for cardiology,” Dr. Ridker said in an interview.

“The FDA approval of colchicine for patients with atherosclerotic disease is a huge signal that physicians need to be aware of inflammation as a key player in cardiovascular disease,” he said.

Dr. Ridker was the lead author of a recent study showing that among patients receiving contemporary statins, inflammation assessed by high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) was a stronger predictor for risk of future cardiovascular events and death than LDL cholesterol.

He pointed out that the indication for Lodoco was very broad, simply stating that it can be used in adult patients with established atherosclerotic disease or with multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

“That is virtually identical to the indication approved for statin therapy. That shows just how important the FDA thinks this is,” he commented.

But Dr. Ridker added that, while the label does not specify that Lodoco has to be used in addition to statin therapy, he believes that it will be used as additional therapy to statins in the vast majority of patients.

“This is not an alternative to statin therapy. In the randomized trials, the benefits were seen on top of statins,” he stressed.

Dr. Ridker believes that physicians will need time to feel comfortable with this new approach. 

“Initially, I think, it will be used mainly by cardiologists who know about inflammation, but I believe over time it will be widely prescribed by internists, in much the same way as statins are used today,” he commented.

Dr. Ridker said he already uses low dose colchicine in his high-risk patients who have high levels of inflammation as seen on hsCRP testing. He believes this is where the drug will mostly be used initially, as this is where it is likely to be most effective.

The prescribing information states that Lodoco is contraindicated in patients who are taking strong CYP3A4 inhibitors or P-glycoprotein inhibitors, such as ketoconazole, fluconazole, and clarithromycin, and in patients with preexisting blood dyscrasias, renal failure, and severe hepatic impairment.

Common side effects reported in published clinical studies and literature with the use of colchicine are gastrointestinal symptoms (diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal cramping) and myalgia.

More serious adverse effects are listed as blood dyscrasias such as myelosuppression, leukopenia, granulocytopenia, thrombocytopenia, pancytopenia, and aplastic anemia; and neuromuscular toxicity in the form of myotoxicity including rhabdomyolysis, which may occur, especially in combination with other drugs known to cause this effect. If these adverse effects occur, it is recommended that the drug be stopped.

The prescribing information also notes that Lodoco may rarely and transiently impair fertility in males; and that patients with renal or hepatic impairment should be monitored closely for adverse effects of colchicine.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Older people who take daily low-dose aspirin have at 20% higher risk of developing anemia even without having already had a major bleeding event, according to results from a new randomized controlled trial.

In the study, which was published in Annals of Internal Medicine, investigators analyzed data from the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial and examined hemoglobin concentrations among 19,114 healthy, community-dwelling older patients.

“We knew from large clinical trials, including our ASPREE trial, that daily low-dose aspirin increased the risk of clinically significant bleeding,” said Zoe McQuilten, MBBS, PhD, a hematologist at Monash University in Australia and the study’s lead author. “From our study, we found that low-dose aspirin also increased the risk of anemia during the trial, and this was most likely due to bleeding that was not clinically apparent.”

Anemia is common among elderly patients. It can cause fatigue, fast or irregular heartbeat, headache, chest pain, and pounding or whooshing sounds in the ear, according to the Cleveland Clinic. It can also worsen conditions such as heart failure, cognitive impairment, and depression in people aged 65 and older.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force changed its recommendation on aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in 2022, recommending against initiating low-dose aspirin for adults aged 60 years or older. For adults aged 40-59 who have a 10% or greater 10-year risk for cardiovascular disease, the agency recommends that patients and clinicians make the decision to initiate low-dose aspirin use on a case-by-case basis, as the net benefit is small.

Dr. McQuilten said she spent the last 5 years designing substages of anemia and conditions such as blood cancer. In many cases of anemia, doctors are unable to determine the underlying cause, she said. One study published in the Journal of American Geriatrics Society in 2021 found that in about one-third of anemia cases, the etiology was not clear.

About 50% of people older than 60 who were involved in the latest study took aspirin for prevention from 2011 to 2018. That number likely dropped after changes were made to the guidelines in 2022, according to Dr. McQuilten, but long-term use may have continued among older patients. The researchers also examined ferritin levels, which serve as a proxy for iron levels, at baseline and after 3 years.

The incidence of anemia was 51 events per 1,000 person-years in the aspirin group compared with 43 events per 1,000 person-years in the placebo group, according to the researchers. The estimated probability of experiencing anemia within 5 years was 23.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.4%-24.6%) in the aspirin group and 20.3% (95% CI: 19.3% to 21.4%) in the placebo group. Aspirin therapy resulted in a 20% increase in the risk for anemia (95% CI, 1.12-1.29).

People who took aspirin were more likely to have lower serum levels of ferritin at the 3-year mark than were those who received placebo. The average decrease in ferritin among participants who took aspirin was 11.5% greater (95% CI, 9.3%-13.7%) than among those who took placebo.

Basil Eldadah, MD, PhD, supervisory medical officer at the National Institute on Aging, part of the National Institutes of Health, said the findings should encourage clinicians to pay closer attention to hemoglobin levels and have conversations with patients to discuss their need for taking aspirin.

“If somebody is already taking aspirin for any reason, keep an eye on hemoglobin,” said Dr. Eldadah, who was not involved in the study. “For somebody who’s taking aspirin and who’s older, and it’s not for an indication like cardiovascular disease, consider seriously whether that’s the best treatment option.”

The study did not examine the functional consequences of anemia on participants, which Dr. Eldadah said could be fodder for future research. The researchers said one limitation was that it was not clear whether anemia was sufficient to cause symptoms that affected participants’ quality of life or whether occult bleeding caused the anemia. The researchers also did not document whether patients saw their regular physicians and received treatment for anemia over the course of the trial.

The study was funded through grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The authors reported receiving consulting fees, honoraria, and stock options, and have participated on data monitoring boards not related to the study for Vifor Pharma, ITL Biomedical, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer Healthcare, AbbVie, and Abbott Diagnostics.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Older people who take daily low-dose aspirin have at 20% higher risk of developing anemia even without having already had a major bleeding event, according to results from a new randomized controlled trial.

In the study, which was published in Annals of Internal Medicine, investigators analyzed data from the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial and examined hemoglobin concentrations among 19,114 healthy, community-dwelling older patients.

“We knew from large clinical trials, including our ASPREE trial, that daily low-dose aspirin increased the risk of clinically significant bleeding,” said Zoe McQuilten, MBBS, PhD, a hematologist at Monash University in Australia and the study’s lead author. “From our study, we found that low-dose aspirin also increased the risk of anemia during the trial, and this was most likely due to bleeding that was not clinically apparent.”

Anemia is common among elderly patients. It can cause fatigue, fast or irregular heartbeat, headache, chest pain, and pounding or whooshing sounds in the ear, according to the Cleveland Clinic. It can also worsen conditions such as heart failure, cognitive impairment, and depression in people aged 65 and older.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force changed its recommendation on aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in 2022, recommending against initiating low-dose aspirin for adults aged 60 years or older. For adults aged 40-59 who have a 10% or greater 10-year risk for cardiovascular disease, the agency recommends that patients and clinicians make the decision to initiate low-dose aspirin use on a case-by-case basis, as the net benefit is small.

Dr. McQuilten said she spent the last 5 years designing substages of anemia and conditions such as blood cancer. In many cases of anemia, doctors are unable to determine the underlying cause, she said. One study published in the Journal of American Geriatrics Society in 2021 found that in about one-third of anemia cases, the etiology was not clear.

About 50% of people older than 60 who were involved in the latest study took aspirin for prevention from 2011 to 2018. That number likely dropped after changes were made to the guidelines in 2022, according to Dr. McQuilten, but long-term use may have continued among older patients. The researchers also examined ferritin levels, which serve as a proxy for iron levels, at baseline and after 3 years.

The incidence of anemia was 51 events per 1,000 person-years in the aspirin group compared with 43 events per 1,000 person-years in the placebo group, according to the researchers. The estimated probability of experiencing anemia within 5 years was 23.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.4%-24.6%) in the aspirin group and 20.3% (95% CI: 19.3% to 21.4%) in the placebo group. Aspirin therapy resulted in a 20% increase in the risk for anemia (95% CI, 1.12-1.29).

People who took aspirin were more likely to have lower serum levels of ferritin at the 3-year mark than were those who received placebo. The average decrease in ferritin among participants who took aspirin was 11.5% greater (95% CI, 9.3%-13.7%) than among those who took placebo.

Basil Eldadah, MD, PhD, supervisory medical officer at the National Institute on Aging, part of the National Institutes of Health, said the findings should encourage clinicians to pay closer attention to hemoglobin levels and have conversations with patients to discuss their need for taking aspirin.

“If somebody is already taking aspirin for any reason, keep an eye on hemoglobin,” said Dr. Eldadah, who was not involved in the study. “For somebody who’s taking aspirin and who’s older, and it’s not for an indication like cardiovascular disease, consider seriously whether that’s the best treatment option.”

The study did not examine the functional consequences of anemia on participants, which Dr. Eldadah said could be fodder for future research. The researchers said one limitation was that it was not clear whether anemia was sufficient to cause symptoms that affected participants’ quality of life or whether occult bleeding caused the anemia. The researchers also did not document whether patients saw their regular physicians and received treatment for anemia over the course of the trial.

The study was funded through grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The authors reported receiving consulting fees, honoraria, and stock options, and have participated on data monitoring boards not related to the study for Vifor Pharma, ITL Biomedical, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer Healthcare, AbbVie, and Abbott Diagnostics.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Older people who take daily low-dose aspirin have at 20% higher risk of developing anemia even without having already had a major bleeding event, according to results from a new randomized controlled trial.

In the study, which was published in Annals of Internal Medicine, investigators analyzed data from the Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial and examined hemoglobin concentrations among 19,114 healthy, community-dwelling older patients.

“We knew from large clinical trials, including our ASPREE trial, that daily low-dose aspirin increased the risk of clinically significant bleeding,” said Zoe McQuilten, MBBS, PhD, a hematologist at Monash University in Australia and the study’s lead author. “From our study, we found that low-dose aspirin also increased the risk of anemia during the trial, and this was most likely due to bleeding that was not clinically apparent.”

Anemia is common among elderly patients. It can cause fatigue, fast or irregular heartbeat, headache, chest pain, and pounding or whooshing sounds in the ear, according to the Cleveland Clinic. It can also worsen conditions such as heart failure, cognitive impairment, and depression in people aged 65 and older.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force changed its recommendation on aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in 2022, recommending against initiating low-dose aspirin for adults aged 60 years or older. For adults aged 40-59 who have a 10% or greater 10-year risk for cardiovascular disease, the agency recommends that patients and clinicians make the decision to initiate low-dose aspirin use on a case-by-case basis, as the net benefit is small.

Dr. McQuilten said she spent the last 5 years designing substages of anemia and conditions such as blood cancer. In many cases of anemia, doctors are unable to determine the underlying cause, she said. One study published in the Journal of American Geriatrics Society in 2021 found that in about one-third of anemia cases, the etiology was not clear.

About 50% of people older than 60 who were involved in the latest study took aspirin for prevention from 2011 to 2018. That number likely dropped after changes were made to the guidelines in 2022, according to Dr. McQuilten, but long-term use may have continued among older patients. The researchers also examined ferritin levels, which serve as a proxy for iron levels, at baseline and after 3 years.

The incidence of anemia was 51 events per 1,000 person-years in the aspirin group compared with 43 events per 1,000 person-years in the placebo group, according to the researchers. The estimated probability of experiencing anemia within 5 years was 23.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.4%-24.6%) in the aspirin group and 20.3% (95% CI: 19.3% to 21.4%) in the placebo group. Aspirin therapy resulted in a 20% increase in the risk for anemia (95% CI, 1.12-1.29).

People who took aspirin were more likely to have lower serum levels of ferritin at the 3-year mark than were those who received placebo. The average decrease in ferritin among participants who took aspirin was 11.5% greater (95% CI, 9.3%-13.7%) than among those who took placebo.

Basil Eldadah, MD, PhD, supervisory medical officer at the National Institute on Aging, part of the National Institutes of Health, said the findings should encourage clinicians to pay closer attention to hemoglobin levels and have conversations with patients to discuss their need for taking aspirin.

“If somebody is already taking aspirin for any reason, keep an eye on hemoglobin,” said Dr. Eldadah, who was not involved in the study. “For somebody who’s taking aspirin and who’s older, and it’s not for an indication like cardiovascular disease, consider seriously whether that’s the best treatment option.”

The study did not examine the functional consequences of anemia on participants, which Dr. Eldadah said could be fodder for future research. The researchers said one limitation was that it was not clear whether anemia was sufficient to cause symptoms that affected participants’ quality of life or whether occult bleeding caused the anemia. The researchers also did not document whether patients saw their regular physicians and received treatment for anemia over the course of the trial.

The study was funded through grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The authors reported receiving consulting fees, honoraria, and stock options, and have participated on data monitoring boards not related to the study for Vifor Pharma, ITL Biomedical, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer Healthcare, AbbVie, and Abbott Diagnostics.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Two Boston doctors associated with Salem Hospital, a clinical affiliate of Massachusetts General Hospital, must pay nearly $29 million to the family of a man whose aortic aneurysm and dissection went undiagnosed and untreated, according to a story posted on Boston.com, among other news sites.

On the morning of Jan. 13, 2018, Joseph Brown awoke with shortness of breath and upper abdominal pain, which eventually spread to his chest and back. Taken to Salem Hospital’s emergency department, Mr. Brown was seen by Steven D. Browell, MD, an emergency medicine specialist.

Dr. Browell ordered tests that ruled out both a heart attack and a pulmonary embolism. He called for a blood test, which indicated that the patient’s white blood count was elevated. Suspecting an infection, Dr. Browell ordered that Mr. Brown be admitted to the hospital.

Accepting Mr. Brown’s admission was William D. Kenyon, MD, a hospitalist, who also examined the patient and concurred with Dr. Browell’s probable diagnosis. The patient was then sent to the medical floor.

There he underwent additional testing, including a chest x-ray, which proved negative except for one finding: a “mild hazy interstitial opacity that could represent a small airway inflammation or developing/early pneumonia.” Because Mr. Brown had reported that he had punctured his foot several days earlier, he also underwent a foot x-ray, which showed a possible foreign body. It was thought that might be the source of his infection.

Neither Dr. Browell nor Dr. Kenyon had completely ruled out a possible aortic aneurysm and dissection. Mr. Brown’s symptoms, after all, were in some ways suggestive of those conditions. Then again, he was very young – only 43 at the time – and his pain, while severe, didn’t correspond to the “searing” pain that, at trial, Dr. Kenyon described as typical of an aneurysm and dissection. As the hospitalist testified at trial, Mr. Brown had “a constellation of nonspecific symptoms” and an “unusual presentation of a rare condition,” typically seen in patients aged 65 and older.

Given these factors – and the results of Mr. Brown’s tests, lab studies, and physical exam – Dr. Kenyon didn’t think that the case warranted a CT scan to rule out an aortic aneurysm or aortic dissection.

By early the next morning, though, Mr. Brown’s shortness of breath and pain had intensified significantly. The on-duty doctor ordered a CT scan, which showed “a massive aneurysm at the beginning of [the patient’s] aorta and a dissection extending through most of his aorta.”

Mr. Brown was flown to Boston to undergo emergency surgery. En route to the helicopter, his aorta ruptured, stopping his heart and causing his death.

During the 8-day trial, each side introduced expert witnesses. Speaking for the plaintiffs, experts in cardiothoracic surgery and emergency medicine testified that the treating physicians were negligent in failing to order a CT scan on Jan. 13. Had they done so, the patient would have almost certainly undergone surgery earlier, which would have prevented his death.

Experts for the defense saw things differently. They testified that, given the evidence, it was reasonable and appropriate for Dr. Browell and Dr. Kenyon to have treated their patient for an infection rather than an aneurysm or dissection.

The jury found the defense’s arguments unconvincing, however. After deliberating 3 hours, it awarded the plaintiffs $20,000,000, to be paid out over time largely to Mr. Brown’s two daughters, who were aged 12 and 18 when he died. Including interest, the total award is close to $29 million.

In a statement following the verdict, lead plaintiff’s attorney Robert M. Higgins, of Lubin & Meyer, Boston, said the takeaway from the case was: “If you just treat people based on what the likelihood is, statistically, you’re going to miss a lot of life-threatening conditions. And that’s what happened in this case.”
 

Urologists typically prevail in BPH suits

Malpractice claims following surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) tend to be limited in scope and are typically resolved in favor of the surgeon-defendant, as a study in The Cureus Journal of Medical Science makes clear.

The study – conducted by a team of researchers that included Joao G. Porto, MD, of the Desai Sethi Urology Institute, University of Miami – investigated whether such surgeries pose a significant malpractice risk for urologists.

With information gleaned from two well-known legal databases, the team used a variety of key terms to identify BPH-related claims from January 2000 to December 2021.

Within this universe of claims, researchers identified several significant trends:

• Among BPH-related procedures, transurethral resection of the prostate was the most frequently identified (37%);
• Among the most-often cited reasons cited for a claim, allegations of inadequate postoperative care were the most common (33%);
• Of possible postsurgical complications, those that led to the greatest number of suits were urinary incontinence (23%), erectile dysfunction (13%), and urinary retention (13%); and,
• Not unexpectedly, the specialist most frequently named in a suit was a urologist (57%).

Interestingly, in all but two of the claims, the verdict favored the doctor-defendant. In the two cases in which the plaintiff prevailed, each involved unexpected and serious postsurgical complications.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Two Boston doctors associated with Salem Hospital, a clinical affiliate of Massachusetts General Hospital, must pay nearly $29 million to the family of a man whose aortic aneurysm and dissection went undiagnosed and untreated, according to a story posted on Boston.com, among other news sites.

On the morning of Jan. 13, 2018, Joseph Brown awoke with shortness of breath and upper abdominal pain, which eventually spread to his chest and back. Taken to Salem Hospital’s emergency department, Mr. Brown was seen by Steven D. Browell, MD, an emergency medicine specialist.

Dr. Browell ordered tests that ruled out both a heart attack and a pulmonary embolism. He called for a blood test, which indicated that the patient’s white blood count was elevated. Suspecting an infection, Dr. Browell ordered that Mr. Brown be admitted to the hospital.

Accepting Mr. Brown’s admission was William D. Kenyon, MD, a hospitalist, who also examined the patient and concurred with Dr. Browell’s probable diagnosis. The patient was then sent to the medical floor.

There he underwent additional testing, including a chest x-ray, which proved negative except for one finding: a “mild hazy interstitial opacity that could represent a small airway inflammation or developing/early pneumonia.” Because Mr. Brown had reported that he had punctured his foot several days earlier, he also underwent a foot x-ray, which showed a possible foreign body. It was thought that might be the source of his infection.

Neither Dr. Browell nor Dr. Kenyon had completely ruled out a possible aortic aneurysm and dissection. Mr. Brown’s symptoms, after all, were in some ways suggestive of those conditions. Then again, he was very young – only 43 at the time – and his pain, while severe, didn’t correspond to the “searing” pain that, at trial, Dr. Kenyon described as typical of an aneurysm and dissection. As the hospitalist testified at trial, Mr. Brown had “a constellation of nonspecific symptoms” and an “unusual presentation of a rare condition,” typically seen in patients aged 65 and older.

Given these factors – and the results of Mr. Brown’s tests, lab studies, and physical exam – Dr. Kenyon didn’t think that the case warranted a CT scan to rule out an aortic aneurysm or aortic dissection.

By early the next morning, though, Mr. Brown’s shortness of breath and pain had intensified significantly. The on-duty doctor ordered a CT scan, which showed “a massive aneurysm at the beginning of [the patient’s] aorta and a dissection extending through most of his aorta.”

Mr. Brown was flown to Boston to undergo emergency surgery. En route to the helicopter, his aorta ruptured, stopping his heart and causing his death.

During the 8-day trial, each side introduced expert witnesses. Speaking for the plaintiffs, experts in cardiothoracic surgery and emergency medicine testified that the treating physicians were negligent in failing to order a CT scan on Jan. 13. Had they done so, the patient would have almost certainly undergone surgery earlier, which would have prevented his death.

Experts for the defense saw things differently. They testified that, given the evidence, it was reasonable and appropriate for Dr. Browell and Dr. Kenyon to have treated their patient for an infection rather than an aneurysm or dissection.

The jury found the defense’s arguments unconvincing, however. After deliberating 3 hours, it awarded the plaintiffs $20,000,000, to be paid out over time largely to Mr. Brown’s two daughters, who were aged 12 and 18 when he died. Including interest, the total award is close to $29 million.

In a statement following the verdict, lead plaintiff’s attorney Robert M. Higgins, of Lubin & Meyer, Boston, said the takeaway from the case was: “If you just treat people based on what the likelihood is, statistically, you’re going to miss a lot of life-threatening conditions. And that’s what happened in this case.”
 

Urologists typically prevail in BPH suits

Malpractice claims following surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) tend to be limited in scope and are typically resolved in favor of the surgeon-defendant, as a study in The Cureus Journal of Medical Science makes clear.

The study – conducted by a team of researchers that included Joao G. Porto, MD, of the Desai Sethi Urology Institute, University of Miami – investigated whether such surgeries pose a significant malpractice risk for urologists.

With information gleaned from two well-known legal databases, the team used a variety of key terms to identify BPH-related claims from January 2000 to December 2021.

Within this universe of claims, researchers identified several significant trends:

• Among BPH-related procedures, transurethral resection of the prostate was the most frequently identified (37%);
• Among the most-often cited reasons cited for a claim, allegations of inadequate postoperative care were the most common (33%);
• Of possible postsurgical complications, those that led to the greatest number of suits were urinary incontinence (23%), erectile dysfunction (13%), and urinary retention (13%); and,
• Not unexpectedly, the specialist most frequently named in a suit was a urologist (57%).

Interestingly, in all but two of the claims, the verdict favored the doctor-defendant. In the two cases in which the plaintiff prevailed, each involved unexpected and serious postsurgical complications.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Two Boston doctors associated with Salem Hospital, a clinical affiliate of Massachusetts General Hospital, must pay nearly $29 million to the family of a man whose aortic aneurysm and dissection went undiagnosed and untreated, according to a story posted on Boston.com, among other news sites.

On the morning of Jan. 13, 2018, Joseph Brown awoke with shortness of breath and upper abdominal pain, which eventually spread to his chest and back. Taken to Salem Hospital’s emergency department, Mr. Brown was seen by Steven D. Browell, MD, an emergency medicine specialist.

Dr. Browell ordered tests that ruled out both a heart attack and a pulmonary embolism. He called for a blood test, which indicated that the patient’s white blood count was elevated. Suspecting an infection, Dr. Browell ordered that Mr. Brown be admitted to the hospital.

Accepting Mr. Brown’s admission was William D. Kenyon, MD, a hospitalist, who also examined the patient and concurred with Dr. Browell’s probable diagnosis. The patient was then sent to the medical floor.

There he underwent additional testing, including a chest x-ray, which proved negative except for one finding: a “mild hazy interstitial opacity that could represent a small airway inflammation or developing/early pneumonia.” Because Mr. Brown had reported that he had punctured his foot several days earlier, he also underwent a foot x-ray, which showed a possible foreign body. It was thought that might be the source of his infection.

Neither Dr. Browell nor Dr. Kenyon had completely ruled out a possible aortic aneurysm and dissection. Mr. Brown’s symptoms, after all, were in some ways suggestive of those conditions. Then again, he was very young – only 43 at the time – and his pain, while severe, didn’t correspond to the “searing” pain that, at trial, Dr. Kenyon described as typical of an aneurysm and dissection. As the hospitalist testified at trial, Mr. Brown had “a constellation of nonspecific symptoms” and an “unusual presentation of a rare condition,” typically seen in patients aged 65 and older.

Given these factors – and the results of Mr. Brown’s tests, lab studies, and physical exam – Dr. Kenyon didn’t think that the case warranted a CT scan to rule out an aortic aneurysm or aortic dissection.

By early the next morning, though, Mr. Brown’s shortness of breath and pain had intensified significantly. The on-duty doctor ordered a CT scan, which showed “a massive aneurysm at the beginning of [the patient’s] aorta and a dissection extending through most of his aorta.”

Mr. Brown was flown to Boston to undergo emergency surgery. En route to the helicopter, his aorta ruptured, stopping his heart and causing his death.

During the 8-day trial, each side introduced expert witnesses. Speaking for the plaintiffs, experts in cardiothoracic surgery and emergency medicine testified that the treating physicians were negligent in failing to order a CT scan on Jan. 13. Had they done so, the patient would have almost certainly undergone surgery earlier, which would have prevented his death.

Experts for the defense saw things differently. They testified that, given the evidence, it was reasonable and appropriate for Dr. Browell and Dr. Kenyon to have treated their patient for an infection rather than an aneurysm or dissection.

The jury found the defense’s arguments unconvincing, however. After deliberating 3 hours, it awarded the plaintiffs $20,000,000, to be paid out over time largely to Mr. Brown’s two daughters, who were aged 12 and 18 when he died. Including interest, the total award is close to $29 million.

In a statement following the verdict, lead plaintiff’s attorney Robert M. Higgins, of Lubin & Meyer, Boston, said the takeaway from the case was: “If you just treat people based on what the likelihood is, statistically, you’re going to miss a lot of life-threatening conditions. And that’s what happened in this case.”
 

Urologists typically prevail in BPH suits

Malpractice claims following surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) tend to be limited in scope and are typically resolved in favor of the surgeon-defendant, as a study in The Cureus Journal of Medical Science makes clear.

The study – conducted by a team of researchers that included Joao G. Porto, MD, of the Desai Sethi Urology Institute, University of Miami – investigated whether such surgeries pose a significant malpractice risk for urologists.

With information gleaned from two well-known legal databases, the team used a variety of key terms to identify BPH-related claims from January 2000 to December 2021.

Within this universe of claims, researchers identified several significant trends:

• Among BPH-related procedures, transurethral resection of the prostate was the most frequently identified (37%);
• Among the most-often cited reasons cited for a claim, allegations of inadequate postoperative care were the most common (33%);
• Of possible postsurgical complications, those that led to the greatest number of suits were urinary incontinence (23%), erectile dysfunction (13%), and urinary retention (13%); and,
• Not unexpectedly, the specialist most frequently named in a suit was a urologist (57%).

Interestingly, in all but two of the claims, the verdict favored the doctor-defendant. In the two cases in which the plaintiff prevailed, each involved unexpected and serious postsurgical complications.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Interventional cardiologists (ICs) around the world are unhappy and burned out, and their well-being is compromised, a new international survey suggests.

“What surprised me was the magnitude of the findings,” Emmanouil S. Brilakis, MD, PhD of the Minneapolis Heart Institute and Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, said in an interview.

“I was expecting that some interventionalists would feel burned out, but not that 78% would feel they are working too hard, 64% are emotionally exhausted, and 41% considered quitting their job during the past year.

The survey, conducted in January, also showed that while 69% of respondents were affected by burnout, many were either not seeking mental health support or not willing to share whether they were under treatment.

Overall, 28% of interventional cardiologists were not happy with their lives, similar to the 29% reported in the Medscape Cardiologist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2022.

“Many institutions have formed task forces to better understand burnout and recommend solutions, but progress has been slow,” Dr. Brilakis said. “Barriers include financial constraints, understaffing, lack of understanding of the root causes of burnout in each practice, and perhaps underappreciation of the consequences of burnout.”

The study was published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.
 

Too much paperwork

The investigators conducted an international, online survey of IC attending physicians and fellows to assess their psychological well-being. The 78 survey questions prepared by the coauthors were shown to perform similarly to the validated Maslach Burnout Inventory.

A total of 1,159 attendings and 192 fellows completed the survey, representing 12% of U.S. IC attendings and 19% of U.S. IC fellows.

Half of attending physicians were from the United States, followed by the European Union (16%). Overall, 37% were from academic institutions; the median age was 41-45 years; 91% were men; and mean clinical work hours per week were 63.

Most (86%) had a partner with whom they lived. Yet most (84%) also felt lonely; 41% considered leaving their jobs during the past year; and 32% said they were currently considering leaving.  

Compared with the previous year, 12% had increased enthusiasm and 44% had decreased enthusiasm toward work. One-third (33%) felt overwhelmed and 20% doubted the significance of their work three or more times a week.

As noted, most (78%) felt they were “working too hard,” were emotionally exhausted (64%), and frustrated by work (58%). Almost one-third (30%) considered themselves physically unhealthy.

Unhappiness was highest (33%) among 51- to 60-year-olds, followed by 31- to 40-year-olds (31%); it was lowest (21%) among those over age 60.

Unhappiness was similar between men and women (27% vs. 30%) and was highest in North America (30%) and lower in Asia (26%).

Most (69%) respondents said that burnout impacted their life, with very little difference between men and women (68% vs. 73%).

Two-thirds (67%) said they had somebody they could share their mental health concerns with, yet only 37% reported having access to mental health support if needed through their hospital/practice.

For fellows, the median age was 31-35 years; 88% were men; 42% were from the United States and 22% from the European Union. Two-thirds were from academic institutions (67%) and the mean clinical work hours were 67 per week.

Two-thirds (67%) lived with a partner; half (48%) felt lonely, 29% considered leaving their jobs in the past year, and 15% were currently considering leaving.

Compared with the previous year, 27% had increased enthusiasm, and 32% had decreased enthusiasm toward work. More than one-quarter (29%) felt overwhelmed and 26% doubted the significance of their work three or more times per week.

Attendings rated excessive paperwork requirements, bureaucratic tasks, challenges in equipment acquisition, and excessive government regulations higher (in contributing to burnout) compared with fellows.

Non-U.S. attendings reported insufficient income and challenges with equipment acquisition as significant contributors to their burnout more than did their United States counterparts.

Fellows rated insufficient income as the most significant contributor to burnout.

Their main coping mechanisms were talking with family/friends (at 6.8 rated on a scale of 0-10), watching movies (6.4), and listening/playing music (6.0).

Attendings were more likely to use exercise as a coping skill, and fellows were more likely to cope by watching movies/series, sleeping, and eating junk food.

Asked what hospitals and practices can do to reduce burnout and improve well-being, attendings suggested removing rules/regulations that do not contribute to patient care, such as reforming prior authorization (mean rating, 8.1), better administrative support (8.0), and professional growth opportunities (7.9).

Non-U.S. attendings more often requested growth opportunities, increased compensation, availability of better hospital food, better hospital infrastructure, streamlined access to equipment, better on-call rooms, and access to mental health professionals to improve their well-being.

Overall, fellows were more likely than were attendings to request professional growth opportunities and were more likely to ask for availability of better food in the hospital, and better on-call rooms.
 

Reforms needed

Laxmi Mehta, MD, chief well-being leader, faculty director of the Gabbe Health and Well-Being Program, professor of medicine at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, and spokesperson for the American Heart Association, noted, “The burnout rates are much higher than our previously reported American College of Cardiology data, which found burnout rates at about 27%; however, that survey was conducted prepandemic,” she said. Dr. Mehta was the lead author of that 2019 report.

She said in an interview that she would have liked to see more breakdowns by gender, and whether there was an association between burnout and the number of procedures performed.

“Nevertheless,” she said, “the rates are very high for burnout, stress, and dissatisfaction, as well as mental health issues. Almost one half of the IC attendings considered leaving their job, which is also seen in other surveys, and is concerning given the projected shortages in the workforce.”

Changes need to be made in the profession of medicine as a whole, she said, though that is unlikely to happen any time soon. “Optimizing workflows and improving the work culture requires not only time, but also collaboration between administration and clinicians, along with an intent and strategic plan focused on well-being of the organization.”

With regard to prior authorization, she said, “medical organizations are advocating for reform at the state and national level. If meaningful reforms can occur, that can reduce some of the bureaucracy. However, there is much more [bureaucracy] in medicine.”

With respect to mental health, she added, “there is a lot that needs to be done to reduce the stigma of seeking help. Many physicians don’t seek help due to the shame, lack of time, and potential impact it can have on hospital credentialing and state medical licensing. Medical organizations and individuals are advocating for reforms in this space, as well, to normalize mental health.”

The Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation’s Science Center for Coronary Artery Disease helped support this research project. Dr. Brilakis, study coauthors, and Dr. Mehta report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Interventional cardiologists (ICs) around the world are unhappy and burned out, and their well-being is compromised, a new international survey suggests.

“What surprised me was the magnitude of the findings,” Emmanouil S. Brilakis, MD, PhD of the Minneapolis Heart Institute and Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, said in an interview.

“I was expecting that some interventionalists would feel burned out, but not that 78% would feel they are working too hard, 64% are emotionally exhausted, and 41% considered quitting their job during the past year.

The survey, conducted in January, also showed that while 69% of respondents were affected by burnout, many were either not seeking mental health support or not willing to share whether they were under treatment.

Overall, 28% of interventional cardiologists were not happy with their lives, similar to the 29% reported in the Medscape Cardiologist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2022.

“Many institutions have formed task forces to better understand burnout and recommend solutions, but progress has been slow,” Dr. Brilakis said. “Barriers include financial constraints, understaffing, lack of understanding of the root causes of burnout in each practice, and perhaps underappreciation of the consequences of burnout.”

The study was published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.
 

Too much paperwork

The investigators conducted an international, online survey of IC attending physicians and fellows to assess their psychological well-being. The 78 survey questions prepared by the coauthors were shown to perform similarly to the validated Maslach Burnout Inventory.

A total of 1,159 attendings and 192 fellows completed the survey, representing 12% of U.S. IC attendings and 19% of U.S. IC fellows.

Half of attending physicians were from the United States, followed by the European Union (16%). Overall, 37% were from academic institutions; the median age was 41-45 years; 91% were men; and mean clinical work hours per week were 63.

Most (86%) had a partner with whom they lived. Yet most (84%) also felt lonely; 41% considered leaving their jobs during the past year; and 32% said they were currently considering leaving.  

Compared with the previous year, 12% had increased enthusiasm and 44% had decreased enthusiasm toward work. One-third (33%) felt overwhelmed and 20% doubted the significance of their work three or more times a week.

As noted, most (78%) felt they were “working too hard,” were emotionally exhausted (64%), and frustrated by work (58%). Almost one-third (30%) considered themselves physically unhealthy.

Unhappiness was highest (33%) among 51- to 60-year-olds, followed by 31- to 40-year-olds (31%); it was lowest (21%) among those over age 60.

Unhappiness was similar between men and women (27% vs. 30%) and was highest in North America (30%) and lower in Asia (26%).

Most (69%) respondents said that burnout impacted their life, with very little difference between men and women (68% vs. 73%).

Two-thirds (67%) said they had somebody they could share their mental health concerns with, yet only 37% reported having access to mental health support if needed through their hospital/practice.

For fellows, the median age was 31-35 years; 88% were men; 42% were from the United States and 22% from the European Union. Two-thirds were from academic institutions (67%) and the mean clinical work hours were 67 per week.

Two-thirds (67%) lived with a partner; half (48%) felt lonely, 29% considered leaving their jobs in the past year, and 15% were currently considering leaving.

Compared with the previous year, 27% had increased enthusiasm, and 32% had decreased enthusiasm toward work. More than one-quarter (29%) felt overwhelmed and 26% doubted the significance of their work three or more times per week.

Attendings rated excessive paperwork requirements, bureaucratic tasks, challenges in equipment acquisition, and excessive government regulations higher (in contributing to burnout) compared with fellows.

Non-U.S. attendings reported insufficient income and challenges with equipment acquisition as significant contributors to their burnout more than did their United States counterparts.

Fellows rated insufficient income as the most significant contributor to burnout.

Their main coping mechanisms were talking with family/friends (at 6.8 rated on a scale of 0-10), watching movies (6.4), and listening/playing music (6.0).

Attendings were more likely to use exercise as a coping skill, and fellows were more likely to cope by watching movies/series, sleeping, and eating junk food.

Asked what hospitals and practices can do to reduce burnout and improve well-being, attendings suggested removing rules/regulations that do not contribute to patient care, such as reforming prior authorization (mean rating, 8.1), better administrative support (8.0), and professional growth opportunities (7.9).

Non-U.S. attendings more often requested growth opportunities, increased compensation, availability of better hospital food, better hospital infrastructure, streamlined access to equipment, better on-call rooms, and access to mental health professionals to improve their well-being.

Overall, fellows were more likely than were attendings to request professional growth opportunities and were more likely to ask for availability of better food in the hospital, and better on-call rooms.
 

Reforms needed

Laxmi Mehta, MD, chief well-being leader, faculty director of the Gabbe Health and Well-Being Program, professor of medicine at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, and spokesperson for the American Heart Association, noted, “The burnout rates are much higher than our previously reported American College of Cardiology data, which found burnout rates at about 27%; however, that survey was conducted prepandemic,” she said. Dr. Mehta was the lead author of that 2019 report.

She said in an interview that she would have liked to see more breakdowns by gender, and whether there was an association between burnout and the number of procedures performed.

“Nevertheless,” she said, “the rates are very high for burnout, stress, and dissatisfaction, as well as mental health issues. Almost one half of the IC attendings considered leaving their job, which is also seen in other surveys, and is concerning given the projected shortages in the workforce.”

Changes need to be made in the profession of medicine as a whole, she said, though that is unlikely to happen any time soon. “Optimizing workflows and improving the work culture requires not only time, but also collaboration between administration and clinicians, along with an intent and strategic plan focused on well-being of the organization.”

With regard to prior authorization, she said, “medical organizations are advocating for reform at the state and national level. If meaningful reforms can occur, that can reduce some of the bureaucracy. However, there is much more [bureaucracy] in medicine.”

With respect to mental health, she added, “there is a lot that needs to be done to reduce the stigma of seeking help. Many physicians don’t seek help due to the shame, lack of time, and potential impact it can have on hospital credentialing and state medical licensing. Medical organizations and individuals are advocating for reforms in this space, as well, to normalize mental health.”

The Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation’s Science Center for Coronary Artery Disease helped support this research project. Dr. Brilakis, study coauthors, and Dr. Mehta report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Interventional cardiologists (ICs) around the world are unhappy and burned out, and their well-being is compromised, a new international survey suggests.

“What surprised me was the magnitude of the findings,” Emmanouil S. Brilakis, MD, PhD of the Minneapolis Heart Institute and Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, said in an interview.

“I was expecting that some interventionalists would feel burned out, but not that 78% would feel they are working too hard, 64% are emotionally exhausted, and 41% considered quitting their job during the past year.

The survey, conducted in January, also showed that while 69% of respondents were affected by burnout, many were either not seeking mental health support or not willing to share whether they were under treatment.

Overall, 28% of interventional cardiologists were not happy with their lives, similar to the 29% reported in the Medscape Cardiologist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report 2022.

“Many institutions have formed task forces to better understand burnout and recommend solutions, but progress has been slow,” Dr. Brilakis said. “Barriers include financial constraints, understaffing, lack of understanding of the root causes of burnout in each practice, and perhaps underappreciation of the consequences of burnout.”

The study was published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.
 

Too much paperwork

The investigators conducted an international, online survey of IC attending physicians and fellows to assess their psychological well-being. The 78 survey questions prepared by the coauthors were shown to perform similarly to the validated Maslach Burnout Inventory.

A total of 1,159 attendings and 192 fellows completed the survey, representing 12% of U.S. IC attendings and 19% of U.S. IC fellows.

Half of attending physicians were from the United States, followed by the European Union (16%). Overall, 37% were from academic institutions; the median age was 41-45 years; 91% were men; and mean clinical work hours per week were 63.

Most (86%) had a partner with whom they lived. Yet most (84%) also felt lonely; 41% considered leaving their jobs during the past year; and 32% said they were currently considering leaving.  

Compared with the previous year, 12% had increased enthusiasm and 44% had decreased enthusiasm toward work. One-third (33%) felt overwhelmed and 20% doubted the significance of their work three or more times a week.

As noted, most (78%) felt they were “working too hard,” were emotionally exhausted (64%), and frustrated by work (58%). Almost one-third (30%) considered themselves physically unhealthy.

Unhappiness was highest (33%) among 51- to 60-year-olds, followed by 31- to 40-year-olds (31%); it was lowest (21%) among those over age 60.

Unhappiness was similar between men and women (27% vs. 30%) and was highest in North America (30%) and lower in Asia (26%).

Most (69%) respondents said that burnout impacted their life, with very little difference between men and women (68% vs. 73%).

Two-thirds (67%) said they had somebody they could share their mental health concerns with, yet only 37% reported having access to mental health support if needed through their hospital/practice.

For fellows, the median age was 31-35 years; 88% were men; 42% were from the United States and 22% from the European Union. Two-thirds were from academic institutions (67%) and the mean clinical work hours were 67 per week.

Two-thirds (67%) lived with a partner; half (48%) felt lonely, 29% considered leaving their jobs in the past year, and 15% were currently considering leaving.

Compared with the previous year, 27% had increased enthusiasm, and 32% had decreased enthusiasm toward work. More than one-quarter (29%) felt overwhelmed and 26% doubted the significance of their work three or more times per week.

Attendings rated excessive paperwork requirements, bureaucratic tasks, challenges in equipment acquisition, and excessive government regulations higher (in contributing to burnout) compared with fellows.

Non-U.S. attendings reported insufficient income and challenges with equipment acquisition as significant contributors to their burnout more than did their United States counterparts.

Fellows rated insufficient income as the most significant contributor to burnout.

Their main coping mechanisms were talking with family/friends (at 6.8 rated on a scale of 0-10), watching movies (6.4), and listening/playing music (6.0).

Attendings were more likely to use exercise as a coping skill, and fellows were more likely to cope by watching movies/series, sleeping, and eating junk food.

Asked what hospitals and practices can do to reduce burnout and improve well-being, attendings suggested removing rules/regulations that do not contribute to patient care, such as reforming prior authorization (mean rating, 8.1), better administrative support (8.0), and professional growth opportunities (7.9).

Non-U.S. attendings more often requested growth opportunities, increased compensation, availability of better hospital food, better hospital infrastructure, streamlined access to equipment, better on-call rooms, and access to mental health professionals to improve their well-being.

Overall, fellows were more likely than were attendings to request professional growth opportunities and were more likely to ask for availability of better food in the hospital, and better on-call rooms.
 

Reforms needed

Laxmi Mehta, MD, chief well-being leader, faculty director of the Gabbe Health and Well-Being Program, professor of medicine at The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, and spokesperson for the American Heart Association, noted, “The burnout rates are much higher than our previously reported American College of Cardiology data, which found burnout rates at about 27%; however, that survey was conducted prepandemic,” she said. Dr. Mehta was the lead author of that 2019 report.

She said in an interview that she would have liked to see more breakdowns by gender, and whether there was an association between burnout and the number of procedures performed.

“Nevertheless,” she said, “the rates are very high for burnout, stress, and dissatisfaction, as well as mental health issues. Almost one half of the IC attendings considered leaving their job, which is also seen in other surveys, and is concerning given the projected shortages in the workforce.”

Changes need to be made in the profession of medicine as a whole, she said, though that is unlikely to happen any time soon. “Optimizing workflows and improving the work culture requires not only time, but also collaboration between administration and clinicians, along with an intent and strategic plan focused on well-being of the organization.”

With regard to prior authorization, she said, “medical organizations are advocating for reform at the state and national level. If meaningful reforms can occur, that can reduce some of the bureaucracy. However, there is much more [bureaucracy] in medicine.”

With respect to mental health, she added, “there is a lot that needs to be done to reduce the stigma of seeking help. Many physicians don’t seek help due to the shame, lack of time, and potential impact it can have on hospital credentialing and state medical licensing. Medical organizations and individuals are advocating for reforms in this space, as well, to normalize mental health.”

The Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation’s Science Center for Coronary Artery Disease helped support this research project. Dr. Brilakis, study coauthors, and Dr. Mehta report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Maintaining a slightly elevated CO₂ level (hypercapnia) for the first 24 hours in comatose patients who had been resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest did not improve outcomes in a large randomized controlled trial.

The Targeted Therapeutic Mild Hypercapnia After Resuscitated Cardiac Arrest (TAME) study showed that the intervention failed to improve neurologic or functional outcomes or quality of life at 6 months. However, the researchers also found that slightly elevated CO₂ levels were not associated with worse outcomes.

“I think these results show that our hypothesis – that raising CO₂ levels as applied in this trial may be beneficial for these patients – was not effective, even though previous work suggested that it would be,” co–lead investigator Alistair Nichol, MD, said in an interview.

“This was a rigorous trial; the intervention was well delivered, and the results are pretty clear. Unfortunately, we have proved a null hypothesis – that this approach doesn’t seem to work,” Dr. Nichol, who is professor of critical care medicine at University College Dublin, said.

“However, we did find that hypercapnia was safe. This is an important finding, as sometimes in very sick patients such as those who develop pneumonia, we have to drive the ventilator less hard to minimize injury to the lungs, and this can lead to higher CO₂ levels,” he added. “Our results show that this practice should not be harmful, which is reassuring.”

The TAME study was presented at the Critical Care Reviews 2023 Meeting (CCR23) held in Belfast, Northern Ireland.

It was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The researchers explain that after the return of spontaneous circulation, brain hypoperfusion may contribute to cerebral hypoxia, exacerbate brain damage, and lead to poor neurologic outcomes. The partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO₂) is the major physiologic regulator of cerebrovascular tone, and increasing CO₂ levels increases cerebral blood flow.

Two previous observational studies showed that exposure to hypercapnia was associated with an increase in the likelihood of being discharged home and better neurologic outcomes at 12 months, compared with hypocapnia or normocapnia.

In addition, a physiologic study showed that deliberate increases in PaCO₂ induced higher cerebral oxygen saturations, compared with normocapnia. A phase 2 randomized trial showed that hypercapnia significantly attenuated the release of neuron-specific enolase, a biomarker of brain injury, and also suggested better 6-month neurologic recovery with hypercapnia compared with normocapnia.

The current TAME trial was conducted to try to confirm these results in a larger, more definitive study.

For the trial, 1,700 adults with coma who had been resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were randomly assigned to receive either 24 hours of mild hypercapnia (target PaCO₂, 50-55 mm Hg) or normocapnia (target PaCO₂, 35-45 mm Hg).

The primary outcome – a favorable neurologic outcome, defined as a score of 5 or higher on the Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended at 6 months – occurred in 43.5% in the mild hypercapnia group and in 44.6% in the normocapnia group (relative risk, 0.98; P = .76).

By 6 months, 48.2% of those in the mild hypercapnia group and 45.9% in the normocapnia group had died (relative risk with mild hypercapnia, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.16). In the mild hypercapnia group, 53.4% had a poor functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 4-6, compared with 51.3% in the normocapnia group.

Health-related quality of life, as assessed by the EQ Visual Analogue Scale component of the EuroQol-5D-5L, was similar in the two groups.

In terms of safety, results showed that mild hypercapnia did not increase the incidence of prespecified adverse events.

The authors note that there is concern that mild hypercapnia may worsen cerebral edema and elevate intracranial pressure; however, elevated intracranial pressure is uncommon in the first 72 hours after the return of spontaneous circulation.

In the TAME trial, there was one case of cerebral edema in the hypercapnia group. “This is a very low rate and would be expected in a group this size, so this does not indicate a safety concern,” Dr. Nichol commented.

The researchers are planning further analyses of biological samples to look for possible prognostic markers.

“These out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients are a very diverse group, and it may be possible that some patients could have benefited from hypercapnia while others may have been harmed,” Dr. Nichol noted.

“Raising CO₂ levels does improve overall delivery of oxygen to the brain, but this might not have occurred in the right areas. It may be possible that some patients benefited, and analysis of biological samples will help us look more closely at this.”

He added that other ongoing trials are investigating hypercapnia in patients with traumatic brain injury.

“These patients are managed differently and often have probes in their brain to measure the response to CO₂, so more of a precision medicine approach is possible,” he explained.

He also noted that the TAME study, which was conducted in conjunction with the TTM-2 study investigating hypothermia in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients, has established a network of ICU teams around the world, providing an infrastructure for further trials to be performed in this patient population in the future.

The TAME trial was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Health Research Board of Ireland, and the Health Research Council of New Zealand.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Maintaining a slightly elevated CO₂ level (hypercapnia) for the first 24 hours in comatose patients who had been resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest did not improve outcomes in a large randomized controlled trial.

The Targeted Therapeutic Mild Hypercapnia After Resuscitated Cardiac Arrest (TAME) study showed that the intervention failed to improve neurologic or functional outcomes or quality of life at 6 months. However, the researchers also found that slightly elevated CO₂ levels were not associated with worse outcomes.

“I think these results show that our hypothesis – that raising CO₂ levels as applied in this trial may be beneficial for these patients – was not effective, even though previous work suggested that it would be,” co–lead investigator Alistair Nichol, MD, said in an interview.

“This was a rigorous trial; the intervention was well delivered, and the results are pretty clear. Unfortunately, we have proved a null hypothesis – that this approach doesn’t seem to work,” Dr. Nichol, who is professor of critical care medicine at University College Dublin, said.

“However, we did find that hypercapnia was safe. This is an important finding, as sometimes in very sick patients such as those who develop pneumonia, we have to drive the ventilator less hard to minimize injury to the lungs, and this can lead to higher CO₂ levels,” he added. “Our results show that this practice should not be harmful, which is reassuring.”

The TAME study was presented at the Critical Care Reviews 2023 Meeting (CCR23) held in Belfast, Northern Ireland.

It was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The researchers explain that after the return of spontaneous circulation, brain hypoperfusion may contribute to cerebral hypoxia, exacerbate brain damage, and lead to poor neurologic outcomes. The partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO₂) is the major physiologic regulator of cerebrovascular tone, and increasing CO₂ levels increases cerebral blood flow.

Two previous observational studies showed that exposure to hypercapnia was associated with an increase in the likelihood of being discharged home and better neurologic outcomes at 12 months, compared with hypocapnia or normocapnia.

In addition, a physiologic study showed that deliberate increases in PaCO₂ induced higher cerebral oxygen saturations, compared with normocapnia. A phase 2 randomized trial showed that hypercapnia significantly attenuated the release of neuron-specific enolase, a biomarker of brain injury, and also suggested better 6-month neurologic recovery with hypercapnia compared with normocapnia.

The current TAME trial was conducted to try to confirm these results in a larger, more definitive study.

For the trial, 1,700 adults with coma who had been resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were randomly assigned to receive either 24 hours of mild hypercapnia (target PaCO₂, 50-55 mm Hg) or normocapnia (target PaCO₂, 35-45 mm Hg).

The primary outcome – a favorable neurologic outcome, defined as a score of 5 or higher on the Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended at 6 months – occurred in 43.5% in the mild hypercapnia group and in 44.6% in the normocapnia group (relative risk, 0.98; P = .76).

By 6 months, 48.2% of those in the mild hypercapnia group and 45.9% in the normocapnia group had died (relative risk with mild hypercapnia, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.16). In the mild hypercapnia group, 53.4% had a poor functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 4-6, compared with 51.3% in the normocapnia group.

Health-related quality of life, as assessed by the EQ Visual Analogue Scale component of the EuroQol-5D-5L, was similar in the two groups.

In terms of safety, results showed that mild hypercapnia did not increase the incidence of prespecified adverse events.

The authors note that there is concern that mild hypercapnia may worsen cerebral edema and elevate intracranial pressure; however, elevated intracranial pressure is uncommon in the first 72 hours after the return of spontaneous circulation.

In the TAME trial, there was one case of cerebral edema in the hypercapnia group. “This is a very low rate and would be expected in a group this size, so this does not indicate a safety concern,” Dr. Nichol commented.

The researchers are planning further analyses of biological samples to look for possible prognostic markers.

“These out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients are a very diverse group, and it may be possible that some patients could have benefited from hypercapnia while others may have been harmed,” Dr. Nichol noted.

“Raising CO₂ levels does improve overall delivery of oxygen to the brain, but this might not have occurred in the right areas. It may be possible that some patients benefited, and analysis of biological samples will help us look more closely at this.”

He added that other ongoing trials are investigating hypercapnia in patients with traumatic brain injury.

“These patients are managed differently and often have probes in their brain to measure the response to CO₂, so more of a precision medicine approach is possible,” he explained.

He also noted that the TAME study, which was conducted in conjunction with the TTM-2 study investigating hypothermia in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients, has established a network of ICU teams around the world, providing an infrastructure for further trials to be performed in this patient population in the future.

The TAME trial was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Health Research Board of Ireland, and the Health Research Council of New Zealand.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Maintaining a slightly elevated CO₂ level (hypercapnia) for the first 24 hours in comatose patients who had been resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest did not improve outcomes in a large randomized controlled trial.

The Targeted Therapeutic Mild Hypercapnia After Resuscitated Cardiac Arrest (TAME) study showed that the intervention failed to improve neurologic or functional outcomes or quality of life at 6 months. However, the researchers also found that slightly elevated CO₂ levels were not associated with worse outcomes.

“I think these results show that our hypothesis – that raising CO₂ levels as applied in this trial may be beneficial for these patients – was not effective, even though previous work suggested that it would be,” co–lead investigator Alistair Nichol, MD, said in an interview.

“This was a rigorous trial; the intervention was well delivered, and the results are pretty clear. Unfortunately, we have proved a null hypothesis – that this approach doesn’t seem to work,” Dr. Nichol, who is professor of critical care medicine at University College Dublin, said.

“However, we did find that hypercapnia was safe. This is an important finding, as sometimes in very sick patients such as those who develop pneumonia, we have to drive the ventilator less hard to minimize injury to the lungs, and this can lead to higher CO₂ levels,” he added. “Our results show that this practice should not be harmful, which is reassuring.”

The TAME study was presented at the Critical Care Reviews 2023 Meeting (CCR23) held in Belfast, Northern Ireland.

It was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The researchers explain that after the return of spontaneous circulation, brain hypoperfusion may contribute to cerebral hypoxia, exacerbate brain damage, and lead to poor neurologic outcomes. The partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO₂) is the major physiologic regulator of cerebrovascular tone, and increasing CO₂ levels increases cerebral blood flow.

Two previous observational studies showed that exposure to hypercapnia was associated with an increase in the likelihood of being discharged home and better neurologic outcomes at 12 months, compared with hypocapnia or normocapnia.

In addition, a physiologic study showed that deliberate increases in PaCO₂ induced higher cerebral oxygen saturations, compared with normocapnia. A phase 2 randomized trial showed that hypercapnia significantly attenuated the release of neuron-specific enolase, a biomarker of brain injury, and also suggested better 6-month neurologic recovery with hypercapnia compared with normocapnia.

The current TAME trial was conducted to try to confirm these results in a larger, more definitive study.

For the trial, 1,700 adults with coma who had been resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were randomly assigned to receive either 24 hours of mild hypercapnia (target PaCO₂, 50-55 mm Hg) or normocapnia (target PaCO₂, 35-45 mm Hg).

The primary outcome – a favorable neurologic outcome, defined as a score of 5 or higher on the Glasgow Outcome Scale–Extended at 6 months – occurred in 43.5% in the mild hypercapnia group and in 44.6% in the normocapnia group (relative risk, 0.98; P = .76).

By 6 months, 48.2% of those in the mild hypercapnia group and 45.9% in the normocapnia group had died (relative risk with mild hypercapnia, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.16). In the mild hypercapnia group, 53.4% had a poor functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 4-6, compared with 51.3% in the normocapnia group.

Health-related quality of life, as assessed by the EQ Visual Analogue Scale component of the EuroQol-5D-5L, was similar in the two groups.

In terms of safety, results showed that mild hypercapnia did not increase the incidence of prespecified adverse events.

The authors note that there is concern that mild hypercapnia may worsen cerebral edema and elevate intracranial pressure; however, elevated intracranial pressure is uncommon in the first 72 hours after the return of spontaneous circulation.

In the TAME trial, there was one case of cerebral edema in the hypercapnia group. “This is a very low rate and would be expected in a group this size, so this does not indicate a safety concern,” Dr. Nichol commented.

The researchers are planning further analyses of biological samples to look for possible prognostic markers.

“These out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients are a very diverse group, and it may be possible that some patients could have benefited from hypercapnia while others may have been harmed,” Dr. Nichol noted.

“Raising CO₂ levels does improve overall delivery of oxygen to the brain, but this might not have occurred in the right areas. It may be possible that some patients benefited, and analysis of biological samples will help us look more closely at this.”

He added that other ongoing trials are investigating hypercapnia in patients with traumatic brain injury.

“These patients are managed differently and often have probes in their brain to measure the response to CO₂, so more of a precision medicine approach is possible,” he explained.

He also noted that the TAME study, which was conducted in conjunction with the TTM-2 study investigating hypothermia in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients, has established a network of ICU teams around the world, providing an infrastructure for further trials to be performed in this patient population in the future.

The TAME trial was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the Health Research Board of Ireland, and the Health Research Council of New Zealand.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Given current driving restrictions after syncope, visits to the emergency department for syncope are not significantly associated with increased risk for a subsequent car crash, data suggest.

In a case-crossover study that examined health and driving data for about 3,000 drivers in British Columbia, researchers found similar rates of ED visits for syncope before the dates of car crashes (1.6%) and before control dates (1.2%).

“An emergency visit for syncope did not appear to increase the risk of subsequent traffic crash,” lead author John A. Staples, MD, MPH, clinical associate professor of general internal medicine at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.
 

Case-crossover study

Syncope prompts more than 1 million visits to EDs in the United States each year. About 9% of patients with syncope have recurrence within 1 year.

Some jurisdictions legally require clinicians to advise patients at higher risk for syncope recurrence to stop driving temporarily. But guidelines about when and whom to restrict are not standardized, said Dr. Staples.

“I came to this topic because I work as a physician in a hospital and, a few years ago, I advised a young woman who suffered a serious injury after she passed out while driving and crashed her car,” he added. “She wanted to know if she could drive again and when. I found out that there wasn’t much evidence that could guide my advice to her. That is what planted the seed that eventually grew into this study.”

The researchers examined driving data from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and detailed ED visit data from regional health authorities. They included licensed drivers who were diagnosed with syncope and collapse at an ED between 2010 and 2015 in their study. The researchers focused on eligible participants who were involved in a motor vehicle collision between August 2011 and December 2015.

For each patient, the date of the crash was used to establish three control dates without crashes. The control dates were 26 weeks, 52 weeks, and 78 weeks before the crash. The investigators compared the rate of emergency visit for syncope in the 28 days before the crash with the rate of emergency visit for syncope in the 28 days before each control date.

An emergency visit for syncope occurred in 47 of 3,026 precrash intervals and 112 of 9,078 control intervals. This result indicated that syncope was not significantly associated with subsequent crash (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; P = .18).

In addition, there was no significant association between syncope and crash in subgroups considered to be at higher risk for adverse outcomes after syncope, such as patients older than 65 years and patients with cardiovascular disease or cardiac syncope.
 

Gaps in data

“It’s a complicated study design but one that’s helpful to understand the temporal relationship between syncope and crash,” said Dr. Staples. “If we had found that the syncope visit was more likely to occur in the 4 weeks before the crash than in earlier matched 4-week control periods, we would have concluded that syncope transiently increases crash risk.”

Dr. Staples emphasized that this was a real-world study and that some patients with syncope at higher risk for a car crash likely stopped driving. “This study doesn’t say there’s no relationship between syncope and subsequent crash, just that our current practices, including current driving restrictions, seem to do an acceptable job of preventing some crashes.”

Limitations of the study influence the interpretation of the results. For example, the data sources did not indicate how patients modified their driving, said Dr. Staples.

Also lacking is information about how physicians identified which patients were at heightened risk for another syncope episode and advised those patients not to drive. “Now would be a good time to start to think about what other studies are needed to better tailor driving restrictions for the right patient,” said Dr. Staples.
 

‘A messy situation’

In a comment, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, professor of cardiovascular medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, called the conclusions “well thought out.” He said the study addressed a common, often perplexing problem in a practical way. Dr. Bhatt was not involved in the research.

“This study is trying to address the issue of what to do with people who have had syncope or fainting and have had a car crash. In general, we don’t really know what to do with those people, but there’s a lot of concern for many reasons, for both the patient and the public. There are potential legal liabilities, and the whole thing, generally speaking, tends to be a messy situation. Usually, the default position physicians take is to be very cautious and conservative, and restrict driving,” said Dr. Bhatt.

The study is reassuring, he added. “The authors have contextualized this risk very nicely. Physicians worry a lot about patients who have had an episode of syncope while driving and restrict their patients’ driving, at least temporarily. But as a society, we are much more permissive about people who drive drunk or under the influence, or who drive without seat belts, or who speed, or text while driving. So, within that larger context, we are extremely worried about this one source of risk that is probably less than these other sources of risk.”

Most of the time, the cause of the syncope is benign, said Dr. Bhatt. “We rule out the bad things, like a heart attack or cardiac arrest, seizure, and arrhythmia. Afterwards, the risk from driving is relatively small.” The study results support current practices and suggest “that we probably don’t need to be excessive with our restrictions.

“There is going to be a wide variation in practice, with some physicians wanting to be more restrictive, but there is a lot of subjectivity in how these recommendations are acted on in real life. That’s why I think this study really should reassure physicians that it’s okay to use common sense and good medical judgment when giving advice on driving to their patients,” Dr. Bhatt concluded.

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Heart and Stroke Foundation Canada. Dr. Staples and Dr. Bhatt reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Given current driving restrictions after syncope, visits to the emergency department for syncope are not significantly associated with increased risk for a subsequent car crash, data suggest.

In a case-crossover study that examined health and driving data for about 3,000 drivers in British Columbia, researchers found similar rates of ED visits for syncope before the dates of car crashes (1.6%) and before control dates (1.2%).

“An emergency visit for syncope did not appear to increase the risk of subsequent traffic crash,” lead author John A. Staples, MD, MPH, clinical associate professor of general internal medicine at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.
 

Case-crossover study

Syncope prompts more than 1 million visits to EDs in the United States each year. About 9% of patients with syncope have recurrence within 1 year.

Some jurisdictions legally require clinicians to advise patients at higher risk for syncope recurrence to stop driving temporarily. But guidelines about when and whom to restrict are not standardized, said Dr. Staples.

“I came to this topic because I work as a physician in a hospital and, a few years ago, I advised a young woman who suffered a serious injury after she passed out while driving and crashed her car,” he added. “She wanted to know if she could drive again and when. I found out that there wasn’t much evidence that could guide my advice to her. That is what planted the seed that eventually grew into this study.”

The researchers examined driving data from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and detailed ED visit data from regional health authorities. They included licensed drivers who were diagnosed with syncope and collapse at an ED between 2010 and 2015 in their study. The researchers focused on eligible participants who were involved in a motor vehicle collision between August 2011 and December 2015.

For each patient, the date of the crash was used to establish three control dates without crashes. The control dates were 26 weeks, 52 weeks, and 78 weeks before the crash. The investigators compared the rate of emergency visit for syncope in the 28 days before the crash with the rate of emergency visit for syncope in the 28 days before each control date.

An emergency visit for syncope occurred in 47 of 3,026 precrash intervals and 112 of 9,078 control intervals. This result indicated that syncope was not significantly associated with subsequent crash (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; P = .18).

In addition, there was no significant association between syncope and crash in subgroups considered to be at higher risk for adverse outcomes after syncope, such as patients older than 65 years and patients with cardiovascular disease or cardiac syncope.
 

Gaps in data

“It’s a complicated study design but one that’s helpful to understand the temporal relationship between syncope and crash,” said Dr. Staples. “If we had found that the syncope visit was more likely to occur in the 4 weeks before the crash than in earlier matched 4-week control periods, we would have concluded that syncope transiently increases crash risk.”

Dr. Staples emphasized that this was a real-world study and that some patients with syncope at higher risk for a car crash likely stopped driving. “This study doesn’t say there’s no relationship between syncope and subsequent crash, just that our current practices, including current driving restrictions, seem to do an acceptable job of preventing some crashes.”

Limitations of the study influence the interpretation of the results. For example, the data sources did not indicate how patients modified their driving, said Dr. Staples.

Also lacking is information about how physicians identified which patients were at heightened risk for another syncope episode and advised those patients not to drive. “Now would be a good time to start to think about what other studies are needed to better tailor driving restrictions for the right patient,” said Dr. Staples.
 

‘A messy situation’

In a comment, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, professor of cardiovascular medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, called the conclusions “well thought out.” He said the study addressed a common, often perplexing problem in a practical way. Dr. Bhatt was not involved in the research.

“This study is trying to address the issue of what to do with people who have had syncope or fainting and have had a car crash. In general, we don’t really know what to do with those people, but there’s a lot of concern for many reasons, for both the patient and the public. There are potential legal liabilities, and the whole thing, generally speaking, tends to be a messy situation. Usually, the default position physicians take is to be very cautious and conservative, and restrict driving,” said Dr. Bhatt.

The study is reassuring, he added. “The authors have contextualized this risk very nicely. Physicians worry a lot about patients who have had an episode of syncope while driving and restrict their patients’ driving, at least temporarily. But as a society, we are much more permissive about people who drive drunk or under the influence, or who drive without seat belts, or who speed, or text while driving. So, within that larger context, we are extremely worried about this one source of risk that is probably less than these other sources of risk.”

Most of the time, the cause of the syncope is benign, said Dr. Bhatt. “We rule out the bad things, like a heart attack or cardiac arrest, seizure, and arrhythmia. Afterwards, the risk from driving is relatively small.” The study results support current practices and suggest “that we probably don’t need to be excessive with our restrictions.

“There is going to be a wide variation in practice, with some physicians wanting to be more restrictive, but there is a lot of subjectivity in how these recommendations are acted on in real life. That’s why I think this study really should reassure physicians that it’s okay to use common sense and good medical judgment when giving advice on driving to their patients,” Dr. Bhatt concluded.

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Heart and Stroke Foundation Canada. Dr. Staples and Dr. Bhatt reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Given current driving restrictions after syncope, visits to the emergency department for syncope are not significantly associated with increased risk for a subsequent car crash, data suggest.

In a case-crossover study that examined health and driving data for about 3,000 drivers in British Columbia, researchers found similar rates of ED visits for syncope before the dates of car crashes (1.6%) and before control dates (1.2%).

“An emergency visit for syncope did not appear to increase the risk of subsequent traffic crash,” lead author John A. Staples, MD, MPH, clinical associate professor of general internal medicine at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology.
 

Case-crossover study

Syncope prompts more than 1 million visits to EDs in the United States each year. About 9% of patients with syncope have recurrence within 1 year.

Some jurisdictions legally require clinicians to advise patients at higher risk for syncope recurrence to stop driving temporarily. But guidelines about when and whom to restrict are not standardized, said Dr. Staples.

“I came to this topic because I work as a physician in a hospital and, a few years ago, I advised a young woman who suffered a serious injury after she passed out while driving and crashed her car,” he added. “She wanted to know if she could drive again and when. I found out that there wasn’t much evidence that could guide my advice to her. That is what planted the seed that eventually grew into this study.”

The researchers examined driving data from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and detailed ED visit data from regional health authorities. They included licensed drivers who were diagnosed with syncope and collapse at an ED between 2010 and 2015 in their study. The researchers focused on eligible participants who were involved in a motor vehicle collision between August 2011 and December 2015.

For each patient, the date of the crash was used to establish three control dates without crashes. The control dates were 26 weeks, 52 weeks, and 78 weeks before the crash. The investigators compared the rate of emergency visit for syncope in the 28 days before the crash with the rate of emergency visit for syncope in the 28 days before each control date.

An emergency visit for syncope occurred in 47 of 3,026 precrash intervals and 112 of 9,078 control intervals. This result indicated that syncope was not significantly associated with subsequent crash (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; P = .18).

In addition, there was no significant association between syncope and crash in subgroups considered to be at higher risk for adverse outcomes after syncope, such as patients older than 65 years and patients with cardiovascular disease or cardiac syncope.
 

Gaps in data

“It’s a complicated study design but one that’s helpful to understand the temporal relationship between syncope and crash,” said Dr. Staples. “If we had found that the syncope visit was more likely to occur in the 4 weeks before the crash than in earlier matched 4-week control periods, we would have concluded that syncope transiently increases crash risk.”

Dr. Staples emphasized that this was a real-world study and that some patients with syncope at higher risk for a car crash likely stopped driving. “This study doesn’t say there’s no relationship between syncope and subsequent crash, just that our current practices, including current driving restrictions, seem to do an acceptable job of preventing some crashes.”

Limitations of the study influence the interpretation of the results. For example, the data sources did not indicate how patients modified their driving, said Dr. Staples.

Also lacking is information about how physicians identified which patients were at heightened risk for another syncope episode and advised those patients not to drive. “Now would be a good time to start to think about what other studies are needed to better tailor driving restrictions for the right patient,” said Dr. Staples.
 

‘A messy situation’

In a comment, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, professor of cardiovascular medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, called the conclusions “well thought out.” He said the study addressed a common, often perplexing problem in a practical way. Dr. Bhatt was not involved in the research.

“This study is trying to address the issue of what to do with people who have had syncope or fainting and have had a car crash. In general, we don’t really know what to do with those people, but there’s a lot of concern for many reasons, for both the patient and the public. There are potential legal liabilities, and the whole thing, generally speaking, tends to be a messy situation. Usually, the default position physicians take is to be very cautious and conservative, and restrict driving,” said Dr. Bhatt.

The study is reassuring, he added. “The authors have contextualized this risk very nicely. Physicians worry a lot about patients who have had an episode of syncope while driving and restrict their patients’ driving, at least temporarily. But as a society, we are much more permissive about people who drive drunk or under the influence, or who drive without seat belts, or who speed, or text while driving. So, within that larger context, we are extremely worried about this one source of risk that is probably less than these other sources of risk.”

Most of the time, the cause of the syncope is benign, said Dr. Bhatt. “We rule out the bad things, like a heart attack or cardiac arrest, seizure, and arrhythmia. Afterwards, the risk from driving is relatively small.” The study results support current practices and suggest “that we probably don’t need to be excessive with our restrictions.

“There is going to be a wide variation in practice, with some physicians wanting to be more restrictive, but there is a lot of subjectivity in how these recommendations are acted on in real life. That’s why I think this study really should reassure physicians that it’s okay to use common sense and good medical judgment when giving advice on driving to their patients,” Dr. Bhatt concluded.

The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Heart and Stroke Foundation Canada. Dr. Staples and Dr. Bhatt reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Human Rights Watch, the nonprofit that for decades has called attention to the victims of war, famine, and political repression around the world, is taking aim at U.S. hospitals for pushing millions of American patients into debt.

In a new report, the group calls for stronger government action to protect Americans from aggressive billing and debt collection by nonprofit hospitals, which Human Rights Watch said are systematically undermining patients’ human rights.

“Given the high prevalence of hospital-related medical debt in the U.S., this system is clearly not working,” concludes the report, which draws extensively on an ongoing investigation of medical debt by KFF Health News and NPR.

The report continues: “The U.S. model of subsidizing privately operated hospitals with tax exemptions in the hope that they will increase the accessibility of hospital care for un- and underinsured patients allows for abusive medical billing and debt collection practices and undermines human rights, including the right to health.”

Nationwide, about 100 million people – or 41% of adults – have some form of health care debt, a KFF survey conducted for the KFF Health News–NPR project found. And while patient debt is being driven by a range of medical and dental bills, polls and studies suggest hospitals are a major contributor.

About a third of U.S. adults with health care debt owed money for hospitalization, KFF’s polling found. Close to half of those owed at least $5,000. About a quarter owed $10,000 or more.

The scale of this crisis – which is unparalleled among wealthy nations – compelled Human Rights Watch to release the new report, said researcher Matt McConnell, its author. “Historically, Human Rights Watch has been an organization that has focused on international human rights issues,” he said. “But on medical debt, the U.S. is a real outlier. What you see is a system that privileges a few but creates large barriers to people accessing basic health rights.”

Hospital industry officials defend their work, citing hospitals’ broader work to help the communities they serve. “As a field, hospitals provide more benefit to their communities than any other sector in health care,” Melinda Hatton, general counsel at the American Hospital Association, wrote in a response to the Human Right Watch report.

Federal law requires private, tax-exempt hospitals – which make up more than half the nation’s medical centers – to provide care at no cost or at a discount to low-income patients. But reporting by KFF Health News and others has found that many hospitals make this aid difficult for patients to get.

At the same time, thousands of medical centers – including many tax-exempt ones – engage in aggressive debt collection tactics to pursue patients, including garnishing patients’ wages, placing liens on their homes, or selling their debt to third-party debt collectors.

Overall, KFF Health News found that most of the nation’s approximately 5,100 hospitals serving the general public have policies to use legal action or other aggressive tactics against patients. And one in five will deny nonemergency care to people with outstanding debt.

“Medical debt is drowning many low-income and working families while hospitals continue to benefit from nonprofit tax status as they pursue families for medical debt,” said Marceline White, executive director of Economic Action Maryland. The advocacy group has helped enact tighter rules to ensure Maryland hospitals make financial assistance more easily accessible and to restrict hospitals from some aggressive debt collection tactics, such as placing liens on patients’ homes.

Similar efforts are underway in other states, including Colorado, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington. But many patient and consumer advocates say stronger federal action is needed to expand patient protections.

The Human Rights Watch report – titled “In Sheep’s Clothing: United States’ Poorly Regulated Nonprofit Hospitals Undermine Health Care Access” – lists more than a dozen recommendations. These include:

• Congress should pass legislation to ensure that hospitals provide at least the same amount of charity care as they receive in public subsidies.
• The IRS should set uniform national standards on patients’ eligibility for financial assistance at nonprofit hospitals. Currently, hospitals are free to set their own standards, resulting in widespread variation, which can confuse patients.
• The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal watchdog agency, should crack down on debt collectors that do not ensure that patients have been screened for financial assistance before being pursued.
• The federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which administers the two mammoth public insurance programs, should penalize hospitals that do not provide adequate financial assistance to patients.

“Nonprofit hospitals are contributing to medical debt and engaging in abusive billing and debt collection practices,” Mr. McConnell said. “The reason this keeps happening is the absence of clear guidelines and the federal government’s inadequate enforcement of existing regulations.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF – the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

Human Rights Watch, the nonprofit that for decades has called attention to the victims of war, famine, and political repression around the world, is taking aim at U.S. hospitals for pushing millions of American patients into debt.

In a new report, the group calls for stronger government action to protect Americans from aggressive billing and debt collection by nonprofit hospitals, which Human Rights Watch said are systematically undermining patients’ human rights.

“Given the high prevalence of hospital-related medical debt in the U.S., this system is clearly not working,” concludes the report, which draws extensively on an ongoing investigation of medical debt by KFF Health News and NPR.

The report continues: “The U.S. model of subsidizing privately operated hospitals with tax exemptions in the hope that they will increase the accessibility of hospital care for un- and underinsured patients allows for abusive medical billing and debt collection practices and undermines human rights, including the right to health.”

Nationwide, about 100 million people – or 41% of adults – have some form of health care debt, a KFF survey conducted for the KFF Health News–NPR project found. And while patient debt is being driven by a range of medical and dental bills, polls and studies suggest hospitals are a major contributor.

About a third of U.S. adults with health care debt owed money for hospitalization, KFF’s polling found. Close to half of those owed at least $5,000. About a quarter owed $10,000 or more.

The scale of this crisis – which is unparalleled among wealthy nations – compelled Human Rights Watch to release the new report, said researcher Matt McConnell, its author. “Historically, Human Rights Watch has been an organization that has focused on international human rights issues,” he said. “But on medical debt, the U.S. is a real outlier. What you see is a system that privileges a few but creates large barriers to people accessing basic health rights.”

Hospital industry officials defend their work, citing hospitals’ broader work to help the communities they serve. “As a field, hospitals provide more benefit to their communities than any other sector in health care,” Melinda Hatton, general counsel at the American Hospital Association, wrote in a response to the Human Right Watch report.

Federal law requires private, tax-exempt hospitals – which make up more than half the nation’s medical centers – to provide care at no cost or at a discount to low-income patients. But reporting by KFF Health News and others has found that many hospitals make this aid difficult for patients to get.

At the same time, thousands of medical centers – including many tax-exempt ones – engage in aggressive debt collection tactics to pursue patients, including garnishing patients’ wages, placing liens on their homes, or selling their debt to third-party debt collectors.

Overall, KFF Health News found that most of the nation’s approximately 5,100 hospitals serving the general public have policies to use legal action or other aggressive tactics against patients. And one in five will deny nonemergency care to people with outstanding debt.

“Medical debt is drowning many low-income and working families while hospitals continue to benefit from nonprofit tax status as they pursue families for medical debt,” said Marceline White, executive director of Economic Action Maryland. The advocacy group has helped enact tighter rules to ensure Maryland hospitals make financial assistance more easily accessible and to restrict hospitals from some aggressive debt collection tactics, such as placing liens on patients’ homes.

Similar efforts are underway in other states, including Colorado, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington. But many patient and consumer advocates say stronger federal action is needed to expand patient protections.

The Human Rights Watch report – titled “In Sheep’s Clothing: United States’ Poorly Regulated Nonprofit Hospitals Undermine Health Care Access” – lists more than a dozen recommendations. These include:

• Congress should pass legislation to ensure that hospitals provide at least the same amount of charity care as they receive in public subsidies.
• The IRS should set uniform national standards on patients’ eligibility for financial assistance at nonprofit hospitals. Currently, hospitals are free to set their own standards, resulting in widespread variation, which can confuse patients.
• The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal watchdog agency, should crack down on debt collectors that do not ensure that patients have been screened for financial assistance before being pursued.
• The federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which administers the two mammoth public insurance programs, should penalize hospitals that do not provide adequate financial assistance to patients.

“Nonprofit hospitals are contributing to medical debt and engaging in abusive billing and debt collection practices,” Mr. McConnell said. “The reason this keeps happening is the absence of clear guidelines and the federal government’s inadequate enforcement of existing regulations.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF – the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

Human Rights Watch, the nonprofit that for decades has called attention to the victims of war, famine, and political repression around the world, is taking aim at U.S. hospitals for pushing millions of American patients into debt.

In a new report, the group calls for stronger government action to protect Americans from aggressive billing and debt collection by nonprofit hospitals, which Human Rights Watch said are systematically undermining patients’ human rights.

“Given the high prevalence of hospital-related medical debt in the U.S., this system is clearly not working,” concludes the report, which draws extensively on an ongoing investigation of medical debt by KFF Health News and NPR.

The report continues: “The U.S. model of subsidizing privately operated hospitals with tax exemptions in the hope that they will increase the accessibility of hospital care for un- and underinsured patients allows for abusive medical billing and debt collection practices and undermines human rights, including the right to health.”

Nationwide, about 100 million people – or 41% of adults – have some form of health care debt, a KFF survey conducted for the KFF Health News–NPR project found. And while patient debt is being driven by a range of medical and dental bills, polls and studies suggest hospitals are a major contributor.

About a third of U.S. adults with health care debt owed money for hospitalization, KFF’s polling found. Close to half of those owed at least $5,000. About a quarter owed $10,000 or more.

The scale of this crisis – which is unparalleled among wealthy nations – compelled Human Rights Watch to release the new report, said researcher Matt McConnell, its author. “Historically, Human Rights Watch has been an organization that has focused on international human rights issues,” he said. “But on medical debt, the U.S. is a real outlier. What you see is a system that privileges a few but creates large barriers to people accessing basic health rights.”

Hospital industry officials defend their work, citing hospitals’ broader work to help the communities they serve. “As a field, hospitals provide more benefit to their communities than any other sector in health care,” Melinda Hatton, general counsel at the American Hospital Association, wrote in a response to the Human Right Watch report.

Federal law requires private, tax-exempt hospitals – which make up more than half the nation’s medical centers – to provide care at no cost or at a discount to low-income patients. But reporting by KFF Health News and others has found that many hospitals make this aid difficult for patients to get.

At the same time, thousands of medical centers – including many tax-exempt ones – engage in aggressive debt collection tactics to pursue patients, including garnishing patients’ wages, placing liens on their homes, or selling their debt to third-party debt collectors.

Overall, KFF Health News found that most of the nation’s approximately 5,100 hospitals serving the general public have policies to use legal action or other aggressive tactics against patients. And one in five will deny nonemergency care to people with outstanding debt.

“Medical debt is drowning many low-income and working families while hospitals continue to benefit from nonprofit tax status as they pursue families for medical debt,” said Marceline White, executive director of Economic Action Maryland. The advocacy group has helped enact tighter rules to ensure Maryland hospitals make financial assistance more easily accessible and to restrict hospitals from some aggressive debt collection tactics, such as placing liens on patients’ homes.

Similar efforts are underway in other states, including Colorado, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington. But many patient and consumer advocates say stronger federal action is needed to expand patient protections.

The Human Rights Watch report – titled “In Sheep’s Clothing: United States’ Poorly Regulated Nonprofit Hospitals Undermine Health Care Access” – lists more than a dozen recommendations. These include:

• Congress should pass legislation to ensure that hospitals provide at least the same amount of charity care as they receive in public subsidies.
• The IRS should set uniform national standards on patients’ eligibility for financial assistance at nonprofit hospitals. Currently, hospitals are free to set their own standards, resulting in widespread variation, which can confuse patients.
• The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal watchdog agency, should crack down on debt collectors that do not ensure that patients have been screened for financial assistance before being pursued.
• The federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which administers the two mammoth public insurance programs, should penalize hospitals that do not provide adequate financial assistance to patients.

“Nonprofit hospitals are contributing to medical debt and engaging in abusive billing and debt collection practices,” Mr. McConnell said. “The reason this keeps happening is the absence of clear guidelines and the federal government’s inadequate enforcement of existing regulations.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF – the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.