User login
Cardiology News is an independent news source that provides cardiologists with timely and relevant news and commentary about clinical developments and the impact of health care policy on cardiology and the cardiologist's practice. Cardiology News Digital Network is the online destination and multimedia properties of Cardiology News, the independent news publication for cardiologists. Cardiology news is the leading source of news and commentary about clinical developments in cardiology as well as health care policy and regulations that affect the cardiologist's practice. Cardiology News Digital Network is owned by Frontline Medical Communications.
Physician group staffing down, expenses up, new reports show
Physician groups saw staff-to-physician ratios decline even as their workforce expenses rose between 2019 and 2021, according to recent reports from the American Medical Group Association (AMGA) and the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA).
As patients started to return to doctors’ offices as the pandemic eased in 2021, physician groups found it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain lower-level clinicians, including medical assistants and LPNs, officials from both associations told this news organization. Many clinics had to raise their pay scales to be competitive with employers in other fields, and some had to hire higher-priced RNs to keep their practices running.
The AMGA report was based largely on data from groups of over 500 physicians, mostly affiliated with health systems. According to a news release accompanying the report, the ratio between full-time equivalent (FTE) clinic staff and health care professionals in direct patient care dropped by 11.3% between 2019 and 2021. The ratio of medical assistants (MAs) to clinicians declined by a greater percentage.
In the MGMA report, which represented about 4,000 practices ranging from very small (two doctors) to very large groups, total support staff per FTE primary-care physician dropped by 18% from 2019 to 2021 in independent groups and by 13% in hospital-affiliated groups. The ratios decreased by smaller amounts in surgical practices.
In contrast, nonsurgical specialty groups under both types of ownership saw their staffing ratios rise slightly.
Although it’s unclear why medical specialties increased their staff while other types of specialties lost employees, Ron Holder, MHA, chief operating officer of MGMA, said that some specialists may have opened more ancillary facilities and hired new employees to recoup revenue lost during the pandemic.
Expenses rise sharply
The AMGA report found that staffing expenses for the surveyed groups increased by 15% between 2019 and 2021.
“We saw a decrease in staff and an increase in expenses during that time period, and there are a few reasons for that,” Rose Wagner, RN, chief operating officer of AMGA, said. “Groups increased salaries to maintain staff. We also saw lower-paid staff find other jobs outside of health care. For example, medical assistants and receptionists could find jobs outside of health care that paid more. [Open positions] got back-filled with other higher paid staff, such as RNs, doing lower skilled jobs.”
Mr. Holder added that rising wages in other sectors made leaving physician groups more attractive for employees.
“Three years ago, there weren’t many positions in a medical practice where you were competing with Chick-fil-A or Taco Bell,” he said. In Denver, where Mr. Holder is based, “every restaurant in town is now advertising $17-$19 [hourly] starting pay just to do fast food. That causes practices to either lose employees or pay more for the employees they have. So that raises per-employee expense significantly,” he said.
Mr. Holder noted that inflation also has driven up wages as employees demand higher pay to keep up with the cost of living.
Unusual exodus of employees
Fred Horton, MHA, president of AMGA Consulting, said he has never seen so many people leaving health care for other occupations.
Some exits resulted from practices laying people off early in the pandemic, but most staff members who left practices were seeking higher pay, he said. In addition, Ms. Wagner noted, some staff members didn’t want to be exposed to COVID at work.
“There was an exodus from health care that was different from what we’d experienced in the past,” Mr. Horton added. “It’s still extremely challenging to get up to the staffing levels that are appropriate.”
Mr. Holder, however, said that the situation is slowly improving. “Health care is fairly recession-proof, because people need it. So when you see companies in other industries closing shop or reducing their head count, that actually helps health care recruiting in some jobs. And people are coming back to the workplace who previously were worried about COVID or didn’t want to get the vaccine.”
Paying more for nurses
In 2021, groups adopted a variety of tactics to adapt to the pandemic and respond to patient demand, the AMGA survey shows. Forty percent of system-affiliated groups and 18% of independent practices changed registered nurses’ responsibilities, in many cases having them do the work of medical assistants who were in short supply.
Some practices hired RNs, who have historically been utilized less by primary care than by surgical specialties, Mr. Holder noted. Other clinics paid temp agencies to supply nurses at a steep cost.
“When you’re short staffed, you end up paying more overtime, you end up paying temporary agencies at higher dollars, and you hire higher skilled people to do lower-skilled work,” Ms. Wagner said.
Meanwhile, many physician groups tried to cope with the physician shortage by bringing on more advanced practice clinicians (APCs), including nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). Seventy percent of the AMGA groups used this strategy, the report revealed.
“The use of APCs has been steadily increasing as groups try to adopt a lower-cost care model in the midst of a nationwide physician shortage,” Ms. Wagner said in the press release.
Changes in patient care
About half of the groups in the AMGA survey said they changed their staff structure to allow APCs to carry their own patient panels. Although most of these clinicians were probably under physician supervision, nearly half of the states now allow NPs to practice autonomously.
Mr. Horton cautioned that APCs can’t fully substitute for physicians and require the same support staff that doctors do if they have their own panels. In primary care groups, Mr. Holder noted, the average salary of an APC “is continuing to rise, and there isn’t a huge difference between what they and doctors make.”
Nevertheless, he added, “there are more NPs and PAs being added to the marketplace all the time, whereas [physician] residency programs aren’t really growing. There are caps on the number of residency positions, and some physicians are retiring. So the clock is ticking to the point where someday doctors will be grossly outnumbered by NPs.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Physician groups saw staff-to-physician ratios decline even as their workforce expenses rose between 2019 and 2021, according to recent reports from the American Medical Group Association (AMGA) and the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA).
As patients started to return to doctors’ offices as the pandemic eased in 2021, physician groups found it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain lower-level clinicians, including medical assistants and LPNs, officials from both associations told this news organization. Many clinics had to raise their pay scales to be competitive with employers in other fields, and some had to hire higher-priced RNs to keep their practices running.
The AMGA report was based largely on data from groups of over 500 physicians, mostly affiliated with health systems. According to a news release accompanying the report, the ratio between full-time equivalent (FTE) clinic staff and health care professionals in direct patient care dropped by 11.3% between 2019 and 2021. The ratio of medical assistants (MAs) to clinicians declined by a greater percentage.
In the MGMA report, which represented about 4,000 practices ranging from very small (two doctors) to very large groups, total support staff per FTE primary-care physician dropped by 18% from 2019 to 2021 in independent groups and by 13% in hospital-affiliated groups. The ratios decreased by smaller amounts in surgical practices.
In contrast, nonsurgical specialty groups under both types of ownership saw their staffing ratios rise slightly.
Although it’s unclear why medical specialties increased their staff while other types of specialties lost employees, Ron Holder, MHA, chief operating officer of MGMA, said that some specialists may have opened more ancillary facilities and hired new employees to recoup revenue lost during the pandemic.
Expenses rise sharply
The AMGA report found that staffing expenses for the surveyed groups increased by 15% between 2019 and 2021.
“We saw a decrease in staff and an increase in expenses during that time period, and there are a few reasons for that,” Rose Wagner, RN, chief operating officer of AMGA, said. “Groups increased salaries to maintain staff. We also saw lower-paid staff find other jobs outside of health care. For example, medical assistants and receptionists could find jobs outside of health care that paid more. [Open positions] got back-filled with other higher paid staff, such as RNs, doing lower skilled jobs.”
Mr. Holder added that rising wages in other sectors made leaving physician groups more attractive for employees.
“Three years ago, there weren’t many positions in a medical practice where you were competing with Chick-fil-A or Taco Bell,” he said. In Denver, where Mr. Holder is based, “every restaurant in town is now advertising $17-$19 [hourly] starting pay just to do fast food. That causes practices to either lose employees or pay more for the employees they have. So that raises per-employee expense significantly,” he said.
Mr. Holder noted that inflation also has driven up wages as employees demand higher pay to keep up with the cost of living.
Unusual exodus of employees
Fred Horton, MHA, president of AMGA Consulting, said he has never seen so many people leaving health care for other occupations.
Some exits resulted from practices laying people off early in the pandemic, but most staff members who left practices were seeking higher pay, he said. In addition, Ms. Wagner noted, some staff members didn’t want to be exposed to COVID at work.
“There was an exodus from health care that was different from what we’d experienced in the past,” Mr. Horton added. “It’s still extremely challenging to get up to the staffing levels that are appropriate.”
Mr. Holder, however, said that the situation is slowly improving. “Health care is fairly recession-proof, because people need it. So when you see companies in other industries closing shop or reducing their head count, that actually helps health care recruiting in some jobs. And people are coming back to the workplace who previously were worried about COVID or didn’t want to get the vaccine.”
Paying more for nurses
In 2021, groups adopted a variety of tactics to adapt to the pandemic and respond to patient demand, the AMGA survey shows. Forty percent of system-affiliated groups and 18% of independent practices changed registered nurses’ responsibilities, in many cases having them do the work of medical assistants who were in short supply.
Some practices hired RNs, who have historically been utilized less by primary care than by surgical specialties, Mr. Holder noted. Other clinics paid temp agencies to supply nurses at a steep cost.
“When you’re short staffed, you end up paying more overtime, you end up paying temporary agencies at higher dollars, and you hire higher skilled people to do lower-skilled work,” Ms. Wagner said.
Meanwhile, many physician groups tried to cope with the physician shortage by bringing on more advanced practice clinicians (APCs), including nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). Seventy percent of the AMGA groups used this strategy, the report revealed.
“The use of APCs has been steadily increasing as groups try to adopt a lower-cost care model in the midst of a nationwide physician shortage,” Ms. Wagner said in the press release.
Changes in patient care
About half of the groups in the AMGA survey said they changed their staff structure to allow APCs to carry their own patient panels. Although most of these clinicians were probably under physician supervision, nearly half of the states now allow NPs to practice autonomously.
Mr. Horton cautioned that APCs can’t fully substitute for physicians and require the same support staff that doctors do if they have their own panels. In primary care groups, Mr. Holder noted, the average salary of an APC “is continuing to rise, and there isn’t a huge difference between what they and doctors make.”
Nevertheless, he added, “there are more NPs and PAs being added to the marketplace all the time, whereas [physician] residency programs aren’t really growing. There are caps on the number of residency positions, and some physicians are retiring. So the clock is ticking to the point where someday doctors will be grossly outnumbered by NPs.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Physician groups saw staff-to-physician ratios decline even as their workforce expenses rose between 2019 and 2021, according to recent reports from the American Medical Group Association (AMGA) and the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA).
As patients started to return to doctors’ offices as the pandemic eased in 2021, physician groups found it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain lower-level clinicians, including medical assistants and LPNs, officials from both associations told this news organization. Many clinics had to raise their pay scales to be competitive with employers in other fields, and some had to hire higher-priced RNs to keep their practices running.
The AMGA report was based largely on data from groups of over 500 physicians, mostly affiliated with health systems. According to a news release accompanying the report, the ratio between full-time equivalent (FTE) clinic staff and health care professionals in direct patient care dropped by 11.3% between 2019 and 2021. The ratio of medical assistants (MAs) to clinicians declined by a greater percentage.
In the MGMA report, which represented about 4,000 practices ranging from very small (two doctors) to very large groups, total support staff per FTE primary-care physician dropped by 18% from 2019 to 2021 in independent groups and by 13% in hospital-affiliated groups. The ratios decreased by smaller amounts in surgical practices.
In contrast, nonsurgical specialty groups under both types of ownership saw their staffing ratios rise slightly.
Although it’s unclear why medical specialties increased their staff while other types of specialties lost employees, Ron Holder, MHA, chief operating officer of MGMA, said that some specialists may have opened more ancillary facilities and hired new employees to recoup revenue lost during the pandemic.
Expenses rise sharply
The AMGA report found that staffing expenses for the surveyed groups increased by 15% between 2019 and 2021.
“We saw a decrease in staff and an increase in expenses during that time period, and there are a few reasons for that,” Rose Wagner, RN, chief operating officer of AMGA, said. “Groups increased salaries to maintain staff. We also saw lower-paid staff find other jobs outside of health care. For example, medical assistants and receptionists could find jobs outside of health care that paid more. [Open positions] got back-filled with other higher paid staff, such as RNs, doing lower skilled jobs.”
Mr. Holder added that rising wages in other sectors made leaving physician groups more attractive for employees.
“Three years ago, there weren’t many positions in a medical practice where you were competing with Chick-fil-A or Taco Bell,” he said. In Denver, where Mr. Holder is based, “every restaurant in town is now advertising $17-$19 [hourly] starting pay just to do fast food. That causes practices to either lose employees or pay more for the employees they have. So that raises per-employee expense significantly,” he said.
Mr. Holder noted that inflation also has driven up wages as employees demand higher pay to keep up with the cost of living.
Unusual exodus of employees
Fred Horton, MHA, president of AMGA Consulting, said he has never seen so many people leaving health care for other occupations.
Some exits resulted from practices laying people off early in the pandemic, but most staff members who left practices were seeking higher pay, he said. In addition, Ms. Wagner noted, some staff members didn’t want to be exposed to COVID at work.
“There was an exodus from health care that was different from what we’d experienced in the past,” Mr. Horton added. “It’s still extremely challenging to get up to the staffing levels that are appropriate.”
Mr. Holder, however, said that the situation is slowly improving. “Health care is fairly recession-proof, because people need it. So when you see companies in other industries closing shop or reducing their head count, that actually helps health care recruiting in some jobs. And people are coming back to the workplace who previously were worried about COVID or didn’t want to get the vaccine.”
Paying more for nurses
In 2021, groups adopted a variety of tactics to adapt to the pandemic and respond to patient demand, the AMGA survey shows. Forty percent of system-affiliated groups and 18% of independent practices changed registered nurses’ responsibilities, in many cases having them do the work of medical assistants who were in short supply.
Some practices hired RNs, who have historically been utilized less by primary care than by surgical specialties, Mr. Holder noted. Other clinics paid temp agencies to supply nurses at a steep cost.
“When you’re short staffed, you end up paying more overtime, you end up paying temporary agencies at higher dollars, and you hire higher skilled people to do lower-skilled work,” Ms. Wagner said.
Meanwhile, many physician groups tried to cope with the physician shortage by bringing on more advanced practice clinicians (APCs), including nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). Seventy percent of the AMGA groups used this strategy, the report revealed.
“The use of APCs has been steadily increasing as groups try to adopt a lower-cost care model in the midst of a nationwide physician shortage,” Ms. Wagner said in the press release.
Changes in patient care
About half of the groups in the AMGA survey said they changed their staff structure to allow APCs to carry their own patient panels. Although most of these clinicians were probably under physician supervision, nearly half of the states now allow NPs to practice autonomously.
Mr. Horton cautioned that APCs can’t fully substitute for physicians and require the same support staff that doctors do if they have their own panels. In primary care groups, Mr. Holder noted, the average salary of an APC “is continuing to rise, and there isn’t a huge difference between what they and doctors make.”
Nevertheless, he added, “there are more NPs and PAs being added to the marketplace all the time, whereas [physician] residency programs aren’t really growing. There are caps on the number of residency positions, and some physicians are retiring. So the clock is ticking to the point where someday doctors will be grossly outnumbered by NPs.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Doctors and their families tend to ignore medical guidelines
according to a study by economic professors from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge; Stanford (Calif.) University; and the George Gund Professor of Economics and Business Administration at Harvard University, Boston.
What to know
- Doctors’ medical knowledge may influence them and their families to often ignore medical advice while the rest of the population adheres to general medication guidelines.
- Of the 63 guidelines used in the study, doctors and their families followed the standards less than a third of the time.
- The difference in adherence to guidelines between experts and nonexperts is largest with respect to antibiotics, in which doctors and their families are 5.2 percentage points less in compliance than everyone else.
- Doctors could be more likely to prescribe broader-spectrum antibiotics for themselves and their families, whereas most patients receive more narrow-spectrum antibiotics.
- Many members of the general public don’t understand medical guidelines, finding them too complex to follow, and many people don’t trust their doctors.
This is a summary of the article, “A Taste of Their Own Medicine: Guideline Adherence and Access to Expertise,” published in the American Economic Review: Insights on December 13, 2022. The full article can be found on aeaweb.org.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to a study by economic professors from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge; Stanford (Calif.) University; and the George Gund Professor of Economics and Business Administration at Harvard University, Boston.
What to know
- Doctors’ medical knowledge may influence them and their families to often ignore medical advice while the rest of the population adheres to general medication guidelines.
- Of the 63 guidelines used in the study, doctors and their families followed the standards less than a third of the time.
- The difference in adherence to guidelines between experts and nonexperts is largest with respect to antibiotics, in which doctors and their families are 5.2 percentage points less in compliance than everyone else.
- Doctors could be more likely to prescribe broader-spectrum antibiotics for themselves and their families, whereas most patients receive more narrow-spectrum antibiotics.
- Many members of the general public don’t understand medical guidelines, finding them too complex to follow, and many people don’t trust their doctors.
This is a summary of the article, “A Taste of Their Own Medicine: Guideline Adherence and Access to Expertise,” published in the American Economic Review: Insights on December 13, 2022. The full article can be found on aeaweb.org.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
according to a study by economic professors from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge; Stanford (Calif.) University; and the George Gund Professor of Economics and Business Administration at Harvard University, Boston.
What to know
- Doctors’ medical knowledge may influence them and their families to often ignore medical advice while the rest of the population adheres to general medication guidelines.
- Of the 63 guidelines used in the study, doctors and their families followed the standards less than a third of the time.
- The difference in adherence to guidelines between experts and nonexperts is largest with respect to antibiotics, in which doctors and their families are 5.2 percentage points less in compliance than everyone else.
- Doctors could be more likely to prescribe broader-spectrum antibiotics for themselves and their families, whereas most patients receive more narrow-spectrum antibiotics.
- Many members of the general public don’t understand medical guidelines, finding them too complex to follow, and many people don’t trust their doctors.
This is a summary of the article, “A Taste of Their Own Medicine: Guideline Adherence and Access to Expertise,” published in the American Economic Review: Insights on December 13, 2022. The full article can be found on aeaweb.org.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Docs with one paid malpractice claim are four times more likely to have another
In this retrospective case-control study, law and public health researchers from Georgetown University, the National Opinion Research Center, the University of Colorado, and Northwestern University analyzed paid malpractice claims for all licensed U.S. physicians.
The findings suggest that a single malpractice claim may not be a random stroke of bad luck but instead holds some predictive power into the risk for future paid claims.
“A four times increase in risk is huge, particularly since we observe a similar increase in both high-risk and lower-risk specialties,” David Hyman, JD, MD, professor of health law and policy at Georgetown University, Washington, and lead researcher on the study, told this news organization. “There are surely some false positives, but there must be lots of actual negligence too, or we would not see these results.”
For the 881,876 physicians analyzed, researchers looked at malpractice claims paid during two 5-year periods: 2009-2013 and 2014-2018. Nearly 96% of physicians had no paid malpractice claims between 2009 and 2013; 3% had one, and less than 1% had multiple claims. The proportion of physicians with paid claims between 2014 and 2018 was similar.
Compared with physicians with no 2009-2013 claims, a physician with just one paid claim in that time period had a 3.7 times higher risk for a future paid claim. Physicians with two paid claims were nearly 7 times more likely to have a future paid claim, and those with three or more paid claims were more than 11 times more likely to have one.
Approximately 3% of physicians with no paid claims between 2009 and 2013 had a future paid claim, growing to 12.4% of those with one paid claim during that time.
The study’s findings may have implications for medical licensing boards and hospitals granting staff privileges.
“After some number of paid claims, there should be an official response” from these entities, such as a hands-on assessment of technical skills or assignment of a peer mentor, said Dr. Hyman, who is also coauthor of a book titled “Medical Malpractice Litigation: How It Works, Why Tort Reform Hasn’t Helped.” A graduated set of interventions, whether voluntary or mandatory, can reduce future claim risk and patient harm, Dr. Hyman added.
Interventions may include error avoidance and post-error communication training, counseling to improve bedside skills, and encouragement to move into nonclinical practice. Either way, Dr. Hyman says a nuanced intervention strategy would be a welcome shift away from the current “all or nothing approach” that too often ends in the revocation of a physician’s medical license.
Although there are strategies to proactively identify physicians with excess risk for malpractice claims and implement preventive measures – like Vanderbilt University’s Patient Advocacy Reporting System, for example – most hospitals and physician groups fail to initiate even informal interventions after a malpractice settlement or verdict, which is a missed opportunity, Dr. Hyman said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In this retrospective case-control study, law and public health researchers from Georgetown University, the National Opinion Research Center, the University of Colorado, and Northwestern University analyzed paid malpractice claims for all licensed U.S. physicians.
The findings suggest that a single malpractice claim may not be a random stroke of bad luck but instead holds some predictive power into the risk for future paid claims.
“A four times increase in risk is huge, particularly since we observe a similar increase in both high-risk and lower-risk specialties,” David Hyman, JD, MD, professor of health law and policy at Georgetown University, Washington, and lead researcher on the study, told this news organization. “There are surely some false positives, but there must be lots of actual negligence too, or we would not see these results.”
For the 881,876 physicians analyzed, researchers looked at malpractice claims paid during two 5-year periods: 2009-2013 and 2014-2018. Nearly 96% of physicians had no paid malpractice claims between 2009 and 2013; 3% had one, and less than 1% had multiple claims. The proportion of physicians with paid claims between 2014 and 2018 was similar.
Compared with physicians with no 2009-2013 claims, a physician with just one paid claim in that time period had a 3.7 times higher risk for a future paid claim. Physicians with two paid claims were nearly 7 times more likely to have a future paid claim, and those with three or more paid claims were more than 11 times more likely to have one.
Approximately 3% of physicians with no paid claims between 2009 and 2013 had a future paid claim, growing to 12.4% of those with one paid claim during that time.
The study’s findings may have implications for medical licensing boards and hospitals granting staff privileges.
“After some number of paid claims, there should be an official response” from these entities, such as a hands-on assessment of technical skills or assignment of a peer mentor, said Dr. Hyman, who is also coauthor of a book titled “Medical Malpractice Litigation: How It Works, Why Tort Reform Hasn’t Helped.” A graduated set of interventions, whether voluntary or mandatory, can reduce future claim risk and patient harm, Dr. Hyman added.
Interventions may include error avoidance and post-error communication training, counseling to improve bedside skills, and encouragement to move into nonclinical practice. Either way, Dr. Hyman says a nuanced intervention strategy would be a welcome shift away from the current “all or nothing approach” that too often ends in the revocation of a physician’s medical license.
Although there are strategies to proactively identify physicians with excess risk for malpractice claims and implement preventive measures – like Vanderbilt University’s Patient Advocacy Reporting System, for example – most hospitals and physician groups fail to initiate even informal interventions after a malpractice settlement or verdict, which is a missed opportunity, Dr. Hyman said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In this retrospective case-control study, law and public health researchers from Georgetown University, the National Opinion Research Center, the University of Colorado, and Northwestern University analyzed paid malpractice claims for all licensed U.S. physicians.
The findings suggest that a single malpractice claim may not be a random stroke of bad luck but instead holds some predictive power into the risk for future paid claims.
“A four times increase in risk is huge, particularly since we observe a similar increase in both high-risk and lower-risk specialties,” David Hyman, JD, MD, professor of health law and policy at Georgetown University, Washington, and lead researcher on the study, told this news organization. “There are surely some false positives, but there must be lots of actual negligence too, or we would not see these results.”
For the 881,876 physicians analyzed, researchers looked at malpractice claims paid during two 5-year periods: 2009-2013 and 2014-2018. Nearly 96% of physicians had no paid malpractice claims between 2009 and 2013; 3% had one, and less than 1% had multiple claims. The proportion of physicians with paid claims between 2014 and 2018 was similar.
Compared with physicians with no 2009-2013 claims, a physician with just one paid claim in that time period had a 3.7 times higher risk for a future paid claim. Physicians with two paid claims were nearly 7 times more likely to have a future paid claim, and those with three or more paid claims were more than 11 times more likely to have one.
Approximately 3% of physicians with no paid claims between 2009 and 2013 had a future paid claim, growing to 12.4% of those with one paid claim during that time.
The study’s findings may have implications for medical licensing boards and hospitals granting staff privileges.
“After some number of paid claims, there should be an official response” from these entities, such as a hands-on assessment of technical skills or assignment of a peer mentor, said Dr. Hyman, who is also coauthor of a book titled “Medical Malpractice Litigation: How It Works, Why Tort Reform Hasn’t Helped.” A graduated set of interventions, whether voluntary or mandatory, can reduce future claim risk and patient harm, Dr. Hyman added.
Interventions may include error avoidance and post-error communication training, counseling to improve bedside skills, and encouragement to move into nonclinical practice. Either way, Dr. Hyman says a nuanced intervention strategy would be a welcome shift away from the current “all or nothing approach” that too often ends in the revocation of a physician’s medical license.
Although there are strategies to proactively identify physicians with excess risk for malpractice claims and implement preventive measures – like Vanderbilt University’s Patient Advocacy Reporting System, for example – most hospitals and physician groups fail to initiate even informal interventions after a malpractice settlement or verdict, which is a missed opportunity, Dr. Hyman said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA
New ACC, AHA, SCAI interventional cardiology training guidance
The American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) have jointly issued new guidance outlining competency-based advanced training requirements for interventional cardiology trainees.
It’s the first document of its kind to define the training requirements for the full breadth of interventional cardiology for adults, including coronary interventions, peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs), and structural heart interventions (SHIs), the organizations say.
“With this groundbreaking document, the writing committee provides a roadmap for both program directors and interventional cardiology trainees to help them progress through important training milestones,” Theodore A. Bass, MD, chair of the statement writing committee, says in a news release.
“The document defines the required competencies for the full scope of interventional cardiology, providing trainees for the first time with the information to support training across all these areas,” Dr. Bass adds.
Minimum of 250 procedures
To gain the necessary experience in interventional cardiology, cardiovascular fellows are advised to complete the following:
- A 3-year general cardiovascular disease fellowship (successful completion consists of Level I competency in all aspects of cardiovascular medicine and Level II competency in diagnostic cardiac catheterization to pursue interventional cardiology training);
- A 1-year accredited interventional cardiology fellowship, the focus of which is coronary intervention with the opportunity to gain procedural experience in various aspects of PVI or SHI (Level III competency);
- An option for additional post-fellowship training based on the trainee’s career goals.
The goal of Level III training is to provide the interventional cardiology trainees with a “well-rounded, competency-based education,” including didactic instruction, clinical experience in the diagnosis and care of patients, and hands-on procedural experience, the writing group says.
Competency requirements are defined using the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education’s six “essential” competency domains: medical knowledge; patient care and procedural skills; practice-based learning and improvement; systems-based practice; interpersonal and communication skills; and professionalism.
To support attaining these competencies, the writing committee recommends a minimum of 250 interventional cardiology procedures. Of these, 200 should be coronary procedures, with the remaining 50 specialized in coronary, PVI, or SHI, which allows the fellows to customize training on the basis of their career goals.
Adjunctive procedures related to physiologic assessment and intracoronary imaging are also required (25 of each). “These minimum numbers are meant to provide trainees with exposure to a variety and spectrum of complexity of clinical case material and give supervising faculty sufficient opportunity to evaluate trainees’ competency,” the writing group says.
In addition to their procedural skills, evaluation of interventional cardiology trainee proficiency should include regular assessment of a trainee’s ability to clinically diagnose and manage patients across the broad spectrum of diseases.
Assessment of trainees should involve multiple components, including direct observation by instructors, case logs, chart reviews (including adherence to guideline recommendations, appropriate use criteria, and patient outcomes), simulation training, and assessment of leadership skills.
Trainees must also acquire experience working as part of a multidisciplinary team to provide a holistic approach to patient care. The document also highlights the importance of leadership skills, mentorship and lifelong learning beyond initial training.
The 2023 ACC/AHA/SCAI Advanced Training Statement on Interventional Cardiology (Coronary, Peripheral Vascular, and Structural Heart Interventions) was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The statement was developed in collaboration with and endorsed by the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the American Society of Echocardiography, the Heart Failure Society of America, the Heart Rhythm Society, the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the Society for Vascular Medicine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) have jointly issued new guidance outlining competency-based advanced training requirements for interventional cardiology trainees.
It’s the first document of its kind to define the training requirements for the full breadth of interventional cardiology for adults, including coronary interventions, peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs), and structural heart interventions (SHIs), the organizations say.
“With this groundbreaking document, the writing committee provides a roadmap for both program directors and interventional cardiology trainees to help them progress through important training milestones,” Theodore A. Bass, MD, chair of the statement writing committee, says in a news release.
“The document defines the required competencies for the full scope of interventional cardiology, providing trainees for the first time with the information to support training across all these areas,” Dr. Bass adds.
Minimum of 250 procedures
To gain the necessary experience in interventional cardiology, cardiovascular fellows are advised to complete the following:
- A 3-year general cardiovascular disease fellowship (successful completion consists of Level I competency in all aspects of cardiovascular medicine and Level II competency in diagnostic cardiac catheterization to pursue interventional cardiology training);
- A 1-year accredited interventional cardiology fellowship, the focus of which is coronary intervention with the opportunity to gain procedural experience in various aspects of PVI or SHI (Level III competency);
- An option for additional post-fellowship training based on the trainee’s career goals.
The goal of Level III training is to provide the interventional cardiology trainees with a “well-rounded, competency-based education,” including didactic instruction, clinical experience in the diagnosis and care of patients, and hands-on procedural experience, the writing group says.
Competency requirements are defined using the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education’s six “essential” competency domains: medical knowledge; patient care and procedural skills; practice-based learning and improvement; systems-based practice; interpersonal and communication skills; and professionalism.
To support attaining these competencies, the writing committee recommends a minimum of 250 interventional cardiology procedures. Of these, 200 should be coronary procedures, with the remaining 50 specialized in coronary, PVI, or SHI, which allows the fellows to customize training on the basis of their career goals.
Adjunctive procedures related to physiologic assessment and intracoronary imaging are also required (25 of each). “These minimum numbers are meant to provide trainees with exposure to a variety and spectrum of complexity of clinical case material and give supervising faculty sufficient opportunity to evaluate trainees’ competency,” the writing group says.
In addition to their procedural skills, evaluation of interventional cardiology trainee proficiency should include regular assessment of a trainee’s ability to clinically diagnose and manage patients across the broad spectrum of diseases.
Assessment of trainees should involve multiple components, including direct observation by instructors, case logs, chart reviews (including adherence to guideline recommendations, appropriate use criteria, and patient outcomes), simulation training, and assessment of leadership skills.
Trainees must also acquire experience working as part of a multidisciplinary team to provide a holistic approach to patient care. The document also highlights the importance of leadership skills, mentorship and lifelong learning beyond initial training.
The 2023 ACC/AHA/SCAI Advanced Training Statement on Interventional Cardiology (Coronary, Peripheral Vascular, and Structural Heart Interventions) was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The statement was developed in collaboration with and endorsed by the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the American Society of Echocardiography, the Heart Failure Society of America, the Heart Rhythm Society, the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the Society for Vascular Medicine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) have jointly issued new guidance outlining competency-based advanced training requirements for interventional cardiology trainees.
It’s the first document of its kind to define the training requirements for the full breadth of interventional cardiology for adults, including coronary interventions, peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs), and structural heart interventions (SHIs), the organizations say.
“With this groundbreaking document, the writing committee provides a roadmap for both program directors and interventional cardiology trainees to help them progress through important training milestones,” Theodore A. Bass, MD, chair of the statement writing committee, says in a news release.
“The document defines the required competencies for the full scope of interventional cardiology, providing trainees for the first time with the information to support training across all these areas,” Dr. Bass adds.
Minimum of 250 procedures
To gain the necessary experience in interventional cardiology, cardiovascular fellows are advised to complete the following:
- A 3-year general cardiovascular disease fellowship (successful completion consists of Level I competency in all aspects of cardiovascular medicine and Level II competency in diagnostic cardiac catheterization to pursue interventional cardiology training);
- A 1-year accredited interventional cardiology fellowship, the focus of which is coronary intervention with the opportunity to gain procedural experience in various aspects of PVI or SHI (Level III competency);
- An option for additional post-fellowship training based on the trainee’s career goals.
The goal of Level III training is to provide the interventional cardiology trainees with a “well-rounded, competency-based education,” including didactic instruction, clinical experience in the diagnosis and care of patients, and hands-on procedural experience, the writing group says.
Competency requirements are defined using the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education’s six “essential” competency domains: medical knowledge; patient care and procedural skills; practice-based learning and improvement; systems-based practice; interpersonal and communication skills; and professionalism.
To support attaining these competencies, the writing committee recommends a minimum of 250 interventional cardiology procedures. Of these, 200 should be coronary procedures, with the remaining 50 specialized in coronary, PVI, or SHI, which allows the fellows to customize training on the basis of their career goals.
Adjunctive procedures related to physiologic assessment and intracoronary imaging are also required (25 of each). “These minimum numbers are meant to provide trainees with exposure to a variety and spectrum of complexity of clinical case material and give supervising faculty sufficient opportunity to evaluate trainees’ competency,” the writing group says.
In addition to their procedural skills, evaluation of interventional cardiology trainee proficiency should include regular assessment of a trainee’s ability to clinically diagnose and manage patients across the broad spectrum of diseases.
Assessment of trainees should involve multiple components, including direct observation by instructors, case logs, chart reviews (including adherence to guideline recommendations, appropriate use criteria, and patient outcomes), simulation training, and assessment of leadership skills.
Trainees must also acquire experience working as part of a multidisciplinary team to provide a holistic approach to patient care. The document also highlights the importance of leadership skills, mentorship and lifelong learning beyond initial training.
The 2023 ACC/AHA/SCAI Advanced Training Statement on Interventional Cardiology (Coronary, Peripheral Vascular, and Structural Heart Interventions) was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The statement was developed in collaboration with and endorsed by the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, the American Society of Echocardiography, the Heart Failure Society of America, the Heart Rhythm Society, the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the Society for Vascular Medicine.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
How to get started with prescribing and advising on CGM
Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is gaining ground with both patients and providers because of an array of driving forces, including broadening eligibility, insulin price caps, public awareness, and an increasing number of educational initiatives for doctors.
While professional organizations aim to familiarize doctors with this relatively new technology, more patients are learning independently that finger sticks may be optional, leading them to request CGM from their provider, according to Neil Skolnik, MD.
“We in primary care are being shepherded into this space by our patients who have seen an advertisement or talked to a friend about the benefits of CGM, and then asked us to prescribe it,” said Dr. Skolnik, professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health.
Systemic factors are also accelerating CGM uptake, he added, highlighting recent Medicare rule changes to expand eligibility, with insurance companies beginning to follow suit.
Warren A. Jones, MD, FAAFP, professor emeritus at the University of Mississippi, Jackson, and past president of the AAFP, said that insulin price regulations have also opened doors to CGM.
“When you had patients trying to determine whether they were going to buy food or pay for high-priced insulin, that was a big challenge,” Dr. Jones said in an interview. “But that barrier has recently been removed, so we’re at the dawn of a new era.”
Like any paradigm shift, however,
Overview of online resources and navigating coverage
The latest learning resource on CGM for physicians comes from the American Academy of Family Physicians in the form of a new online educational hub with a 2-credit, ACCME-accredited course. It offers comprehensive guidance for employing CGM in daily practice. Topics include both medical and practical considerations, from interpretation of curves and glucose goal-setting to choosing a device and navigating coverage.
The AAFP’s new offering joins a growing number of similar educational efforts launched over the past few years by the Association of Diabetes Care & Education Specialists, the American Pharmacists Association, the American Diabetes Association, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.
Checking for coverage is a key first step when considering CGM for a particular patient, Dr. Jones said, noting that CGM, like any new form of care, presents unique challenges with coding and claims that must be overcome to get reimbursed.
“No margin, no mission,” Dr. Jones said. “If you are not able to pay your bills, you can’t be available for your patients. Our goal at the AAFP is to make sure that physicians get this knowledge [about reimbursement].”
To this end, the AAFP’s new online educational hub and the guide provided by APhA present CGM eligibility criteria for various patient groups, including those with Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, and without coverage.
Medicare criteria include a diagnosis of diabetes, treatment with three or more daily administrations of insulin or continuous infusion via a pump, frequent adjustment to insulin treatment based on glucose readings, and presentation for diabetes in the past 6 months.
Once these requirements are clearly documented in the patient’s record, providers need to write the script, complete a certificate of medical necessity, and choose a supplier. Medicare covers CGM as a durable medical equipment benefit instead of a pharmacy benefit, according to the AAFP and APhA.
Exact coverage criteria and reimbursement processes for non-Medicare patients follow similar paths, although details vary by state and insurer, so personalized investigation is required.
When exploring coverage, the AAFP recommends paying attention to information needed for prior authorization, the patient’s diabetes type and age, and other medical requirements, such as minimum number of daily finger sticks or insulin doses per day.
Looking ahead, Dr. Jones predicted that authorization obstacles stemming from short-term cost concerns are going to fade as long-term savings are uncovered.
“I think pharmacy benefit managers and payers are going to recognize that we have better patient compliance, and that continuous glucose monitoring is going to bring the cost of care down and decrease the rate of hospitalizations,” Dr. Jones said. “So I think they’re going to be willing to pay clinicians to engage in this more readily over time.”
Patients who fail to qualify for personal CGM can still benefit from professional CGM, in which they borrow necessary equipment on a short-term basis. This avenue typically requires minimal or no insurance authorization. In addition, providers have the “opportunity to cover/exceed expenses by enhancing revenue with separately billable procedures, which can be billed in addition to [evaluation and management] if done on same day,” according to the AAFP guide, which goes on to provide appropriate codes.
Learning CGM through first-hand experience
Getting started with CGM can be intimidating for providers, Dr. Skolnik said, although he offered some reassurance, suggesting that the learning process may be more forgiving than prescribing a new drug for the first time.
“I think the best way to figure out CGM is to prescribe it to a couple of patients and learn with them,” Dr. Skolnik said. “You can’t do that with medicines. With medicines, you need to know what you’re doing before you choose who to give a medicine to.”
Instead of “reading everything under the sun” about CGM, he recommends starting with several of the ADA’s resources focusing on time in range, including an article, webinar, and podcast.
After that, physicians can learn on the job. A beginner’s mindset to CGM is well received by patients, he said, especially if you share your natural curiosity with them.
“Share your patients’ wonder at what they see,” Dr. Skolnik said. “They’ll open the app and you’ll look at their time and range and together you’ll go, ‘Wow, isn’t that something? I wonder why?’ ”
With this approach, providers and patients can join forces to explore trends and troubleshoot anomalous readings.
“Together you’ll go: ‘Hmm, I wonder why on Thursday, that graph is looking so far off from the other days? Wow. And then the patient remembers: they ate out on Thursday. They had a big pasta meal, perhaps. Everyone’s different in how they respond to different carbs. And you’ll both have this epiphany together about: ‘Wow, what I do matters.’ And I think that’s actually the best way to jump in.”
According to the AAFP, ADCES, and APhA resources, providers should first address time below range, as hypoglycemia can be imminently dangerous.
Next, providers should consider time in range, average glucose, and glucose management indicator, the latter of which acts as a surrogate for HbA1c. The first couple weeks of monitoring should be viewed as an information gathering phase, after which specific targets can be addressed through behavioral modifications and insulin adjustments, the AAFP advises.
The ADA guide highlights CGM usage, glucose variability, time in range, time above range, and average glucose as key metrics to monitor and offers corresponding actions when targets are unmet.
Encouraging patients to start CGM
Like providers, patients may also be intimidated by CGM, Dr. Jones said, typically because they don’t know how it works, or it seems complicated. Fortunately, he said, these fears are easily overcome when patients learn that they don’t need to stick themselves, record any of their readings, or really do anything at all for the first few weeks.
“You don’t even worry about it,” Dr. Jones tells his patients, who typically feel “more in control and engaged in their own care” after experiencing CGM for themselves.
Dr. Jones speaks from both professional and personal experience. A member of his family recently started CGM after being discharged from the hospital, and the benefits have been significant for everyone involved.
“I see how effectively we can control [my family member’s] blood pressure and insulin requirements, as opposed to several months ago when we didn’t have it,” Dr. Jones said. “So I’m giving it to you from two perspectives: one, of the clinician who knows, intellectually, what should go on, and two, experientially, from a family trying to take care of someone they love.”
Dr. Skolnik disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Teva, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, GSK, Bayer, Genentech, Abbott, Idorsia, Merck, Novartis, Heartland, and Novo Nordisk. Dr Jones disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is gaining ground with both patients and providers because of an array of driving forces, including broadening eligibility, insulin price caps, public awareness, and an increasing number of educational initiatives for doctors.
While professional organizations aim to familiarize doctors with this relatively new technology, more patients are learning independently that finger sticks may be optional, leading them to request CGM from their provider, according to Neil Skolnik, MD.
“We in primary care are being shepherded into this space by our patients who have seen an advertisement or talked to a friend about the benefits of CGM, and then asked us to prescribe it,” said Dr. Skolnik, professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health.
Systemic factors are also accelerating CGM uptake, he added, highlighting recent Medicare rule changes to expand eligibility, with insurance companies beginning to follow suit.
Warren A. Jones, MD, FAAFP, professor emeritus at the University of Mississippi, Jackson, and past president of the AAFP, said that insulin price regulations have also opened doors to CGM.
“When you had patients trying to determine whether they were going to buy food or pay for high-priced insulin, that was a big challenge,” Dr. Jones said in an interview. “But that barrier has recently been removed, so we’re at the dawn of a new era.”
Like any paradigm shift, however,
Overview of online resources and navigating coverage
The latest learning resource on CGM for physicians comes from the American Academy of Family Physicians in the form of a new online educational hub with a 2-credit, ACCME-accredited course. It offers comprehensive guidance for employing CGM in daily practice. Topics include both medical and practical considerations, from interpretation of curves and glucose goal-setting to choosing a device and navigating coverage.
The AAFP’s new offering joins a growing number of similar educational efforts launched over the past few years by the Association of Diabetes Care & Education Specialists, the American Pharmacists Association, the American Diabetes Association, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.
Checking for coverage is a key first step when considering CGM for a particular patient, Dr. Jones said, noting that CGM, like any new form of care, presents unique challenges with coding and claims that must be overcome to get reimbursed.
“No margin, no mission,” Dr. Jones said. “If you are not able to pay your bills, you can’t be available for your patients. Our goal at the AAFP is to make sure that physicians get this knowledge [about reimbursement].”
To this end, the AAFP’s new online educational hub and the guide provided by APhA present CGM eligibility criteria for various patient groups, including those with Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, and without coverage.
Medicare criteria include a diagnosis of diabetes, treatment with three or more daily administrations of insulin or continuous infusion via a pump, frequent adjustment to insulin treatment based on glucose readings, and presentation for diabetes in the past 6 months.
Once these requirements are clearly documented in the patient’s record, providers need to write the script, complete a certificate of medical necessity, and choose a supplier. Medicare covers CGM as a durable medical equipment benefit instead of a pharmacy benefit, according to the AAFP and APhA.
Exact coverage criteria and reimbursement processes for non-Medicare patients follow similar paths, although details vary by state and insurer, so personalized investigation is required.
When exploring coverage, the AAFP recommends paying attention to information needed for prior authorization, the patient’s diabetes type and age, and other medical requirements, such as minimum number of daily finger sticks or insulin doses per day.
Looking ahead, Dr. Jones predicted that authorization obstacles stemming from short-term cost concerns are going to fade as long-term savings are uncovered.
“I think pharmacy benefit managers and payers are going to recognize that we have better patient compliance, and that continuous glucose monitoring is going to bring the cost of care down and decrease the rate of hospitalizations,” Dr. Jones said. “So I think they’re going to be willing to pay clinicians to engage in this more readily over time.”
Patients who fail to qualify for personal CGM can still benefit from professional CGM, in which they borrow necessary equipment on a short-term basis. This avenue typically requires minimal or no insurance authorization. In addition, providers have the “opportunity to cover/exceed expenses by enhancing revenue with separately billable procedures, which can be billed in addition to [evaluation and management] if done on same day,” according to the AAFP guide, which goes on to provide appropriate codes.
Learning CGM through first-hand experience
Getting started with CGM can be intimidating for providers, Dr. Skolnik said, although he offered some reassurance, suggesting that the learning process may be more forgiving than prescribing a new drug for the first time.
“I think the best way to figure out CGM is to prescribe it to a couple of patients and learn with them,” Dr. Skolnik said. “You can’t do that with medicines. With medicines, you need to know what you’re doing before you choose who to give a medicine to.”
Instead of “reading everything under the sun” about CGM, he recommends starting with several of the ADA’s resources focusing on time in range, including an article, webinar, and podcast.
After that, physicians can learn on the job. A beginner’s mindset to CGM is well received by patients, he said, especially if you share your natural curiosity with them.
“Share your patients’ wonder at what they see,” Dr. Skolnik said. “They’ll open the app and you’ll look at their time and range and together you’ll go, ‘Wow, isn’t that something? I wonder why?’ ”
With this approach, providers and patients can join forces to explore trends and troubleshoot anomalous readings.
“Together you’ll go: ‘Hmm, I wonder why on Thursday, that graph is looking so far off from the other days? Wow. And then the patient remembers: they ate out on Thursday. They had a big pasta meal, perhaps. Everyone’s different in how they respond to different carbs. And you’ll both have this epiphany together about: ‘Wow, what I do matters.’ And I think that’s actually the best way to jump in.”
According to the AAFP, ADCES, and APhA resources, providers should first address time below range, as hypoglycemia can be imminently dangerous.
Next, providers should consider time in range, average glucose, and glucose management indicator, the latter of which acts as a surrogate for HbA1c. The first couple weeks of monitoring should be viewed as an information gathering phase, after which specific targets can be addressed through behavioral modifications and insulin adjustments, the AAFP advises.
The ADA guide highlights CGM usage, glucose variability, time in range, time above range, and average glucose as key metrics to monitor and offers corresponding actions when targets are unmet.
Encouraging patients to start CGM
Like providers, patients may also be intimidated by CGM, Dr. Jones said, typically because they don’t know how it works, or it seems complicated. Fortunately, he said, these fears are easily overcome when patients learn that they don’t need to stick themselves, record any of their readings, or really do anything at all for the first few weeks.
“You don’t even worry about it,” Dr. Jones tells his patients, who typically feel “more in control and engaged in their own care” after experiencing CGM for themselves.
Dr. Jones speaks from both professional and personal experience. A member of his family recently started CGM after being discharged from the hospital, and the benefits have been significant for everyone involved.
“I see how effectively we can control [my family member’s] blood pressure and insulin requirements, as opposed to several months ago when we didn’t have it,” Dr. Jones said. “So I’m giving it to you from two perspectives: one, of the clinician who knows, intellectually, what should go on, and two, experientially, from a family trying to take care of someone they love.”
Dr. Skolnik disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Teva, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, GSK, Bayer, Genentech, Abbott, Idorsia, Merck, Novartis, Heartland, and Novo Nordisk. Dr Jones disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is gaining ground with both patients and providers because of an array of driving forces, including broadening eligibility, insulin price caps, public awareness, and an increasing number of educational initiatives for doctors.
While professional organizations aim to familiarize doctors with this relatively new technology, more patients are learning independently that finger sticks may be optional, leading them to request CGM from their provider, according to Neil Skolnik, MD.
“We in primary care are being shepherded into this space by our patients who have seen an advertisement or talked to a friend about the benefits of CGM, and then asked us to prescribe it,” said Dr. Skolnik, professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health.
Systemic factors are also accelerating CGM uptake, he added, highlighting recent Medicare rule changes to expand eligibility, with insurance companies beginning to follow suit.
Warren A. Jones, MD, FAAFP, professor emeritus at the University of Mississippi, Jackson, and past president of the AAFP, said that insulin price regulations have also opened doors to CGM.
“When you had patients trying to determine whether they were going to buy food or pay for high-priced insulin, that was a big challenge,” Dr. Jones said in an interview. “But that barrier has recently been removed, so we’re at the dawn of a new era.”
Like any paradigm shift, however,
Overview of online resources and navigating coverage
The latest learning resource on CGM for physicians comes from the American Academy of Family Physicians in the form of a new online educational hub with a 2-credit, ACCME-accredited course. It offers comprehensive guidance for employing CGM in daily practice. Topics include both medical and practical considerations, from interpretation of curves and glucose goal-setting to choosing a device and navigating coverage.
The AAFP’s new offering joins a growing number of similar educational efforts launched over the past few years by the Association of Diabetes Care & Education Specialists, the American Pharmacists Association, the American Diabetes Association, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists.
Checking for coverage is a key first step when considering CGM for a particular patient, Dr. Jones said, noting that CGM, like any new form of care, presents unique challenges with coding and claims that must be overcome to get reimbursed.
“No margin, no mission,” Dr. Jones said. “If you are not able to pay your bills, you can’t be available for your patients. Our goal at the AAFP is to make sure that physicians get this knowledge [about reimbursement].”
To this end, the AAFP’s new online educational hub and the guide provided by APhA present CGM eligibility criteria for various patient groups, including those with Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, and without coverage.
Medicare criteria include a diagnosis of diabetes, treatment with three or more daily administrations of insulin or continuous infusion via a pump, frequent adjustment to insulin treatment based on glucose readings, and presentation for diabetes in the past 6 months.
Once these requirements are clearly documented in the patient’s record, providers need to write the script, complete a certificate of medical necessity, and choose a supplier. Medicare covers CGM as a durable medical equipment benefit instead of a pharmacy benefit, according to the AAFP and APhA.
Exact coverage criteria and reimbursement processes for non-Medicare patients follow similar paths, although details vary by state and insurer, so personalized investigation is required.
When exploring coverage, the AAFP recommends paying attention to information needed for prior authorization, the patient’s diabetes type and age, and other medical requirements, such as minimum number of daily finger sticks or insulin doses per day.
Looking ahead, Dr. Jones predicted that authorization obstacles stemming from short-term cost concerns are going to fade as long-term savings are uncovered.
“I think pharmacy benefit managers and payers are going to recognize that we have better patient compliance, and that continuous glucose monitoring is going to bring the cost of care down and decrease the rate of hospitalizations,” Dr. Jones said. “So I think they’re going to be willing to pay clinicians to engage in this more readily over time.”
Patients who fail to qualify for personal CGM can still benefit from professional CGM, in which they borrow necessary equipment on a short-term basis. This avenue typically requires minimal or no insurance authorization. In addition, providers have the “opportunity to cover/exceed expenses by enhancing revenue with separately billable procedures, which can be billed in addition to [evaluation and management] if done on same day,” according to the AAFP guide, which goes on to provide appropriate codes.
Learning CGM through first-hand experience
Getting started with CGM can be intimidating for providers, Dr. Skolnik said, although he offered some reassurance, suggesting that the learning process may be more forgiving than prescribing a new drug for the first time.
“I think the best way to figure out CGM is to prescribe it to a couple of patients and learn with them,” Dr. Skolnik said. “You can’t do that with medicines. With medicines, you need to know what you’re doing before you choose who to give a medicine to.”
Instead of “reading everything under the sun” about CGM, he recommends starting with several of the ADA’s resources focusing on time in range, including an article, webinar, and podcast.
After that, physicians can learn on the job. A beginner’s mindset to CGM is well received by patients, he said, especially if you share your natural curiosity with them.
“Share your patients’ wonder at what they see,” Dr. Skolnik said. “They’ll open the app and you’ll look at their time and range and together you’ll go, ‘Wow, isn’t that something? I wonder why?’ ”
With this approach, providers and patients can join forces to explore trends and troubleshoot anomalous readings.
“Together you’ll go: ‘Hmm, I wonder why on Thursday, that graph is looking so far off from the other days? Wow. And then the patient remembers: they ate out on Thursday. They had a big pasta meal, perhaps. Everyone’s different in how they respond to different carbs. And you’ll both have this epiphany together about: ‘Wow, what I do matters.’ And I think that’s actually the best way to jump in.”
According to the AAFP, ADCES, and APhA resources, providers should first address time below range, as hypoglycemia can be imminently dangerous.
Next, providers should consider time in range, average glucose, and glucose management indicator, the latter of which acts as a surrogate for HbA1c. The first couple weeks of monitoring should be viewed as an information gathering phase, after which specific targets can be addressed through behavioral modifications and insulin adjustments, the AAFP advises.
The ADA guide highlights CGM usage, glucose variability, time in range, time above range, and average glucose as key metrics to monitor and offers corresponding actions when targets are unmet.
Encouraging patients to start CGM
Like providers, patients may also be intimidated by CGM, Dr. Jones said, typically because they don’t know how it works, or it seems complicated. Fortunately, he said, these fears are easily overcome when patients learn that they don’t need to stick themselves, record any of their readings, or really do anything at all for the first few weeks.
“You don’t even worry about it,” Dr. Jones tells his patients, who typically feel “more in control and engaged in their own care” after experiencing CGM for themselves.
Dr. Jones speaks from both professional and personal experience. A member of his family recently started CGM after being discharged from the hospital, and the benefits have been significant for everyone involved.
“I see how effectively we can control [my family member’s] blood pressure and insulin requirements, as opposed to several months ago when we didn’t have it,” Dr. Jones said. “So I’m giving it to you from two perspectives: one, of the clinician who knows, intellectually, what should go on, and two, experientially, from a family trying to take care of someone they love.”
Dr. Skolnik disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Teva, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, GSK, Bayer, Genentech, Abbott, Idorsia, Merck, Novartis, Heartland, and Novo Nordisk. Dr Jones disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
Steak dinners, sales reps, and risky procedures: Inside the big business of clogged arteries
On June 14, 2017, just before noon, a doctor made an incision near a patient’s groin. Kari Kirk, a representative for the world’s largest medical device company, Medtronic, looked on and began texting her colleague a play-by-play.
“Fixing both legs from the ankles,” she wrote.
It was a fairly common procedure at the Robert J. Dole Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Wichita, Kansas, performed to treat blockages in the leg vessels.
Within reach were an array of Medtronic products: tubes with blades attached to shave hardened deposits off of artery walls; stents to widen blood vessels; balloons coated with therapeutic drugs.
Each time a doctor puts a foreign device in someone’s body, it carries a risk of complication, which can include clots or even require amputation. So medical experts, research and even Medtronic’s own device instructions urge doctors to use as few as are necessary.
“Just used 12 [drug-coated balloons]!!” Kirk texted her colleague.
“Does that mean I owe u $$,” he responded.
“Thats what I’m thinking!!!” she said. “And now 14 balloons?!”
“but only one stent so far??”
“So far!”
As the texting continued, her colleague replied, “U are going to want to start going to the VA all the time.”
The messages, recently unsealed in an ongoing whistleblower lawsuit, give a window into the way money and medicine mingle in the booming business of peripheral artery disease, a condition that afflicts 6.5 million Americans over age 40 and is caused when fatty plaque builds up in arteries, blocking blood flow to the legs.
Representatives from companies are often present during vascular procedures to guide doctors on how to use their complex devices. This kind of access has the potential to influence treatment plans, as companies and their representatives profit when more of their product is used.
The suit, filed in 2017 by a sales representative for a competing medical device firm, alleges an illegal kickback scheme between Medtronic and hospital employees. According to the complaint and documents released in the suit, between 2011 and 2018, VA health care workers received steakhouse dinners, Apple electronics, and NASCAR tickets, and in turn, Medtronic secured a lucrative contract with the hospital. Meanwhile, the company’s representatives allegedly “groomed and trained” physicians at the facility, who then deployed the company’s devices even when it was not medically indicated.
Independently from the whistleblower suit, internal investigators at the Wichita facility have also examined the treatment patterns of its vascular patients in recent years and found numerous cases where medical devices were used excessively. While it’s not uncommon to deploy several devices, a medical expert on the investigation team found that the VA doctors sometimes used more than 15 at a time – one used 33 – deviating from the standard of care.
“It is unconscionable – there can be no valid medically acceptable basis to cram so many devices into a human being,” wrote attorneys representing the whistleblower in legal filings from January 2023. “This is not medical treatment. This is abuse.”
Dr. Kim Hodgson, former president of the Society for Vascular Surgery and an expert retained by the plaintiff, said the findings of the internal review of patient data raise “a high level of concern regarding necessity of treatment provided,” according to case documents.
Medtronic declined to respond to ProPublica’s questions, citing the ongoing litigation. “These allegations are false and Medtronic is defending against these claims in court,” said Boua Xiong, a spokesperson for the company. Medtronic representative Kirk declined to respond to ProPublica’s request for comment.
The hospital investigation found that amputations increased sixfold in the same time frame as the procedures in question, according to internal emails, but made no conclusion about whether those two things were connected. ProPublica reached out to the VA to ask whether any patients had been harmed.
The VA is “conducting an extensive review of patient care” at the Kansas hospital, “including the number of devices used on patients – to make sure that Veterans were not harmed by any procedures,” press secretary Terrence Hayes said in a statement. So far, the VA’s investigation has found no “quality of care issues,” he said, and the investigation will continue “until every Veteran’s case has been reviewed.” (Read the full statement here.) Neither the department nor the hospital has taken formal action against the medical providers, Hayes said.
The medical group that had a contract with the VA for vascular interventions, Wichita Radiological Group, did not respond to ProPublica’s requests for comment, nor did the doctors named in the suit: Dr. Shaun Gonda, Dr. Bret Winblad, and Dr. Kermit Rust. It is unclear from the case documents which doctors conducted which procedures. Eric Barth, an attorney for the medical group, denied the allegations in recent legal filings, calling the claims “baseless” and the lawsuit a “witch hunt.”
The lawsuit comes amid growing concern about one of these procedures – atherectomies – after researchers and doctors have uncovered patterns of excessive and inappropriate use. Recent research has found that this procedure, a common but costly treatment to shave or laser plaque from blood vessels, is not more effective than cheaper alternatives and may even be associated with a higher risk of complications including amputation. In recent years, several doctors and clinics have been investigated for allegedly taking advantage of Medicare’s reimbursement rates, and one study found that many doctors are resorting to atherectomies in the earliest stages of peripheral artery disease, against best practices that urge noninvasive treatment.
“Atherectomy is important in certain settings. But it’s being used in a way that is entirely inappropriate and it’s largely driven by the incentive structure,” said Dr. Caitlin Hicks, the lead author of the study and an associate professor of surgery at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
Although different payment structures govern the care of veterans, the whistleblower lawsuit alleges that outside physicians, paid hourly by the Dole VA, were motivated to conduct longer and more complex procedures that would earn them higher payment.
Under different circumstances, the patient in the procedure room on that summer day could have been done after 2 hours.
But, 150 minutes in, those Medtronic representatives were still texting. At that point, more than 15 of their vascular devices had been used, including stents, balloons, and those for atherectomy.
“Long case!” Kirk’s colleague texted. “Is it looking ok??”
“It is,” she said. “Thought we were done a few times! Now he’s going back in to cut again!”
A little while later, she texted: “....17!”
He texted back [with laughing emoticons].
Hospital leaders had been scrutinizing the use of these procedures at the Dole VA for years.
In 2017, shortly after Rick Ament was hired to lead the facility, he noticed something was amiss. While the longtime hospital administrator was poring over the finances, he was alarmed to discover that the relatively small Dole VA had one of the most expensive cardiac programs in the country. As Ament dug deeper, he realized vascular interventions were the reason.
“It just did not make sense that the acuity level of our patients would generate such extreme cost variances from the norm,” he testified in December, in a deposition for the whistleblower case. “It was so significant, we needed to get to the bottom of it.”
Ament, a second generation Air Force veteran, quietly assembled a task force to investigate why the facility had purchased so many medical devices for these procedures. After they examined inventory records, calculating the total number of medical devices and the cost of devices per patient, they grew concerned.
“We were more expensive than, I believe it was, the top 10 hospitals in the VA combined,” he said. “My feeling was that we either had very, very bad providers or we had product walking out the door.”
Ament enlisted experts from other VA hospitals to help his team investigate, including an administrative officer who could understand finances and a respected interventional radiologist who could examine records. The task force gathered a list of patients from 2016 to 2018, according to internal emails, and analyzed their medical charts.
According to internal VA documents released through the whistleblower suit, the review found a number of clinical failings: Evidence-based medicine had not been followed in the majority of cases reviewed. Procedures were over-aggressive, treating lesions that should have been left alone. And there was a total disregard for established best practices for treating peripheral artery disease.
One of the experts on the investigative team explained to Ament that while it was not uncommon for doctors to use a couple of devices in one intervention, the total number of devices in many of the procedures at his facility went into the double digits, sometimes five times the expected amount.
In one encounter, a doctor deployed 33 devices in one procedure – 3 atherectomy devices, 9 stents, and 21 balloons.
This use of devices was exorbitant, Ament came to understand. “I want to say the term ‘egregious’ was used,” he testified. “It was kind of like validation, but I really wish I was wrong.”
“Did it make you concerned for patient care?” a lawyer asked during the deposition.
“It did,” Ament replied.
A member of his task force pulled data for veterans who had leg amputations due to vascular disease. Over 5 years, the number of veterans who had amputations increased, from about 6 in 2013 to 38 in 2018, according to internal emails released in the suit. The VA did not respond to ProPublica’s questions about the rise in amputations or whether it was due to complications from the procedures.
Even though Ament testified in December 2022 that he became aware of the excessive use of devices during his investigation that began about 5 years ago, neither he nor the VA have publicly acknowledged these findings outside of the lawsuit. It is unclear whether VA representatives informed the patients whose records were reviewed about their findings. ProPublica reached out to more than half a dozen veteran community groups in the Wichita area and none were aware of the investigation nor the allegations of overuse of vascular procedures at the facility.
The VA says that if its ongoing review finds instances of substandard care, it will reach out to affected patients and inform them about possible complications and benefits they may be entitled to. The press secretary said the review will take several months. Ament declined to respond to ProPublica’s questions, citing the ongoing case.
In 2018, Ament turned over his findings to the criminal division of the VA’s Office of Inspector General. He also shut down interventional radiology procedures at the facility’s catheter lab.
Federal agents separately opened an investigation into the same unit in the facility, looking into allegations of kickbacks.
More than 40 pages of expense reports from Medtronic, revealed in the whistleblower case, show sales representatives treating Dole health care workers to hundreds of meals over several years – lunches at Dempsey’s Biscuit Co.; business meals at the Scotch & Sirloin steakhouse; dinner at Chester’s Chophouse & Wine Bar, price per attendee: $122.39.
Federal agents obtained the receipts.
“Robert J. Dole VAMC employees may have received improper gratuities, in the forms of paid lunches, dinners, etc., from sales representatives from Medtronic,” Nathen Howard, a special agent in the VA OIG, wrote in an investigation memo from February 2019.
This kind of relationship could violate VA policy, which forbids federal employees from receiving any gifts, including meals, from people who do business or seek to do business with a federal institution. For health care workers, violating this policy could have serious implications for patients. Numerous studies have shown that even modest industry-sponsored gifts, including meals, may influence prescribing or treatment behavior of health care professionals.
The agents opened their investigation into kickbacks at the Wichita facility in response to the whistleblower lawsuit, which was filed by Thomas Schroeder in 2017. The VA OIG would not confirm or deny whether it was continuing to investigate kickbacks at the facility. The VA did not directly answer ProPublica’s questions about kickbacks at the Dole VA, but it said that every employee must complete an annual ethics training, which covers gift rules.
In recent years, Medtronic has settled a handful of other cases that have alleged kickbacks between company representatives and health care professionals.
In 2018, Medtronic’s subsidiary Covidien paid $13 million to settle claims with the U.S. Department of Justice that it paid kickbacks to health care institutions that used its mechanical blood clot devices. In 2019, the same subsidiary paid $17 million to resolve allegations that it provided in-kind marketing support to doctors using its vein products. And in 2020, Medtronic paid more than $8 million to settle claims that representatives had paid kickbacks to a neurosurgeon, including scores of lavish meals at a restaurant that the doctor owned, to induce him to purchase the company’s medication pumps.
Schroeder’s lawsuit is not the first time Medtronic’s vascular devices were named in an alleged kickback scheme. In early 2015, Medtronic acquired Covidien, and shortly after the merger, its subsidiary ev3 Inc. agreed to pay $1.25 million to resolve allegations that it had paid doctors who were “high volume users” of its atherectomy devices to act as evangelists for the company, and had provided physicians with company shares to participate in clinical trials for their tools.
The whistleblower in this earlier case, a former sales representative for the company, also alleged that the subsidiary was gaming Medicare’s payment system. Hospitals were often hesitant to conduct atherectomy procedures because of the low reimbursement rates. According to the suit, sales representatives encouraged doctors to admit patients for longer stays to reap greater reimbursements and make a profit, even though such stays were often not medically indicated.
“Medical device makers that try to boost their profits by causing patients to be admitted for unnecessary and expensive inpatient hospital stays will be held accountable,” special agent Thomas O’Donnell, from the Office of Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, said in a press release for the settlement. “Both patients and taxpayers deserve to have medical decisions made based on what is medically appropriate.”
Medtronic spokesperson Xiong said that in each case, the company “cooperated fully with the DOJ to resolve its concerns and, where wrongdoing was found, took appropriate remedial action.”
Seton Hall Law School professor Jacob Elberg, a former assistant U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey who led its health care and government fraud unit, is concerned by the frequency of such settlements in the last 2 decades. “There are, at this point, real questions as to whether the sanctions imposed by DOJ are sufficient to deter wrongdoing and to lead to meaningful change, especially within the medical device industry.”
Although the Department of Justice has declined to intervene in the lawsuit involving the Dole VA at this time, the case is ongoing and further depositions with Medtronic sales representatives and a former VA employee are scheduled for this month.
VA employees and doctors named in the suit declined to comment or did not respond to ProPublica’s questions about the alleged kickbacks and whether sales representatives may have influenced veterans’ treatment plans. In interviews with federal investigators, according to released transcripts, several of the employees who were questioned denied receiving frequent meals from sales representatives, contradicting Medtronic’s expense reports.
Their statements also stand in contrast to Medtronic representative Kari Kirk’s final text messages during that procedure in June 2017, which ultimately lasted more than 3 hours.
“Now u done??” her colleague asked.
“Just finished,” she texted. “Running to get them lunch!”
This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive their biggest stories as soon as they’re published.
On June 14, 2017, just before noon, a doctor made an incision near a patient’s groin. Kari Kirk, a representative for the world’s largest medical device company, Medtronic, looked on and began texting her colleague a play-by-play.
“Fixing both legs from the ankles,” she wrote.
It was a fairly common procedure at the Robert J. Dole Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Wichita, Kansas, performed to treat blockages in the leg vessels.
Within reach were an array of Medtronic products: tubes with blades attached to shave hardened deposits off of artery walls; stents to widen blood vessels; balloons coated with therapeutic drugs.
Each time a doctor puts a foreign device in someone’s body, it carries a risk of complication, which can include clots or even require amputation. So medical experts, research and even Medtronic’s own device instructions urge doctors to use as few as are necessary.
“Just used 12 [drug-coated balloons]!!” Kirk texted her colleague.
“Does that mean I owe u $$,” he responded.
“Thats what I’m thinking!!!” she said. “And now 14 balloons?!”
“but only one stent so far??”
“So far!”
As the texting continued, her colleague replied, “U are going to want to start going to the VA all the time.”
The messages, recently unsealed in an ongoing whistleblower lawsuit, give a window into the way money and medicine mingle in the booming business of peripheral artery disease, a condition that afflicts 6.5 million Americans over age 40 and is caused when fatty plaque builds up in arteries, blocking blood flow to the legs.
Representatives from companies are often present during vascular procedures to guide doctors on how to use their complex devices. This kind of access has the potential to influence treatment plans, as companies and their representatives profit when more of their product is used.
The suit, filed in 2017 by a sales representative for a competing medical device firm, alleges an illegal kickback scheme between Medtronic and hospital employees. According to the complaint and documents released in the suit, between 2011 and 2018, VA health care workers received steakhouse dinners, Apple electronics, and NASCAR tickets, and in turn, Medtronic secured a lucrative contract with the hospital. Meanwhile, the company’s representatives allegedly “groomed and trained” physicians at the facility, who then deployed the company’s devices even when it was not medically indicated.
Independently from the whistleblower suit, internal investigators at the Wichita facility have also examined the treatment patterns of its vascular patients in recent years and found numerous cases where medical devices were used excessively. While it’s not uncommon to deploy several devices, a medical expert on the investigation team found that the VA doctors sometimes used more than 15 at a time – one used 33 – deviating from the standard of care.
“It is unconscionable – there can be no valid medically acceptable basis to cram so many devices into a human being,” wrote attorneys representing the whistleblower in legal filings from January 2023. “This is not medical treatment. This is abuse.”
Dr. Kim Hodgson, former president of the Society for Vascular Surgery and an expert retained by the plaintiff, said the findings of the internal review of patient data raise “a high level of concern regarding necessity of treatment provided,” according to case documents.
Medtronic declined to respond to ProPublica’s questions, citing the ongoing litigation. “These allegations are false and Medtronic is defending against these claims in court,” said Boua Xiong, a spokesperson for the company. Medtronic representative Kirk declined to respond to ProPublica’s request for comment.
The hospital investigation found that amputations increased sixfold in the same time frame as the procedures in question, according to internal emails, but made no conclusion about whether those two things were connected. ProPublica reached out to the VA to ask whether any patients had been harmed.
The VA is “conducting an extensive review of patient care” at the Kansas hospital, “including the number of devices used on patients – to make sure that Veterans were not harmed by any procedures,” press secretary Terrence Hayes said in a statement. So far, the VA’s investigation has found no “quality of care issues,” he said, and the investigation will continue “until every Veteran’s case has been reviewed.” (Read the full statement here.) Neither the department nor the hospital has taken formal action against the medical providers, Hayes said.
The medical group that had a contract with the VA for vascular interventions, Wichita Radiological Group, did not respond to ProPublica’s requests for comment, nor did the doctors named in the suit: Dr. Shaun Gonda, Dr. Bret Winblad, and Dr. Kermit Rust. It is unclear from the case documents which doctors conducted which procedures. Eric Barth, an attorney for the medical group, denied the allegations in recent legal filings, calling the claims “baseless” and the lawsuit a “witch hunt.”
The lawsuit comes amid growing concern about one of these procedures – atherectomies – after researchers and doctors have uncovered patterns of excessive and inappropriate use. Recent research has found that this procedure, a common but costly treatment to shave or laser plaque from blood vessels, is not more effective than cheaper alternatives and may even be associated with a higher risk of complications including amputation. In recent years, several doctors and clinics have been investigated for allegedly taking advantage of Medicare’s reimbursement rates, and one study found that many doctors are resorting to atherectomies in the earliest stages of peripheral artery disease, against best practices that urge noninvasive treatment.
“Atherectomy is important in certain settings. But it’s being used in a way that is entirely inappropriate and it’s largely driven by the incentive structure,” said Dr. Caitlin Hicks, the lead author of the study and an associate professor of surgery at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
Although different payment structures govern the care of veterans, the whistleblower lawsuit alleges that outside physicians, paid hourly by the Dole VA, were motivated to conduct longer and more complex procedures that would earn them higher payment.
Under different circumstances, the patient in the procedure room on that summer day could have been done after 2 hours.
But, 150 minutes in, those Medtronic representatives were still texting. At that point, more than 15 of their vascular devices had been used, including stents, balloons, and those for atherectomy.
“Long case!” Kirk’s colleague texted. “Is it looking ok??”
“It is,” she said. “Thought we were done a few times! Now he’s going back in to cut again!”
A little while later, she texted: “....17!”
He texted back [with laughing emoticons].
Hospital leaders had been scrutinizing the use of these procedures at the Dole VA for years.
In 2017, shortly after Rick Ament was hired to lead the facility, he noticed something was amiss. While the longtime hospital administrator was poring over the finances, he was alarmed to discover that the relatively small Dole VA had one of the most expensive cardiac programs in the country. As Ament dug deeper, he realized vascular interventions were the reason.
“It just did not make sense that the acuity level of our patients would generate such extreme cost variances from the norm,” he testified in December, in a deposition for the whistleblower case. “It was so significant, we needed to get to the bottom of it.”
Ament, a second generation Air Force veteran, quietly assembled a task force to investigate why the facility had purchased so many medical devices for these procedures. After they examined inventory records, calculating the total number of medical devices and the cost of devices per patient, they grew concerned.
“We were more expensive than, I believe it was, the top 10 hospitals in the VA combined,” he said. “My feeling was that we either had very, very bad providers or we had product walking out the door.”
Ament enlisted experts from other VA hospitals to help his team investigate, including an administrative officer who could understand finances and a respected interventional radiologist who could examine records. The task force gathered a list of patients from 2016 to 2018, according to internal emails, and analyzed their medical charts.
According to internal VA documents released through the whistleblower suit, the review found a number of clinical failings: Evidence-based medicine had not been followed in the majority of cases reviewed. Procedures were over-aggressive, treating lesions that should have been left alone. And there was a total disregard for established best practices for treating peripheral artery disease.
One of the experts on the investigative team explained to Ament that while it was not uncommon for doctors to use a couple of devices in one intervention, the total number of devices in many of the procedures at his facility went into the double digits, sometimes five times the expected amount.
In one encounter, a doctor deployed 33 devices in one procedure – 3 atherectomy devices, 9 stents, and 21 balloons.
This use of devices was exorbitant, Ament came to understand. “I want to say the term ‘egregious’ was used,” he testified. “It was kind of like validation, but I really wish I was wrong.”
“Did it make you concerned for patient care?” a lawyer asked during the deposition.
“It did,” Ament replied.
A member of his task force pulled data for veterans who had leg amputations due to vascular disease. Over 5 years, the number of veterans who had amputations increased, from about 6 in 2013 to 38 in 2018, according to internal emails released in the suit. The VA did not respond to ProPublica’s questions about the rise in amputations or whether it was due to complications from the procedures.
Even though Ament testified in December 2022 that he became aware of the excessive use of devices during his investigation that began about 5 years ago, neither he nor the VA have publicly acknowledged these findings outside of the lawsuit. It is unclear whether VA representatives informed the patients whose records were reviewed about their findings. ProPublica reached out to more than half a dozen veteran community groups in the Wichita area and none were aware of the investigation nor the allegations of overuse of vascular procedures at the facility.
The VA says that if its ongoing review finds instances of substandard care, it will reach out to affected patients and inform them about possible complications and benefits they may be entitled to. The press secretary said the review will take several months. Ament declined to respond to ProPublica’s questions, citing the ongoing case.
In 2018, Ament turned over his findings to the criminal division of the VA’s Office of Inspector General. He also shut down interventional radiology procedures at the facility’s catheter lab.
Federal agents separately opened an investigation into the same unit in the facility, looking into allegations of kickbacks.
More than 40 pages of expense reports from Medtronic, revealed in the whistleblower case, show sales representatives treating Dole health care workers to hundreds of meals over several years – lunches at Dempsey’s Biscuit Co.; business meals at the Scotch & Sirloin steakhouse; dinner at Chester’s Chophouse & Wine Bar, price per attendee: $122.39.
Federal agents obtained the receipts.
“Robert J. Dole VAMC employees may have received improper gratuities, in the forms of paid lunches, dinners, etc., from sales representatives from Medtronic,” Nathen Howard, a special agent in the VA OIG, wrote in an investigation memo from February 2019.
This kind of relationship could violate VA policy, which forbids federal employees from receiving any gifts, including meals, from people who do business or seek to do business with a federal institution. For health care workers, violating this policy could have serious implications for patients. Numerous studies have shown that even modest industry-sponsored gifts, including meals, may influence prescribing or treatment behavior of health care professionals.
The agents opened their investigation into kickbacks at the Wichita facility in response to the whistleblower lawsuit, which was filed by Thomas Schroeder in 2017. The VA OIG would not confirm or deny whether it was continuing to investigate kickbacks at the facility. The VA did not directly answer ProPublica’s questions about kickbacks at the Dole VA, but it said that every employee must complete an annual ethics training, which covers gift rules.
In recent years, Medtronic has settled a handful of other cases that have alleged kickbacks between company representatives and health care professionals.
In 2018, Medtronic’s subsidiary Covidien paid $13 million to settle claims with the U.S. Department of Justice that it paid kickbacks to health care institutions that used its mechanical blood clot devices. In 2019, the same subsidiary paid $17 million to resolve allegations that it provided in-kind marketing support to doctors using its vein products. And in 2020, Medtronic paid more than $8 million to settle claims that representatives had paid kickbacks to a neurosurgeon, including scores of lavish meals at a restaurant that the doctor owned, to induce him to purchase the company’s medication pumps.
Schroeder’s lawsuit is not the first time Medtronic’s vascular devices were named in an alleged kickback scheme. In early 2015, Medtronic acquired Covidien, and shortly after the merger, its subsidiary ev3 Inc. agreed to pay $1.25 million to resolve allegations that it had paid doctors who were “high volume users” of its atherectomy devices to act as evangelists for the company, and had provided physicians with company shares to participate in clinical trials for their tools.
The whistleblower in this earlier case, a former sales representative for the company, also alleged that the subsidiary was gaming Medicare’s payment system. Hospitals were often hesitant to conduct atherectomy procedures because of the low reimbursement rates. According to the suit, sales representatives encouraged doctors to admit patients for longer stays to reap greater reimbursements and make a profit, even though such stays were often not medically indicated.
“Medical device makers that try to boost their profits by causing patients to be admitted for unnecessary and expensive inpatient hospital stays will be held accountable,” special agent Thomas O’Donnell, from the Office of Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, said in a press release for the settlement. “Both patients and taxpayers deserve to have medical decisions made based on what is medically appropriate.”
Medtronic spokesperson Xiong said that in each case, the company “cooperated fully with the DOJ to resolve its concerns and, where wrongdoing was found, took appropriate remedial action.”
Seton Hall Law School professor Jacob Elberg, a former assistant U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey who led its health care and government fraud unit, is concerned by the frequency of such settlements in the last 2 decades. “There are, at this point, real questions as to whether the sanctions imposed by DOJ are sufficient to deter wrongdoing and to lead to meaningful change, especially within the medical device industry.”
Although the Department of Justice has declined to intervene in the lawsuit involving the Dole VA at this time, the case is ongoing and further depositions with Medtronic sales representatives and a former VA employee are scheduled for this month.
VA employees and doctors named in the suit declined to comment or did not respond to ProPublica’s questions about the alleged kickbacks and whether sales representatives may have influenced veterans’ treatment plans. In interviews with federal investigators, according to released transcripts, several of the employees who were questioned denied receiving frequent meals from sales representatives, contradicting Medtronic’s expense reports.
Their statements also stand in contrast to Medtronic representative Kari Kirk’s final text messages during that procedure in June 2017, which ultimately lasted more than 3 hours.
“Now u done??” her colleague asked.
“Just finished,” she texted. “Running to get them lunch!”
This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive their biggest stories as soon as they’re published.
On June 14, 2017, just before noon, a doctor made an incision near a patient’s groin. Kari Kirk, a representative for the world’s largest medical device company, Medtronic, looked on and began texting her colleague a play-by-play.
“Fixing both legs from the ankles,” she wrote.
It was a fairly common procedure at the Robert J. Dole Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Wichita, Kansas, performed to treat blockages in the leg vessels.
Within reach were an array of Medtronic products: tubes with blades attached to shave hardened deposits off of artery walls; stents to widen blood vessels; balloons coated with therapeutic drugs.
Each time a doctor puts a foreign device in someone’s body, it carries a risk of complication, which can include clots or even require amputation. So medical experts, research and even Medtronic’s own device instructions urge doctors to use as few as are necessary.
“Just used 12 [drug-coated balloons]!!” Kirk texted her colleague.
“Does that mean I owe u $$,” he responded.
“Thats what I’m thinking!!!” she said. “And now 14 balloons?!”
“but only one stent so far??”
“So far!”
As the texting continued, her colleague replied, “U are going to want to start going to the VA all the time.”
The messages, recently unsealed in an ongoing whistleblower lawsuit, give a window into the way money and medicine mingle in the booming business of peripheral artery disease, a condition that afflicts 6.5 million Americans over age 40 and is caused when fatty plaque builds up in arteries, blocking blood flow to the legs.
Representatives from companies are often present during vascular procedures to guide doctors on how to use their complex devices. This kind of access has the potential to influence treatment plans, as companies and their representatives profit when more of their product is used.
The suit, filed in 2017 by a sales representative for a competing medical device firm, alleges an illegal kickback scheme between Medtronic and hospital employees. According to the complaint and documents released in the suit, between 2011 and 2018, VA health care workers received steakhouse dinners, Apple electronics, and NASCAR tickets, and in turn, Medtronic secured a lucrative contract with the hospital. Meanwhile, the company’s representatives allegedly “groomed and trained” physicians at the facility, who then deployed the company’s devices even when it was not medically indicated.
Independently from the whistleblower suit, internal investigators at the Wichita facility have also examined the treatment patterns of its vascular patients in recent years and found numerous cases where medical devices were used excessively. While it’s not uncommon to deploy several devices, a medical expert on the investigation team found that the VA doctors sometimes used more than 15 at a time – one used 33 – deviating from the standard of care.
“It is unconscionable – there can be no valid medically acceptable basis to cram so many devices into a human being,” wrote attorneys representing the whistleblower in legal filings from January 2023. “This is not medical treatment. This is abuse.”
Dr. Kim Hodgson, former president of the Society for Vascular Surgery and an expert retained by the plaintiff, said the findings of the internal review of patient data raise “a high level of concern regarding necessity of treatment provided,” according to case documents.
Medtronic declined to respond to ProPublica’s questions, citing the ongoing litigation. “These allegations are false and Medtronic is defending against these claims in court,” said Boua Xiong, a spokesperson for the company. Medtronic representative Kirk declined to respond to ProPublica’s request for comment.
The hospital investigation found that amputations increased sixfold in the same time frame as the procedures in question, according to internal emails, but made no conclusion about whether those two things were connected. ProPublica reached out to the VA to ask whether any patients had been harmed.
The VA is “conducting an extensive review of patient care” at the Kansas hospital, “including the number of devices used on patients – to make sure that Veterans were not harmed by any procedures,” press secretary Terrence Hayes said in a statement. So far, the VA’s investigation has found no “quality of care issues,” he said, and the investigation will continue “until every Veteran’s case has been reviewed.” (Read the full statement here.) Neither the department nor the hospital has taken formal action against the medical providers, Hayes said.
The medical group that had a contract with the VA for vascular interventions, Wichita Radiological Group, did not respond to ProPublica’s requests for comment, nor did the doctors named in the suit: Dr. Shaun Gonda, Dr. Bret Winblad, and Dr. Kermit Rust. It is unclear from the case documents which doctors conducted which procedures. Eric Barth, an attorney for the medical group, denied the allegations in recent legal filings, calling the claims “baseless” and the lawsuit a “witch hunt.”
The lawsuit comes amid growing concern about one of these procedures – atherectomies – after researchers and doctors have uncovered patterns of excessive and inappropriate use. Recent research has found that this procedure, a common but costly treatment to shave or laser plaque from blood vessels, is not more effective than cheaper alternatives and may even be associated with a higher risk of complications including amputation. In recent years, several doctors and clinics have been investigated for allegedly taking advantage of Medicare’s reimbursement rates, and one study found that many doctors are resorting to atherectomies in the earliest stages of peripheral artery disease, against best practices that urge noninvasive treatment.
“Atherectomy is important in certain settings. But it’s being used in a way that is entirely inappropriate and it’s largely driven by the incentive structure,” said Dr. Caitlin Hicks, the lead author of the study and an associate professor of surgery at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
Although different payment structures govern the care of veterans, the whistleblower lawsuit alleges that outside physicians, paid hourly by the Dole VA, were motivated to conduct longer and more complex procedures that would earn them higher payment.
Under different circumstances, the patient in the procedure room on that summer day could have been done after 2 hours.
But, 150 minutes in, those Medtronic representatives were still texting. At that point, more than 15 of their vascular devices had been used, including stents, balloons, and those for atherectomy.
“Long case!” Kirk’s colleague texted. “Is it looking ok??”
“It is,” she said. “Thought we were done a few times! Now he’s going back in to cut again!”
A little while later, she texted: “....17!”
He texted back [with laughing emoticons].
Hospital leaders had been scrutinizing the use of these procedures at the Dole VA for years.
In 2017, shortly after Rick Ament was hired to lead the facility, he noticed something was amiss. While the longtime hospital administrator was poring over the finances, he was alarmed to discover that the relatively small Dole VA had one of the most expensive cardiac programs in the country. As Ament dug deeper, he realized vascular interventions were the reason.
“It just did not make sense that the acuity level of our patients would generate such extreme cost variances from the norm,” he testified in December, in a deposition for the whistleblower case. “It was so significant, we needed to get to the bottom of it.”
Ament, a second generation Air Force veteran, quietly assembled a task force to investigate why the facility had purchased so many medical devices for these procedures. After they examined inventory records, calculating the total number of medical devices and the cost of devices per patient, they grew concerned.
“We were more expensive than, I believe it was, the top 10 hospitals in the VA combined,” he said. “My feeling was that we either had very, very bad providers or we had product walking out the door.”
Ament enlisted experts from other VA hospitals to help his team investigate, including an administrative officer who could understand finances and a respected interventional radiologist who could examine records. The task force gathered a list of patients from 2016 to 2018, according to internal emails, and analyzed their medical charts.
According to internal VA documents released through the whistleblower suit, the review found a number of clinical failings: Evidence-based medicine had not been followed in the majority of cases reviewed. Procedures were over-aggressive, treating lesions that should have been left alone. And there was a total disregard for established best practices for treating peripheral artery disease.
One of the experts on the investigative team explained to Ament that while it was not uncommon for doctors to use a couple of devices in one intervention, the total number of devices in many of the procedures at his facility went into the double digits, sometimes five times the expected amount.
In one encounter, a doctor deployed 33 devices in one procedure – 3 atherectomy devices, 9 stents, and 21 balloons.
This use of devices was exorbitant, Ament came to understand. “I want to say the term ‘egregious’ was used,” he testified. “It was kind of like validation, but I really wish I was wrong.”
“Did it make you concerned for patient care?” a lawyer asked during the deposition.
“It did,” Ament replied.
A member of his task force pulled data for veterans who had leg amputations due to vascular disease. Over 5 years, the number of veterans who had amputations increased, from about 6 in 2013 to 38 in 2018, according to internal emails released in the suit. The VA did not respond to ProPublica’s questions about the rise in amputations or whether it was due to complications from the procedures.
Even though Ament testified in December 2022 that he became aware of the excessive use of devices during his investigation that began about 5 years ago, neither he nor the VA have publicly acknowledged these findings outside of the lawsuit. It is unclear whether VA representatives informed the patients whose records were reviewed about their findings. ProPublica reached out to more than half a dozen veteran community groups in the Wichita area and none were aware of the investigation nor the allegations of overuse of vascular procedures at the facility.
The VA says that if its ongoing review finds instances of substandard care, it will reach out to affected patients and inform them about possible complications and benefits they may be entitled to. The press secretary said the review will take several months. Ament declined to respond to ProPublica’s questions, citing the ongoing case.
In 2018, Ament turned over his findings to the criminal division of the VA’s Office of Inspector General. He also shut down interventional radiology procedures at the facility’s catheter lab.
Federal agents separately opened an investigation into the same unit in the facility, looking into allegations of kickbacks.
More than 40 pages of expense reports from Medtronic, revealed in the whistleblower case, show sales representatives treating Dole health care workers to hundreds of meals over several years – lunches at Dempsey’s Biscuit Co.; business meals at the Scotch & Sirloin steakhouse; dinner at Chester’s Chophouse & Wine Bar, price per attendee: $122.39.
Federal agents obtained the receipts.
“Robert J. Dole VAMC employees may have received improper gratuities, in the forms of paid lunches, dinners, etc., from sales representatives from Medtronic,” Nathen Howard, a special agent in the VA OIG, wrote in an investigation memo from February 2019.
This kind of relationship could violate VA policy, which forbids federal employees from receiving any gifts, including meals, from people who do business or seek to do business with a federal institution. For health care workers, violating this policy could have serious implications for patients. Numerous studies have shown that even modest industry-sponsored gifts, including meals, may influence prescribing or treatment behavior of health care professionals.
The agents opened their investigation into kickbacks at the Wichita facility in response to the whistleblower lawsuit, which was filed by Thomas Schroeder in 2017. The VA OIG would not confirm or deny whether it was continuing to investigate kickbacks at the facility. The VA did not directly answer ProPublica’s questions about kickbacks at the Dole VA, but it said that every employee must complete an annual ethics training, which covers gift rules.
In recent years, Medtronic has settled a handful of other cases that have alleged kickbacks between company representatives and health care professionals.
In 2018, Medtronic’s subsidiary Covidien paid $13 million to settle claims with the U.S. Department of Justice that it paid kickbacks to health care institutions that used its mechanical blood clot devices. In 2019, the same subsidiary paid $17 million to resolve allegations that it provided in-kind marketing support to doctors using its vein products. And in 2020, Medtronic paid more than $8 million to settle claims that representatives had paid kickbacks to a neurosurgeon, including scores of lavish meals at a restaurant that the doctor owned, to induce him to purchase the company’s medication pumps.
Schroeder’s lawsuit is not the first time Medtronic’s vascular devices were named in an alleged kickback scheme. In early 2015, Medtronic acquired Covidien, and shortly after the merger, its subsidiary ev3 Inc. agreed to pay $1.25 million to resolve allegations that it had paid doctors who were “high volume users” of its atherectomy devices to act as evangelists for the company, and had provided physicians with company shares to participate in clinical trials for their tools.
The whistleblower in this earlier case, a former sales representative for the company, also alleged that the subsidiary was gaming Medicare’s payment system. Hospitals were often hesitant to conduct atherectomy procedures because of the low reimbursement rates. According to the suit, sales representatives encouraged doctors to admit patients for longer stays to reap greater reimbursements and make a profit, even though such stays were often not medically indicated.
“Medical device makers that try to boost their profits by causing patients to be admitted for unnecessary and expensive inpatient hospital stays will be held accountable,” special agent Thomas O’Donnell, from the Office of Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, said in a press release for the settlement. “Both patients and taxpayers deserve to have medical decisions made based on what is medically appropriate.”
Medtronic spokesperson Xiong said that in each case, the company “cooperated fully with the DOJ to resolve its concerns and, where wrongdoing was found, took appropriate remedial action.”
Seton Hall Law School professor Jacob Elberg, a former assistant U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey who led its health care and government fraud unit, is concerned by the frequency of such settlements in the last 2 decades. “There are, at this point, real questions as to whether the sanctions imposed by DOJ are sufficient to deter wrongdoing and to lead to meaningful change, especially within the medical device industry.”
Although the Department of Justice has declined to intervene in the lawsuit involving the Dole VA at this time, the case is ongoing and further depositions with Medtronic sales representatives and a former VA employee are scheduled for this month.
VA employees and doctors named in the suit declined to comment or did not respond to ProPublica’s questions about the alleged kickbacks and whether sales representatives may have influenced veterans’ treatment plans. In interviews with federal investigators, according to released transcripts, several of the employees who were questioned denied receiving frequent meals from sales representatives, contradicting Medtronic’s expense reports.
Their statements also stand in contrast to Medtronic representative Kari Kirk’s final text messages during that procedure in June 2017, which ultimately lasted more than 3 hours.
“Now u done??” her colleague asked.
“Just finished,” she texted. “Running to get them lunch!”
This story was originally published on ProPublica. ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive their biggest stories as soon as they’re published.
Pulmonary embolism workup needed for any sudden onset of exertional dyspnea
A diagnostic workup for pulmonary embolism (PE) should be performed in all patients with recent onset of exertional dyspnea, according to the authors of an article published in the Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis. That conclusion emerged from an analysis of PE prevalence in 417 patients with recent marked exertional dyspnea performing previously well-tolerated physical activities.
Exertional dyspnea is a frequently encountered complaint in clinical practice. Missteps in both diagnosis and early management, however, have been found to be prevalent in emergency department practices. with a complicated clinical course or mortality as a consequence, stated the researchers. Also, failure to diagnose PE is a common malpractice allegation.
Noting that the prevalence of PE among patients with dyspnea on exertion has not been reported, the authors hypothesized: “PE might be a frequent underlying condition in patients presenting for care complaining of marked dyspnea on exertion of recent onset.”
In a multicenter prospective, cross-sectional study among 14 university or hospital centers in Italy, patients who were referred for outpatient evaluation with recent (< 1 month) dyspnea on exertion with a severity of 3 or 4 on the modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale were potentially eligible for the study. Prior deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), PE, and use of therapeutic anticoagulation were among exclusion criteria. All patients aged 75 years or younger with recent (< 1 month) marked exertional dyspnea had a systematic workup for PE, irrespective of concomitant signs or symptoms of venous thromboembolism and alternative explanations for dyspnea. The main study outcome was prevalence of PE in the entire cohort of patients with recent marked dyspnea on exertion.
When about 400 patients had been enrolled after an interim analysis in which the preestablished stopping rule (if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the prevalence of PE exceeds 20%) was met, the study was prematurely terminated. PE was found, after exclusion of 134 patients based on low PE clinical probability and normal D-dimer, in 134 (47.3%) of the remaining 283 patients. The overall PE prevalence was 32.1% (95% confidence interval, 27.8-36.8).
PE was present in 40 of 204 (19.6%) patients without other findings suspicious for PE and in 94 of 213 patients (44.1%) with PE-suspicious findings. PE involved a main pulmonary artery in 37% and multiple lobes in 87% of the patients.
The researchers pointed out that, while the prevalence of PE was highest (44%) in patients who had concomitant signs or symptoms suspicious of PE or underlying DVT, PE was detected in almost 20% of patients without concomitant PE signs and symptoms. Also, the detected pulmonary emboli were deemed significant.
“Our findings suggest that, regardless of the diagnostic algorithm in use, physicians should rule in or out PE in patients who solely report recent onset of marked dyspnea on exertion,” they concluded.
Agreeing with the authors’ conclusions, Mary Jo S. Farmer, MD, PhD, of the department of medicine at University of Massachusetts, Worcester, stated in an interview, “The results of the current study support a diagnostic workup for pulmonary embolus in all patients with recent onset of exertional dyspnea.” She added, “Pulmonary emboli detected were significant as almost all were segmental or more proximal emboli involving multiple lobes. The observed overall prevalence of pulmonary embolus of 32% may seem high when compared with the low prevalence of 7%-13% reported in other studies of patients with suspected pulmonary embolus. However, the prevalence of pulmonary embolus among emergency department cohorts in European countries is generally higher, as is the diagnostic yield from [CT pulmonary angiogram] compared to North American countries. This could be explained by differences in applied thresholds for suspicion of pulmonary embolus. The incidence of COVID-19 and association with thrombosis was not reported.
“It has been reported that nonspecific clinical manifestations and absence of typical signs and symptoms can result in delay in diagnosis of pulmonary embolus or result in pulmonary embolus being missed, an unfortunate situation that could result in malpractice allegation.” Dr. Farmer concluded.
Among limitations of the study, the authors noted that their results are not applicable to patients older than 75 years or patients with chronic (more than 1 month) symptoms of dyspnea or less severe dyspnea (modified Medical Research Council dyspnea score of 2 or lower). Also, no attempt to stratify the clinical relevance of PE was made.
The study was funded by the Arianna Foundation on Anticoagulation, Bologna, Italy. The authors reported that they had no potential conflicts. Dr. Farmer also declared she had no relevant conflicts.
A diagnostic workup for pulmonary embolism (PE) should be performed in all patients with recent onset of exertional dyspnea, according to the authors of an article published in the Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis. That conclusion emerged from an analysis of PE prevalence in 417 patients with recent marked exertional dyspnea performing previously well-tolerated physical activities.
Exertional dyspnea is a frequently encountered complaint in clinical practice. Missteps in both diagnosis and early management, however, have been found to be prevalent in emergency department practices. with a complicated clinical course or mortality as a consequence, stated the researchers. Also, failure to diagnose PE is a common malpractice allegation.
Noting that the prevalence of PE among patients with dyspnea on exertion has not been reported, the authors hypothesized: “PE might be a frequent underlying condition in patients presenting for care complaining of marked dyspnea on exertion of recent onset.”
In a multicenter prospective, cross-sectional study among 14 university or hospital centers in Italy, patients who were referred for outpatient evaluation with recent (< 1 month) dyspnea on exertion with a severity of 3 or 4 on the modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale were potentially eligible for the study. Prior deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), PE, and use of therapeutic anticoagulation were among exclusion criteria. All patients aged 75 years or younger with recent (< 1 month) marked exertional dyspnea had a systematic workup for PE, irrespective of concomitant signs or symptoms of venous thromboembolism and alternative explanations for dyspnea. The main study outcome was prevalence of PE in the entire cohort of patients with recent marked dyspnea on exertion.
When about 400 patients had been enrolled after an interim analysis in which the preestablished stopping rule (if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the prevalence of PE exceeds 20%) was met, the study was prematurely terminated. PE was found, after exclusion of 134 patients based on low PE clinical probability and normal D-dimer, in 134 (47.3%) of the remaining 283 patients. The overall PE prevalence was 32.1% (95% confidence interval, 27.8-36.8).
PE was present in 40 of 204 (19.6%) patients without other findings suspicious for PE and in 94 of 213 patients (44.1%) with PE-suspicious findings. PE involved a main pulmonary artery in 37% and multiple lobes in 87% of the patients.
The researchers pointed out that, while the prevalence of PE was highest (44%) in patients who had concomitant signs or symptoms suspicious of PE or underlying DVT, PE was detected in almost 20% of patients without concomitant PE signs and symptoms. Also, the detected pulmonary emboli were deemed significant.
“Our findings suggest that, regardless of the diagnostic algorithm in use, physicians should rule in or out PE in patients who solely report recent onset of marked dyspnea on exertion,” they concluded.
Agreeing with the authors’ conclusions, Mary Jo S. Farmer, MD, PhD, of the department of medicine at University of Massachusetts, Worcester, stated in an interview, “The results of the current study support a diagnostic workup for pulmonary embolus in all patients with recent onset of exertional dyspnea.” She added, “Pulmonary emboli detected were significant as almost all were segmental or more proximal emboli involving multiple lobes. The observed overall prevalence of pulmonary embolus of 32% may seem high when compared with the low prevalence of 7%-13% reported in other studies of patients with suspected pulmonary embolus. However, the prevalence of pulmonary embolus among emergency department cohorts in European countries is generally higher, as is the diagnostic yield from [CT pulmonary angiogram] compared to North American countries. This could be explained by differences in applied thresholds for suspicion of pulmonary embolus. The incidence of COVID-19 and association with thrombosis was not reported.
“It has been reported that nonspecific clinical manifestations and absence of typical signs and symptoms can result in delay in diagnosis of pulmonary embolus or result in pulmonary embolus being missed, an unfortunate situation that could result in malpractice allegation.” Dr. Farmer concluded.
Among limitations of the study, the authors noted that their results are not applicable to patients older than 75 years or patients with chronic (more than 1 month) symptoms of dyspnea or less severe dyspnea (modified Medical Research Council dyspnea score of 2 or lower). Also, no attempt to stratify the clinical relevance of PE was made.
The study was funded by the Arianna Foundation on Anticoagulation, Bologna, Italy. The authors reported that they had no potential conflicts. Dr. Farmer also declared she had no relevant conflicts.
A diagnostic workup for pulmonary embolism (PE) should be performed in all patients with recent onset of exertional dyspnea, according to the authors of an article published in the Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis. That conclusion emerged from an analysis of PE prevalence in 417 patients with recent marked exertional dyspnea performing previously well-tolerated physical activities.
Exertional dyspnea is a frequently encountered complaint in clinical practice. Missteps in both diagnosis and early management, however, have been found to be prevalent in emergency department practices. with a complicated clinical course or mortality as a consequence, stated the researchers. Also, failure to diagnose PE is a common malpractice allegation.
Noting that the prevalence of PE among patients with dyspnea on exertion has not been reported, the authors hypothesized: “PE might be a frequent underlying condition in patients presenting for care complaining of marked dyspnea on exertion of recent onset.”
In a multicenter prospective, cross-sectional study among 14 university or hospital centers in Italy, patients who were referred for outpatient evaluation with recent (< 1 month) dyspnea on exertion with a severity of 3 or 4 on the modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale were potentially eligible for the study. Prior deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), PE, and use of therapeutic anticoagulation were among exclusion criteria. All patients aged 75 years or younger with recent (< 1 month) marked exertional dyspnea had a systematic workup for PE, irrespective of concomitant signs or symptoms of venous thromboembolism and alternative explanations for dyspnea. The main study outcome was prevalence of PE in the entire cohort of patients with recent marked dyspnea on exertion.
When about 400 patients had been enrolled after an interim analysis in which the preestablished stopping rule (if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the prevalence of PE exceeds 20%) was met, the study was prematurely terminated. PE was found, after exclusion of 134 patients based on low PE clinical probability and normal D-dimer, in 134 (47.3%) of the remaining 283 patients. The overall PE prevalence was 32.1% (95% confidence interval, 27.8-36.8).
PE was present in 40 of 204 (19.6%) patients without other findings suspicious for PE and in 94 of 213 patients (44.1%) with PE-suspicious findings. PE involved a main pulmonary artery in 37% and multiple lobes in 87% of the patients.
The researchers pointed out that, while the prevalence of PE was highest (44%) in patients who had concomitant signs or symptoms suspicious of PE or underlying DVT, PE was detected in almost 20% of patients without concomitant PE signs and symptoms. Also, the detected pulmonary emboli were deemed significant.
“Our findings suggest that, regardless of the diagnostic algorithm in use, physicians should rule in or out PE in patients who solely report recent onset of marked dyspnea on exertion,” they concluded.
Agreeing with the authors’ conclusions, Mary Jo S. Farmer, MD, PhD, of the department of medicine at University of Massachusetts, Worcester, stated in an interview, “The results of the current study support a diagnostic workup for pulmonary embolus in all patients with recent onset of exertional dyspnea.” She added, “Pulmonary emboli detected were significant as almost all were segmental or more proximal emboli involving multiple lobes. The observed overall prevalence of pulmonary embolus of 32% may seem high when compared with the low prevalence of 7%-13% reported in other studies of patients with suspected pulmonary embolus. However, the prevalence of pulmonary embolus among emergency department cohorts in European countries is generally higher, as is the diagnostic yield from [CT pulmonary angiogram] compared to North American countries. This could be explained by differences in applied thresholds for suspicion of pulmonary embolus. The incidence of COVID-19 and association with thrombosis was not reported.
“It has been reported that nonspecific clinical manifestations and absence of typical signs and symptoms can result in delay in diagnosis of pulmonary embolus or result in pulmonary embolus being missed, an unfortunate situation that could result in malpractice allegation.” Dr. Farmer concluded.
Among limitations of the study, the authors noted that their results are not applicable to patients older than 75 years or patients with chronic (more than 1 month) symptoms of dyspnea or less severe dyspnea (modified Medical Research Council dyspnea score of 2 or lower). Also, no attempt to stratify the clinical relevance of PE was made.
The study was funded by the Arianna Foundation on Anticoagulation, Bologna, Italy. The authors reported that they had no potential conflicts. Dr. Farmer also declared she had no relevant conflicts.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THROMBOSIS AND HAEMOSTASIS
Endovascular therapy benefits large infarction: ANGEL-ASPECT
The trial was stopped early because a planned interim analysis showed efficacy of endovascular therapy in this patient population.
Among patients in China with acute ischemic stroke and a large cerebral infarction, treatment with endovascular therapy within 24 hours after stroke onset “resulted in a better functional outcome at 3 months than medical management alone,” lead author Xiaochuan Huo, MD, PhD, associate chief physician, interventional neurology department, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, told this news organization.
“This trial added important evidence for the benefits of endovascular therapy,” Dr. Huo added.
The findings were presented at the International Stroke Conference and were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. The conference was presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Will change practice
Commenting on the results, Tudor G. Jovin, MD, professor and chair, department of neurology, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, N.J., said he has “little doubt” this study will change practice.
Despite previous studies showing signals of benefit from thrombectomy for patients with large-core infarcts, and some even finding a large treatment effect, “somehow the world didn’t register this,” said Dr. Jovin.
“The stroke community was perhaps reluctant to accept these signals that were there in plain sight because we have been primed for such a long time that reperfusing large infarcts was, if not detrimental, not beneficial.”
But this study, along with another study showing similar results, SELECT 2, which was also presented at this meeting and was published in the same issue of NEJM, provide “overwhelming proof” and “have finally made the community aware,” said Dr. Jovin. “This is sort of a wake-up call to say, ‘Hey, this is real; patients with large infarcts also benefit from thrombectomy.’ “
This new research suggests it’s not necessary to learn the infarct size, at least in the early time window, and doing so just wastes precious time, added Dr. Jovin.
The impact of thrombectomy on patients with “super large infarcts” is still not clear, although these are “extremely rare” in the early time window, perhaps representing only about 1% of patients, said Dr. Jovin.
The increased rate of hemorrhages in study patients receiving thrombectomy “is the price you pay” for the benefits, he said. He noted that this is not any different from the situation with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), which is routinely used because the benefits far outweigh the risks.
ANGEL-ASPECT
As patients with large infarctions are generally excluded from studies of thrombectomy, it’s been unclear whether they benefit from this therapy, the researchers noted.
The multicenter Endovascular Therapy in Acute Anterior Circulation Large Vessel Occlusive Patients With a Large Infarct Core (ANGEL-ASPECT) trial included 455 adult patients (median age, 68 years; 38.7% women) who had a large infarct core caused by acute large-vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score [ASPECTS] 3-5 without core volume limitations or ASPECTS 0–2 with core volume between 70 and 100 mL).
Study participants had to have a score of 6-30 on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) and a retrospectively determined prestroke score of 0 or 1 on the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS).
The median baseline NIHSS score of study patients was 16, the median ASPECTS was 3, and the median infarct-core volume was 62 mL.
Researchers randomly assigned patients to undergo either medical management alone or medical management as well as endovascular therapy. Medical management included intravenous (IV) thrombolysis for those who were eligible.
IV thrombolysis was administered before thrombectomy for about 28% of patients in each group. Some 78.7% of all patients arrived at the hospital outside the typical 4.5-hour window and were ineligible for thrombolysis.
A greater percentage of patients in the endovascular therapy group was receiving antihypertensive medications (83.0%) than in the medical management alone group (54.0%). About 20% of patients in each group were taking an anticoagulant medication.
When the trial was halted, outcome data were available for 336 patients. An additional 120 patients had undergone randomization, and 455 had completed 90 days of follow-up.
Better functional outcome
The primary outcome was the score on the mRS at 90 days. Results showed a shift in the distribution of scores on the mRS at 90 days toward better outcomes favoring endovascular therapy over medical management alone (generalized odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.69; P = .004).
The efficacy of endovascular therapy with respect to the primary outcome was similar across predefined subgroups and across all trial sites. However, the trial was not powered to allow definite conclusions based on the results of subgroup analyses.
Although patients with an ASPECT score of 0-2 (indicating very large infarct cores) are considered unlikely to benefit from endovascular treatment, the researchers did find some signals of gain for these patients.
“Although no conclusions can be drawn because the trial was not powered for this analysis and the confidence interval for the odds ratio between the trial groups included 1, there may have been a benefit with endovascular therapy in this subgroup,” the authors wrote. “More trials are warranted to determine if this benefit is valid.”
As for secondary outcomes, the percentage of patients with a score of 0-2 on the mRS at 90 days was 30.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 11.6% in the medical management group (relative risk [RR], 2.62; 95% CI, 1.69-4.06).
The percentage of patients with a score of 0-3 on the mRS at 90 days was 47.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 33.3% in the medical management group (RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.17-1.91).
The primary safety outcome was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 48 hours, which occurred in 6.1% of the endovascular therapy group, compared to 2.7% in the medical management group (RR, 2.07; 95% CI, 0.79-5.41; P = .12)
Mortality within 90 days was 21.7% in the endovascular therapy group and 20.0% in the medical management group. Other serious adverse events occurred in 40.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 38.2% in the medical management group (P = .70).
The percentage of patients receiving IV thrombolysis was relatively low, which may have affected outcomes in the medical management group. Another potential limitation was that urokinase rather than alteplase, which is probably more effective, was used for thrombolysis in a small percentage of patients.
Further, the study did not include patients older than 80 years or those with an ASPECT value greater than 5 and infarct core volume of 70-100 mL, and it included only Chinese patients, so the results may not be generalizable, the researchers noted.
These findings will likely change clinical practice, said Dr. Huo, who noted that the current guideline doesn’t provide “a high-level recommendation” for [endovascular therapy] in patients with a low ASPECT score.
“These new results will change the guideline” to suggest endovascular therapy for large-core patients, he said.
Welcome news
An accompanying editorial by Pierre Fayad, MD, department of neurological sciences, division of vascular neurology and stroke, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, welcomed results from this and other recent related studies.
From these new results, “it is reasonable to suggest that endovascular thrombectomy be offered to patients with large strokes” if they arrive in a timely fashion at a center capable of performing the procedure and have an ASPECT value of 3-5 or an ischemic-core volume of 50 mL or greater, he wrote.
“The improved chance of independent walking and the ability to perform other daily activities in patients with the most severe strokes is welcome news for patients and for the field of stroke treatment.”
The study received funding from Covidien Healthcare International Trading (Shanghai), Johnson & Johnson MedTech, Genesis MedTech (Shanghai), and Shanghai HeartCare Medical Technology. Dr. Huo and Dr. Jovin report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The trial was stopped early because a planned interim analysis showed efficacy of endovascular therapy in this patient population.
Among patients in China with acute ischemic stroke and a large cerebral infarction, treatment with endovascular therapy within 24 hours after stroke onset “resulted in a better functional outcome at 3 months than medical management alone,” lead author Xiaochuan Huo, MD, PhD, associate chief physician, interventional neurology department, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, told this news organization.
“This trial added important evidence for the benefits of endovascular therapy,” Dr. Huo added.
The findings were presented at the International Stroke Conference and were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. The conference was presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Will change practice
Commenting on the results, Tudor G. Jovin, MD, professor and chair, department of neurology, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, N.J., said he has “little doubt” this study will change practice.
Despite previous studies showing signals of benefit from thrombectomy for patients with large-core infarcts, and some even finding a large treatment effect, “somehow the world didn’t register this,” said Dr. Jovin.
“The stroke community was perhaps reluctant to accept these signals that were there in plain sight because we have been primed for such a long time that reperfusing large infarcts was, if not detrimental, not beneficial.”
But this study, along with another study showing similar results, SELECT 2, which was also presented at this meeting and was published in the same issue of NEJM, provide “overwhelming proof” and “have finally made the community aware,” said Dr. Jovin. “This is sort of a wake-up call to say, ‘Hey, this is real; patients with large infarcts also benefit from thrombectomy.’ “
This new research suggests it’s not necessary to learn the infarct size, at least in the early time window, and doing so just wastes precious time, added Dr. Jovin.
The impact of thrombectomy on patients with “super large infarcts” is still not clear, although these are “extremely rare” in the early time window, perhaps representing only about 1% of patients, said Dr. Jovin.
The increased rate of hemorrhages in study patients receiving thrombectomy “is the price you pay” for the benefits, he said. He noted that this is not any different from the situation with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), which is routinely used because the benefits far outweigh the risks.
ANGEL-ASPECT
As patients with large infarctions are generally excluded from studies of thrombectomy, it’s been unclear whether they benefit from this therapy, the researchers noted.
The multicenter Endovascular Therapy in Acute Anterior Circulation Large Vessel Occlusive Patients With a Large Infarct Core (ANGEL-ASPECT) trial included 455 adult patients (median age, 68 years; 38.7% women) who had a large infarct core caused by acute large-vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score [ASPECTS] 3-5 without core volume limitations or ASPECTS 0–2 with core volume between 70 and 100 mL).
Study participants had to have a score of 6-30 on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) and a retrospectively determined prestroke score of 0 or 1 on the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS).
The median baseline NIHSS score of study patients was 16, the median ASPECTS was 3, and the median infarct-core volume was 62 mL.
Researchers randomly assigned patients to undergo either medical management alone or medical management as well as endovascular therapy. Medical management included intravenous (IV) thrombolysis for those who were eligible.
IV thrombolysis was administered before thrombectomy for about 28% of patients in each group. Some 78.7% of all patients arrived at the hospital outside the typical 4.5-hour window and were ineligible for thrombolysis.
A greater percentage of patients in the endovascular therapy group was receiving antihypertensive medications (83.0%) than in the medical management alone group (54.0%). About 20% of patients in each group were taking an anticoagulant medication.
When the trial was halted, outcome data were available for 336 patients. An additional 120 patients had undergone randomization, and 455 had completed 90 days of follow-up.
Better functional outcome
The primary outcome was the score on the mRS at 90 days. Results showed a shift in the distribution of scores on the mRS at 90 days toward better outcomes favoring endovascular therapy over medical management alone (generalized odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.69; P = .004).
The efficacy of endovascular therapy with respect to the primary outcome was similar across predefined subgroups and across all trial sites. However, the trial was not powered to allow definite conclusions based on the results of subgroup analyses.
Although patients with an ASPECT score of 0-2 (indicating very large infarct cores) are considered unlikely to benefit from endovascular treatment, the researchers did find some signals of gain for these patients.
“Although no conclusions can be drawn because the trial was not powered for this analysis and the confidence interval for the odds ratio between the trial groups included 1, there may have been a benefit with endovascular therapy in this subgroup,” the authors wrote. “More trials are warranted to determine if this benefit is valid.”
As for secondary outcomes, the percentage of patients with a score of 0-2 on the mRS at 90 days was 30.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 11.6% in the medical management group (relative risk [RR], 2.62; 95% CI, 1.69-4.06).
The percentage of patients with a score of 0-3 on the mRS at 90 days was 47.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 33.3% in the medical management group (RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.17-1.91).
The primary safety outcome was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 48 hours, which occurred in 6.1% of the endovascular therapy group, compared to 2.7% in the medical management group (RR, 2.07; 95% CI, 0.79-5.41; P = .12)
Mortality within 90 days was 21.7% in the endovascular therapy group and 20.0% in the medical management group. Other serious adverse events occurred in 40.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 38.2% in the medical management group (P = .70).
The percentage of patients receiving IV thrombolysis was relatively low, which may have affected outcomes in the medical management group. Another potential limitation was that urokinase rather than alteplase, which is probably more effective, was used for thrombolysis in a small percentage of patients.
Further, the study did not include patients older than 80 years or those with an ASPECT value greater than 5 and infarct core volume of 70-100 mL, and it included only Chinese patients, so the results may not be generalizable, the researchers noted.
These findings will likely change clinical practice, said Dr. Huo, who noted that the current guideline doesn’t provide “a high-level recommendation” for [endovascular therapy] in patients with a low ASPECT score.
“These new results will change the guideline” to suggest endovascular therapy for large-core patients, he said.
Welcome news
An accompanying editorial by Pierre Fayad, MD, department of neurological sciences, division of vascular neurology and stroke, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, welcomed results from this and other recent related studies.
From these new results, “it is reasonable to suggest that endovascular thrombectomy be offered to patients with large strokes” if they arrive in a timely fashion at a center capable of performing the procedure and have an ASPECT value of 3-5 or an ischemic-core volume of 50 mL or greater, he wrote.
“The improved chance of independent walking and the ability to perform other daily activities in patients with the most severe strokes is welcome news for patients and for the field of stroke treatment.”
The study received funding from Covidien Healthcare International Trading (Shanghai), Johnson & Johnson MedTech, Genesis MedTech (Shanghai), and Shanghai HeartCare Medical Technology. Dr. Huo and Dr. Jovin report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The trial was stopped early because a planned interim analysis showed efficacy of endovascular therapy in this patient population.
Among patients in China with acute ischemic stroke and a large cerebral infarction, treatment with endovascular therapy within 24 hours after stroke onset “resulted in a better functional outcome at 3 months than medical management alone,” lead author Xiaochuan Huo, MD, PhD, associate chief physician, interventional neurology department, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, told this news organization.
“This trial added important evidence for the benefits of endovascular therapy,” Dr. Huo added.
The findings were presented at the International Stroke Conference and were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. The conference was presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
Will change practice
Commenting on the results, Tudor G. Jovin, MD, professor and chair, department of neurology, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, N.J., said he has “little doubt” this study will change practice.
Despite previous studies showing signals of benefit from thrombectomy for patients with large-core infarcts, and some even finding a large treatment effect, “somehow the world didn’t register this,” said Dr. Jovin.
“The stroke community was perhaps reluctant to accept these signals that were there in plain sight because we have been primed for such a long time that reperfusing large infarcts was, if not detrimental, not beneficial.”
But this study, along with another study showing similar results, SELECT 2, which was also presented at this meeting and was published in the same issue of NEJM, provide “overwhelming proof” and “have finally made the community aware,” said Dr. Jovin. “This is sort of a wake-up call to say, ‘Hey, this is real; patients with large infarcts also benefit from thrombectomy.’ “
This new research suggests it’s not necessary to learn the infarct size, at least in the early time window, and doing so just wastes precious time, added Dr. Jovin.
The impact of thrombectomy on patients with “super large infarcts” is still not clear, although these are “extremely rare” in the early time window, perhaps representing only about 1% of patients, said Dr. Jovin.
The increased rate of hemorrhages in study patients receiving thrombectomy “is the price you pay” for the benefits, he said. He noted that this is not any different from the situation with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), which is routinely used because the benefits far outweigh the risks.
ANGEL-ASPECT
As patients with large infarctions are generally excluded from studies of thrombectomy, it’s been unclear whether they benefit from this therapy, the researchers noted.
The multicenter Endovascular Therapy in Acute Anterior Circulation Large Vessel Occlusive Patients With a Large Infarct Core (ANGEL-ASPECT) trial included 455 adult patients (median age, 68 years; 38.7% women) who had a large infarct core caused by acute large-vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score [ASPECTS] 3-5 without core volume limitations or ASPECTS 0–2 with core volume between 70 and 100 mL).
Study participants had to have a score of 6-30 on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) and a retrospectively determined prestroke score of 0 or 1 on the Modified Rankin Scale (mRS).
The median baseline NIHSS score of study patients was 16, the median ASPECTS was 3, and the median infarct-core volume was 62 mL.
Researchers randomly assigned patients to undergo either medical management alone or medical management as well as endovascular therapy. Medical management included intravenous (IV) thrombolysis for those who were eligible.
IV thrombolysis was administered before thrombectomy for about 28% of patients in each group. Some 78.7% of all patients arrived at the hospital outside the typical 4.5-hour window and were ineligible for thrombolysis.
A greater percentage of patients in the endovascular therapy group was receiving antihypertensive medications (83.0%) than in the medical management alone group (54.0%). About 20% of patients in each group were taking an anticoagulant medication.
When the trial was halted, outcome data were available for 336 patients. An additional 120 patients had undergone randomization, and 455 had completed 90 days of follow-up.
Better functional outcome
The primary outcome was the score on the mRS at 90 days. Results showed a shift in the distribution of scores on the mRS at 90 days toward better outcomes favoring endovascular therapy over medical management alone (generalized odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.69; P = .004).
The efficacy of endovascular therapy with respect to the primary outcome was similar across predefined subgroups and across all trial sites. However, the trial was not powered to allow definite conclusions based on the results of subgroup analyses.
Although patients with an ASPECT score of 0-2 (indicating very large infarct cores) are considered unlikely to benefit from endovascular treatment, the researchers did find some signals of gain for these patients.
“Although no conclusions can be drawn because the trial was not powered for this analysis and the confidence interval for the odds ratio between the trial groups included 1, there may have been a benefit with endovascular therapy in this subgroup,” the authors wrote. “More trials are warranted to determine if this benefit is valid.”
As for secondary outcomes, the percentage of patients with a score of 0-2 on the mRS at 90 days was 30.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 11.6% in the medical management group (relative risk [RR], 2.62; 95% CI, 1.69-4.06).
The percentage of patients with a score of 0-3 on the mRS at 90 days was 47.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 33.3% in the medical management group (RR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.17-1.91).
The primary safety outcome was symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage within 48 hours, which occurred in 6.1% of the endovascular therapy group, compared to 2.7% in the medical management group (RR, 2.07; 95% CI, 0.79-5.41; P = .12)
Mortality within 90 days was 21.7% in the endovascular therapy group and 20.0% in the medical management group. Other serious adverse events occurred in 40.0% in the endovascular therapy group and 38.2% in the medical management group (P = .70).
The percentage of patients receiving IV thrombolysis was relatively low, which may have affected outcomes in the medical management group. Another potential limitation was that urokinase rather than alteplase, which is probably more effective, was used for thrombolysis in a small percentage of patients.
Further, the study did not include patients older than 80 years or those with an ASPECT value greater than 5 and infarct core volume of 70-100 mL, and it included only Chinese patients, so the results may not be generalizable, the researchers noted.
These findings will likely change clinical practice, said Dr. Huo, who noted that the current guideline doesn’t provide “a high-level recommendation” for [endovascular therapy] in patients with a low ASPECT score.
“These new results will change the guideline” to suggest endovascular therapy for large-core patients, he said.
Welcome news
An accompanying editorial by Pierre Fayad, MD, department of neurological sciences, division of vascular neurology and stroke, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, welcomed results from this and other recent related studies.
From these new results, “it is reasonable to suggest that endovascular thrombectomy be offered to patients with large strokes” if they arrive in a timely fashion at a center capable of performing the procedure and have an ASPECT value of 3-5 or an ischemic-core volume of 50 mL or greater, he wrote.
“The improved chance of independent walking and the ability to perform other daily activities in patients with the most severe strokes is welcome news for patients and for the field of stroke treatment.”
The study received funding from Covidien Healthcare International Trading (Shanghai), Johnson & Johnson MedTech, Genesis MedTech (Shanghai), and Shanghai HeartCare Medical Technology. Dr. Huo and Dr. Jovin report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ISC 2023
Similar effect of early, late BP reduction in stroke: CATIS-2
in the CATIS-2 trial.
The trial was presented by Liping Liu, MD, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
“Antihypertensive treatment can be delayed for at least 7 days following ischemic stroke onset, unless there are severe acute comorbidities that demand emergency blood pressure reduction to prevent serious complications,” Dr. Liu concluded.
But he acknowledged that the optimal BP management strategy in these patients remains uncertain and should be the focus of future research.
Discussing the trial at an ISC 2023 Highlights session, Lauren Sansing, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and ISC program vice chair, said: “These results seem to support waiting for a week or so before treating blood pressure in these patients.”
But Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., and ISC program chair, countered: “To me, it’s kind of a neutral result, so what I take home from this is that you don’t necessarily have to wait.”
Dr. Jovin continued: “We used to think that it was mandatory not to treat blood pressure early because of the risk of deceasing the perfusion pressure, but this trial suggests the effects are neutral and there is probably as much benefit from lowering blood pressure for other reasons that offsets the potential harm.
“I think these are good data to rely on when we make these kinds of treatment decisions. Personally, I am a bit more aggressive with early blood pressure management and it’s good to see that you don’t get punished for that,” he added.
In his presentation, Dr. Liu explained that increased BP is common in acute stroke and is strongly associated with poor functional outcome and recurrence of ischemic stroke, but the optimal blood pressure management strategy in acute ischemic stroke remains controversial.
In the first CATIS trial (China Antihypertensive Trial in Acute Ischemic Stroke), which compared antihypertensive treatment within 48 hours of stroke onset with no antihypertensive treatment in ischemic stroke patients not receiving thrombolysis, the main results suggested that BP reduction with antihypertensive medications did not reduce the likelihood of death and major disability at 14 days or hospital discharge. But a subgroup analysis found that initiating antihypertensive treatment between 24 and 48 hours of stroke onset showed a beneficial effect on reducing death or major disability.
Current AHA/ASA guidelines suggest that, in patients with BP greater than 220/120 mm Hg who have not received thrombolysis or thrombectomy and have no comorbid conditions requiring urgent antihypertensive treatment, the benefit of initiating or reinitiating antihypertensive treatment within the first 48-72 hours is uncertain, although the guidelines say it might be reasonable to lower BP by around 15% during the first 24 hours after stroke onset, Dr. Liu noted.
The CATIS-2 trial was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoints trial conducted at 106 centers in China that enrolled 4810 patients within 24-48 hours of onset of acute ischemic stroke who had elevated BP. Patients had not received thrombolytic therapy or mechanical thrombectomy.
Patients were randomly assigned to early antihypertensive therapy (initiated after randomization and aiming for a 10%-20% reduction in systolic BP) or delayed antihypertensive therapy (restarted antihypertensive therapy on day 8 of randomization, aiming for a BP of < 140/90 mm Hg).
The median age of the patients was 64 years, 65% were male, 80% had a history of hypertension, and the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 3. Baseline BP averaged 163/92 mm Hg in both groups. The median time from stroke onset to antihypertensive treatment was 1.5 days in the early group and 8.5 days in the delayed group.
BP results showed that, at 24 hours after randomization, mean systolic pressure was reduced by 16.4 mm Hg (9.7%) in the early-treatment group and by 8.6 mm Hg (4.9%) in the delayed-treatment group (difference, –7.8 mm Hg; P < .0001).
At day 7, mean systolic pressure was 139.1 mm Hg in the early-treatment group, compared with 150.9 mm Hg in the delayed-treatment group, with a net difference in systolic BP of –11.9 mm Hg (P < .0001).
The primary outcome was the composite of death and major disability (modified Rankin Scale ≥ 3) at 3 months. This did not differ between the groups, occurring in 12.1% in the early antihypertensive treatment group versus 10.5% in the delayed antihypertensive treatment group (risk ratio, 1.15; P = .08).
There was also no difference in the major secondary outcome of shift in scores of mRS at 3 months, with a common odds ratio of 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.17).
There was no interaction with the composite outcome of death or major disability at 90 days in the prespecified subgroups.
Dr. Liu pointed out several limitations of the study. These included an observed primary outcome rate substantially lower than expected; the BP reduction seen within the first 7 days in the early-treatment group was moderate; and the results of the study cannot be applied to patients treated with thrombolysis or thrombectomy.
Dr. Liu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
in the CATIS-2 trial.
The trial was presented by Liping Liu, MD, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
“Antihypertensive treatment can be delayed for at least 7 days following ischemic stroke onset, unless there are severe acute comorbidities that demand emergency blood pressure reduction to prevent serious complications,” Dr. Liu concluded.
But he acknowledged that the optimal BP management strategy in these patients remains uncertain and should be the focus of future research.
Discussing the trial at an ISC 2023 Highlights session, Lauren Sansing, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and ISC program vice chair, said: “These results seem to support waiting for a week or so before treating blood pressure in these patients.”
But Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., and ISC program chair, countered: “To me, it’s kind of a neutral result, so what I take home from this is that you don’t necessarily have to wait.”
Dr. Jovin continued: “We used to think that it was mandatory not to treat blood pressure early because of the risk of deceasing the perfusion pressure, but this trial suggests the effects are neutral and there is probably as much benefit from lowering blood pressure for other reasons that offsets the potential harm.
“I think these are good data to rely on when we make these kinds of treatment decisions. Personally, I am a bit more aggressive with early blood pressure management and it’s good to see that you don’t get punished for that,” he added.
In his presentation, Dr. Liu explained that increased BP is common in acute stroke and is strongly associated with poor functional outcome and recurrence of ischemic stroke, but the optimal blood pressure management strategy in acute ischemic stroke remains controversial.
In the first CATIS trial (China Antihypertensive Trial in Acute Ischemic Stroke), which compared antihypertensive treatment within 48 hours of stroke onset with no antihypertensive treatment in ischemic stroke patients not receiving thrombolysis, the main results suggested that BP reduction with antihypertensive medications did not reduce the likelihood of death and major disability at 14 days or hospital discharge. But a subgroup analysis found that initiating antihypertensive treatment between 24 and 48 hours of stroke onset showed a beneficial effect on reducing death or major disability.
Current AHA/ASA guidelines suggest that, in patients with BP greater than 220/120 mm Hg who have not received thrombolysis or thrombectomy and have no comorbid conditions requiring urgent antihypertensive treatment, the benefit of initiating or reinitiating antihypertensive treatment within the first 48-72 hours is uncertain, although the guidelines say it might be reasonable to lower BP by around 15% during the first 24 hours after stroke onset, Dr. Liu noted.
The CATIS-2 trial was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoints trial conducted at 106 centers in China that enrolled 4810 patients within 24-48 hours of onset of acute ischemic stroke who had elevated BP. Patients had not received thrombolytic therapy or mechanical thrombectomy.
Patients were randomly assigned to early antihypertensive therapy (initiated after randomization and aiming for a 10%-20% reduction in systolic BP) or delayed antihypertensive therapy (restarted antihypertensive therapy on day 8 of randomization, aiming for a BP of < 140/90 mm Hg).
The median age of the patients was 64 years, 65% were male, 80% had a history of hypertension, and the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 3. Baseline BP averaged 163/92 mm Hg in both groups. The median time from stroke onset to antihypertensive treatment was 1.5 days in the early group and 8.5 days in the delayed group.
BP results showed that, at 24 hours after randomization, mean systolic pressure was reduced by 16.4 mm Hg (9.7%) in the early-treatment group and by 8.6 mm Hg (4.9%) in the delayed-treatment group (difference, –7.8 mm Hg; P < .0001).
At day 7, mean systolic pressure was 139.1 mm Hg in the early-treatment group, compared with 150.9 mm Hg in the delayed-treatment group, with a net difference in systolic BP of –11.9 mm Hg (P < .0001).
The primary outcome was the composite of death and major disability (modified Rankin Scale ≥ 3) at 3 months. This did not differ between the groups, occurring in 12.1% in the early antihypertensive treatment group versus 10.5% in the delayed antihypertensive treatment group (risk ratio, 1.15; P = .08).
There was also no difference in the major secondary outcome of shift in scores of mRS at 3 months, with a common odds ratio of 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.17).
There was no interaction with the composite outcome of death or major disability at 90 days in the prespecified subgroups.
Dr. Liu pointed out several limitations of the study. These included an observed primary outcome rate substantially lower than expected; the BP reduction seen within the first 7 days in the early-treatment group was moderate; and the results of the study cannot be applied to patients treated with thrombolysis or thrombectomy.
Dr. Liu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
in the CATIS-2 trial.
The trial was presented by Liping Liu, MD, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
“Antihypertensive treatment can be delayed for at least 7 days following ischemic stroke onset, unless there are severe acute comorbidities that demand emergency blood pressure reduction to prevent serious complications,” Dr. Liu concluded.
But he acknowledged that the optimal BP management strategy in these patients remains uncertain and should be the focus of future research.
Discussing the trial at an ISC 2023 Highlights session, Lauren Sansing, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and ISC program vice chair, said: “These results seem to support waiting for a week or so before treating blood pressure in these patients.”
But Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., and ISC program chair, countered: “To me, it’s kind of a neutral result, so what I take home from this is that you don’t necessarily have to wait.”
Dr. Jovin continued: “We used to think that it was mandatory not to treat blood pressure early because of the risk of deceasing the perfusion pressure, but this trial suggests the effects are neutral and there is probably as much benefit from lowering blood pressure for other reasons that offsets the potential harm.
“I think these are good data to rely on when we make these kinds of treatment decisions. Personally, I am a bit more aggressive with early blood pressure management and it’s good to see that you don’t get punished for that,” he added.
In his presentation, Dr. Liu explained that increased BP is common in acute stroke and is strongly associated with poor functional outcome and recurrence of ischemic stroke, but the optimal blood pressure management strategy in acute ischemic stroke remains controversial.
In the first CATIS trial (China Antihypertensive Trial in Acute Ischemic Stroke), which compared antihypertensive treatment within 48 hours of stroke onset with no antihypertensive treatment in ischemic stroke patients not receiving thrombolysis, the main results suggested that BP reduction with antihypertensive medications did not reduce the likelihood of death and major disability at 14 days or hospital discharge. But a subgroup analysis found that initiating antihypertensive treatment between 24 and 48 hours of stroke onset showed a beneficial effect on reducing death or major disability.
Current AHA/ASA guidelines suggest that, in patients with BP greater than 220/120 mm Hg who have not received thrombolysis or thrombectomy and have no comorbid conditions requiring urgent antihypertensive treatment, the benefit of initiating or reinitiating antihypertensive treatment within the first 48-72 hours is uncertain, although the guidelines say it might be reasonable to lower BP by around 15% during the first 24 hours after stroke onset, Dr. Liu noted.
The CATIS-2 trial was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoints trial conducted at 106 centers in China that enrolled 4810 patients within 24-48 hours of onset of acute ischemic stroke who had elevated BP. Patients had not received thrombolytic therapy or mechanical thrombectomy.
Patients were randomly assigned to early antihypertensive therapy (initiated after randomization and aiming for a 10%-20% reduction in systolic BP) or delayed antihypertensive therapy (restarted antihypertensive therapy on day 8 of randomization, aiming for a BP of < 140/90 mm Hg).
The median age of the patients was 64 years, 65% were male, 80% had a history of hypertension, and the median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 3. Baseline BP averaged 163/92 mm Hg in both groups. The median time from stroke onset to antihypertensive treatment was 1.5 days in the early group and 8.5 days in the delayed group.
BP results showed that, at 24 hours after randomization, mean systolic pressure was reduced by 16.4 mm Hg (9.7%) in the early-treatment group and by 8.6 mm Hg (4.9%) in the delayed-treatment group (difference, –7.8 mm Hg; P < .0001).
At day 7, mean systolic pressure was 139.1 mm Hg in the early-treatment group, compared with 150.9 mm Hg in the delayed-treatment group, with a net difference in systolic BP of –11.9 mm Hg (P < .0001).
The primary outcome was the composite of death and major disability (modified Rankin Scale ≥ 3) at 3 months. This did not differ between the groups, occurring in 12.1% in the early antihypertensive treatment group versus 10.5% in the delayed antihypertensive treatment group (risk ratio, 1.15; P = .08).
There was also no difference in the major secondary outcome of shift in scores of mRS at 3 months, with a common odds ratio of 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.17).
There was no interaction with the composite outcome of death or major disability at 90 days in the prespecified subgroups.
Dr. Liu pointed out several limitations of the study. These included an observed primary outcome rate substantially lower than expected; the BP reduction seen within the first 7 days in the early-treatment group was moderate; and the results of the study cannot be applied to patients treated with thrombolysis or thrombectomy.
Dr. Liu has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ISC 2023
Thrombolysis not necessary in mild nondisabling stroke: ARAMIS
in the ARAMIS trial.
The trial was presented by Thanh Nguyen, MD, Boston Medical Center, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
“Given the ease of administration, less intensive monitoring, low cost, and safety profile of dual antiplatelet therapy, the current findings support the use of dual antiplatelet in this population,” Dr. Nguyen concluded.
In a comment on the trial, Pooja Khatri, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Cincinnati, and lead investigator of the previous PRISMS study of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) or alteplase in mild stroke, said the results reinforced the current recommendations of giving dual antiplatelet therapy but not alteplase to these patients.
Noting that the standard of care is now to give dual antiplatelet therapy to these patients, Dr. Khatri said: “These data reassure that this remains the right way to go.”
She added that her take-home message from the study would be: “Keep giving dual antiplatelet therapy, and we may be doing more harm than good with alteplase in this patient population.”
Introducing her presentation, Dr. Nguyen explained that mild ischemic stroke, defined as having a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 5 or less, comprises half of ischemic stroke patients in the United States. But the benefit of thrombolysis in patients with minor ischemic stroke that is not disabling is unknown.
A subgroup analysis of one of the major thrombolysis trials (IST-3) found that a higher proportion of patients with mild ischemic stroke who were treated within 3 hours of symptom onset were alive and independent at 6 months if they had been given thrombolysis (84%), compared to 65% in the control group who received standard medical treatment.
This led to the first randomized trial (PRISMS) dedicated to patients with mild nondisabling stroke, which found that alteplase given within 3 hours of symptom onset did not increase the likelihood of a good functional outcome at 90 days in comparison with single-agent aspirin. The study was unfortunately terminated early for administrative reasons, and no definitive conclusions could be drawn on the basis of these results, Dr. Nguyen reported.
In 2018, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines indicated that for patients who present within 3 hours of symptom onset with mild ischemic stroke that was judged to be nondisabling, thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase could be considered, she noted.
In the meantime, dual antiplatelet therapy was shown to be safe and effective in the POINT and CHANCE trials in patients presenting with minor stroke within 12 or 24 hours, and the CHANCE trial also found a benefit in reducing recurrent stroke that was most effective in the first 2 weeks.
The current ARAMIS trial was therefore conducted to evaluate dual antiplatelet therapy in comparison with thrombolysis for patients with acute minor stroke (NIHSS 5 or less) who presented within 4.5 hours of symptom onset and were without clearly disabling deficit.
The trial was conducted in 38 hospitals in China and included 760 patients (median NIHSS score of 2) who were randomly assigned to receive intravenous alteplase at the standard dose of 0.9 mg/kg, followed by guideline-based antiplatelet treatment, or dual antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel 300 mg plus 100 mg aspirin loading dose followed by 10 to 14 days of aspirin 100 mg and clopidogrel 75 mg).
The trial was designed to assess noninferiority of dual antiplatelet therapy to alteplase with noninferiority margin of –4.5%.
In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, which included 722 patients, the primary outcome (excellent functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 0 or 1 at 90 days) occurred in 93.8% of patients in the dual antiplatelet therapy group and in 91.4% of the alteplase group. This gave a difference of 2.4%, which fell within the limits for noninferiority (P = .0002 for noninferiority test).
“Therefore, this was a positive trial,” Dr. Nguyen stated.
About 20% of patients crossed over from the dual antiplatelet group to the thrombolysis group, and about 16% of patients crossed over from the thrombolysis group to the dual antiplatelet group. But a per-protocol and an “as treated” analysis showed results similar to those of the main intention-to-treat analysis.
Secondary outcomes were largely similar between the two groups other than early neurologic deterioration, which was less common in the dual antiplatelet therapy group.
In terms of safety, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 0.3% (1/369) in the dual antiplatelet group and in 0.9% (3/350) in the alteplase group, a nonsignificant difference.
Events of “any bleeding” occurred in more patients in the thrombolysis group (5.4%) than in the dual antiplatelet therapy group (1.6%), and this difference was significant (P = .01).
Subgroup analysis showed a trend toward benefit of alteplase for patients with higher NIHSS score at baseline (NIHSS > 3). Otherwise, the other subgroups looked similar to the main results.
Dr. Nguyen pointed out one limitation of the study – that dual antiplatelet therapy was updated to standard treatment in this target population in the 2019 AHA/ASA guidelines.
In her discussion of the study, Dr. Khatri suggested that the ARAMIS results were what might have been expected.
“Dual antiplatelet therapy is designed to prevent stroke. Even in the POINT trial, dual antiplatelet therapy showed no effect on 90-day functional outcome. It was really about prevention. The PRISMS trial suggested that alteplase was also unlikely to improve 90-day functional outcome in this population of patients with mild and not clearly disabling stroke. So, it is not surprising that dual antiplatelet therapy was noninferior to alteplase for 90-day functional outcome for both those reasons,” she explained.
“That being said, while designed as a noninferiority study, it is interesting to note that alteplase again showed no evidence of treatment effect compared to antiplatelet therapy, affirming what was observed in the prematurely terminated PRISMS trial,” Dr. Khatri added.
In a discussion of the study at an ISC 2023 highlights session, ISC program chair Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., said: “This is very important data and it’s actually the first completed trial that examines this question.”
But, he added, “I think we need to refine our knowledge about what a nondisabling stroke actually is. You could argue that every stroke is disabling. I think we need more clarity on this definition, as in practice, many clinicians still give tPA on account of these mild strokes still being disabling.”
The ARAMIS trial was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China and the Science and Technology Project Plan of Liaoning Province. Dr. Nguyen reports research support from Medtronic that was not related to the current study.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
in the ARAMIS trial.
The trial was presented by Thanh Nguyen, MD, Boston Medical Center, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
“Given the ease of administration, less intensive monitoring, low cost, and safety profile of dual antiplatelet therapy, the current findings support the use of dual antiplatelet in this population,” Dr. Nguyen concluded.
In a comment on the trial, Pooja Khatri, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Cincinnati, and lead investigator of the previous PRISMS study of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) or alteplase in mild stroke, said the results reinforced the current recommendations of giving dual antiplatelet therapy but not alteplase to these patients.
Noting that the standard of care is now to give dual antiplatelet therapy to these patients, Dr. Khatri said: “These data reassure that this remains the right way to go.”
She added that her take-home message from the study would be: “Keep giving dual antiplatelet therapy, and we may be doing more harm than good with alteplase in this patient population.”
Introducing her presentation, Dr. Nguyen explained that mild ischemic stroke, defined as having a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 5 or less, comprises half of ischemic stroke patients in the United States. But the benefit of thrombolysis in patients with minor ischemic stroke that is not disabling is unknown.
A subgroup analysis of one of the major thrombolysis trials (IST-3) found that a higher proportion of patients with mild ischemic stroke who were treated within 3 hours of symptom onset were alive and independent at 6 months if they had been given thrombolysis (84%), compared to 65% in the control group who received standard medical treatment.
This led to the first randomized trial (PRISMS) dedicated to patients with mild nondisabling stroke, which found that alteplase given within 3 hours of symptom onset did not increase the likelihood of a good functional outcome at 90 days in comparison with single-agent aspirin. The study was unfortunately terminated early for administrative reasons, and no definitive conclusions could be drawn on the basis of these results, Dr. Nguyen reported.
In 2018, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines indicated that for patients who present within 3 hours of symptom onset with mild ischemic stroke that was judged to be nondisabling, thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase could be considered, she noted.
In the meantime, dual antiplatelet therapy was shown to be safe and effective in the POINT and CHANCE trials in patients presenting with minor stroke within 12 or 24 hours, and the CHANCE trial also found a benefit in reducing recurrent stroke that was most effective in the first 2 weeks.
The current ARAMIS trial was therefore conducted to evaluate dual antiplatelet therapy in comparison with thrombolysis for patients with acute minor stroke (NIHSS 5 or less) who presented within 4.5 hours of symptom onset and were without clearly disabling deficit.
The trial was conducted in 38 hospitals in China and included 760 patients (median NIHSS score of 2) who were randomly assigned to receive intravenous alteplase at the standard dose of 0.9 mg/kg, followed by guideline-based antiplatelet treatment, or dual antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel 300 mg plus 100 mg aspirin loading dose followed by 10 to 14 days of aspirin 100 mg and clopidogrel 75 mg).
The trial was designed to assess noninferiority of dual antiplatelet therapy to alteplase with noninferiority margin of –4.5%.
In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, which included 722 patients, the primary outcome (excellent functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 0 or 1 at 90 days) occurred in 93.8% of patients in the dual antiplatelet therapy group and in 91.4% of the alteplase group. This gave a difference of 2.4%, which fell within the limits for noninferiority (P = .0002 for noninferiority test).
“Therefore, this was a positive trial,” Dr. Nguyen stated.
About 20% of patients crossed over from the dual antiplatelet group to the thrombolysis group, and about 16% of patients crossed over from the thrombolysis group to the dual antiplatelet group. But a per-protocol and an “as treated” analysis showed results similar to those of the main intention-to-treat analysis.
Secondary outcomes were largely similar between the two groups other than early neurologic deterioration, which was less common in the dual antiplatelet therapy group.
In terms of safety, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 0.3% (1/369) in the dual antiplatelet group and in 0.9% (3/350) in the alteplase group, a nonsignificant difference.
Events of “any bleeding” occurred in more patients in the thrombolysis group (5.4%) than in the dual antiplatelet therapy group (1.6%), and this difference was significant (P = .01).
Subgroup analysis showed a trend toward benefit of alteplase for patients with higher NIHSS score at baseline (NIHSS > 3). Otherwise, the other subgroups looked similar to the main results.
Dr. Nguyen pointed out one limitation of the study – that dual antiplatelet therapy was updated to standard treatment in this target population in the 2019 AHA/ASA guidelines.
In her discussion of the study, Dr. Khatri suggested that the ARAMIS results were what might have been expected.
“Dual antiplatelet therapy is designed to prevent stroke. Even in the POINT trial, dual antiplatelet therapy showed no effect on 90-day functional outcome. It was really about prevention. The PRISMS trial suggested that alteplase was also unlikely to improve 90-day functional outcome in this population of patients with mild and not clearly disabling stroke. So, it is not surprising that dual antiplatelet therapy was noninferior to alteplase for 90-day functional outcome for both those reasons,” she explained.
“That being said, while designed as a noninferiority study, it is interesting to note that alteplase again showed no evidence of treatment effect compared to antiplatelet therapy, affirming what was observed in the prematurely terminated PRISMS trial,” Dr. Khatri added.
In a discussion of the study at an ISC 2023 highlights session, ISC program chair Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., said: “This is very important data and it’s actually the first completed trial that examines this question.”
But, he added, “I think we need to refine our knowledge about what a nondisabling stroke actually is. You could argue that every stroke is disabling. I think we need more clarity on this definition, as in practice, many clinicians still give tPA on account of these mild strokes still being disabling.”
The ARAMIS trial was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China and the Science and Technology Project Plan of Liaoning Province. Dr. Nguyen reports research support from Medtronic that was not related to the current study.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
in the ARAMIS trial.
The trial was presented by Thanh Nguyen, MD, Boston Medical Center, at the International Stroke Conference presented by the American Stroke Association, a division of the American Heart Association.
“Given the ease of administration, less intensive monitoring, low cost, and safety profile of dual antiplatelet therapy, the current findings support the use of dual antiplatelet in this population,” Dr. Nguyen concluded.
In a comment on the trial, Pooja Khatri, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Cincinnati, and lead investigator of the previous PRISMS study of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) or alteplase in mild stroke, said the results reinforced the current recommendations of giving dual antiplatelet therapy but not alteplase to these patients.
Noting that the standard of care is now to give dual antiplatelet therapy to these patients, Dr. Khatri said: “These data reassure that this remains the right way to go.”
She added that her take-home message from the study would be: “Keep giving dual antiplatelet therapy, and we may be doing more harm than good with alteplase in this patient population.”
Introducing her presentation, Dr. Nguyen explained that mild ischemic stroke, defined as having a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 5 or less, comprises half of ischemic stroke patients in the United States. But the benefit of thrombolysis in patients with minor ischemic stroke that is not disabling is unknown.
A subgroup analysis of one of the major thrombolysis trials (IST-3) found that a higher proportion of patients with mild ischemic stroke who were treated within 3 hours of symptom onset were alive and independent at 6 months if they had been given thrombolysis (84%), compared to 65% in the control group who received standard medical treatment.
This led to the first randomized trial (PRISMS) dedicated to patients with mild nondisabling stroke, which found that alteplase given within 3 hours of symptom onset did not increase the likelihood of a good functional outcome at 90 days in comparison with single-agent aspirin. The study was unfortunately terminated early for administrative reasons, and no definitive conclusions could be drawn on the basis of these results, Dr. Nguyen reported.
In 2018, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines indicated that for patients who present within 3 hours of symptom onset with mild ischemic stroke that was judged to be nondisabling, thrombolysis with intravenous alteplase could be considered, she noted.
In the meantime, dual antiplatelet therapy was shown to be safe and effective in the POINT and CHANCE trials in patients presenting with minor stroke within 12 or 24 hours, and the CHANCE trial also found a benefit in reducing recurrent stroke that was most effective in the first 2 weeks.
The current ARAMIS trial was therefore conducted to evaluate dual antiplatelet therapy in comparison with thrombolysis for patients with acute minor stroke (NIHSS 5 or less) who presented within 4.5 hours of symptom onset and were without clearly disabling deficit.
The trial was conducted in 38 hospitals in China and included 760 patients (median NIHSS score of 2) who were randomly assigned to receive intravenous alteplase at the standard dose of 0.9 mg/kg, followed by guideline-based antiplatelet treatment, or dual antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel 300 mg plus 100 mg aspirin loading dose followed by 10 to 14 days of aspirin 100 mg and clopidogrel 75 mg).
The trial was designed to assess noninferiority of dual antiplatelet therapy to alteplase with noninferiority margin of –4.5%.
In the modified intention-to-treat analysis, which included 722 patients, the primary outcome (excellent functional outcome, defined as a Modified Rankin Scale score of 0 or 1 at 90 days) occurred in 93.8% of patients in the dual antiplatelet therapy group and in 91.4% of the alteplase group. This gave a difference of 2.4%, which fell within the limits for noninferiority (P = .0002 for noninferiority test).
“Therefore, this was a positive trial,” Dr. Nguyen stated.
About 20% of patients crossed over from the dual antiplatelet group to the thrombolysis group, and about 16% of patients crossed over from the thrombolysis group to the dual antiplatelet group. But a per-protocol and an “as treated” analysis showed results similar to those of the main intention-to-treat analysis.
Secondary outcomes were largely similar between the two groups other than early neurologic deterioration, which was less common in the dual antiplatelet therapy group.
In terms of safety, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 0.3% (1/369) in the dual antiplatelet group and in 0.9% (3/350) in the alteplase group, a nonsignificant difference.
Events of “any bleeding” occurred in more patients in the thrombolysis group (5.4%) than in the dual antiplatelet therapy group (1.6%), and this difference was significant (P = .01).
Subgroup analysis showed a trend toward benefit of alteplase for patients with higher NIHSS score at baseline (NIHSS > 3). Otherwise, the other subgroups looked similar to the main results.
Dr. Nguyen pointed out one limitation of the study – that dual antiplatelet therapy was updated to standard treatment in this target population in the 2019 AHA/ASA guidelines.
In her discussion of the study, Dr. Khatri suggested that the ARAMIS results were what might have been expected.
“Dual antiplatelet therapy is designed to prevent stroke. Even in the POINT trial, dual antiplatelet therapy showed no effect on 90-day functional outcome. It was really about prevention. The PRISMS trial suggested that alteplase was also unlikely to improve 90-day functional outcome in this population of patients with mild and not clearly disabling stroke. So, it is not surprising that dual antiplatelet therapy was noninferior to alteplase for 90-day functional outcome for both those reasons,” she explained.
“That being said, while designed as a noninferiority study, it is interesting to note that alteplase again showed no evidence of treatment effect compared to antiplatelet therapy, affirming what was observed in the prematurely terminated PRISMS trial,” Dr. Khatri added.
In a discussion of the study at an ISC 2023 highlights session, ISC program chair Tudor Jovin, MD, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cherry Hill, N.J., said: “This is very important data and it’s actually the first completed trial that examines this question.”
But, he added, “I think we need to refine our knowledge about what a nondisabling stroke actually is. You could argue that every stroke is disabling. I think we need more clarity on this definition, as in practice, many clinicians still give tPA on account of these mild strokes still being disabling.”
The ARAMIS trial was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China and the Science and Technology Project Plan of Liaoning Province. Dr. Nguyen reports research support from Medtronic that was not related to the current study.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ISC 2023