Cardiology News

In a test of one of the nation’s most restrictive laws limiting noncompete clauses in medicine, an Indiana pediatric critical-care physician is suing to stop his former hospital employer from controlling his future employment prospects.

David Lankford, DO, acknowledges that he signed a contract with the Lutheran Health Network that included a noncompete clause. However, he claims in a lawsuit filed July 5 in Allen County Superior Court that an Indiana law that took effect 4 days earlier nullifies the clause because he quit his job with cause. 

Indiana’s law is notable among states because if a physician terminates his/her job for cause, the noncompete may be considered unenforceable.

“When you have physicians who are unable to work in their community, it creates a barrier for access to care for patients,” Dr. Lankford said in an interview. “I’m fighting to decrease barriers and continue to have patients be able to see their doctors in their own hometown or their own county.”

Lutheran Health’s media relations department did not respond to requests for comment.
 

Noncompete clauses ‘extremely common’

Non-compete clauses – which typically restrict when and where employees can take future jobs – are common in physician contracts, Anu Murthy, JD, who reviews employee contracts for a firm called Contract Diagnostics, said in an interview.

However, the tide has been turning against them.

About a dozen states and the District of Columbia have enacted legislation to limit the use of noncompetes in employment contracts, and about half of states have pending legislation that could dilute noncompete clauses, Ms. Murthy said. In June, the state of New York sent a noncompete ban bill to the governor’s desk.

For more about state-by-state restrictions on noncompete clauses, check this chart.

In his lawsuit, Dr. Lankford said he was hired in 2017 to work at Lutheran Hospital in Fort Wayne.

Dr. Lankford signed an employee renewal contract in 2020 that included a noncompete clause; his attorneys declined to provide details about the clause because of confidentiality restrictions. 

In 2022, the lawsuit says, Lutheran Hospital told Dr. Lankford that he’d need to take on more work due to layoffs of pediatric hospitalists. His patient load subsequently grew by 4-5 times, and he quit as of Jan. 7, 2023. 

Dr. Lankford wrote that he found a new job at Parkview Regional Medical Center in Fort Wayne, but his former employer threatened to take action under the noncompete clause, and Parkview withdrew its offer.

Among other things, the new Indiana law says that the clauses are not enforceable “if physician terminates the physician’s employment for cause.”

The lawsuit asks for a judge to prevent Lutheran Health Network from enforcing the clause.
 

Impact on patients

The new Indiana law also bans noncompete clauses for primary care physicians. Kathleen A. DeLaney, JD, one of Dr. Lankford’s attorneys, said in an interview that this provision came about because rural legislators didn’t want to add to the challenges of attracting primary care doctors to move to their communities.  

State legislators have become less friendly to noncompete clauses in medicine because they’re wary of the negative effects on patients, Evan Starr, PhD, said in an interview. The clauses prevent doctors from taking new jobs where they could continue to treat their previous patients, said Dr. Starr, associate professor in the department of management and organization at the University of Maryland.

However, he said, hospitals are fighting to preserve the clauses, arguing that they provide a base of patients to physicians in return for their agreement not to go work for a competitor.

The legal landscape may change even more. The Federal Trade Commission has proposed banning the clauses nationally, and a decision is expected in 2024. However, it’s an election year, which may delay a decision, attorney Ms. Murthy said, “and there is also language in the proposed rule that could exempt nonprofit hospitals, which further complicates the issues.”

For now, Ms. Murthy said, “we are still seeing noncompetes and other restrictive covenants in almost every contract we review in all 50 states and across all specialties. We explicitly explain to every client that they should only sign the agreement with the expectation that their specific noncompete will be enforced as written. Large employer groups, including hospital systems, will likely fight any kind of restriction or dilution of noncompetes, and these types of legal challenges could be tied up in court for many years.”
 

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

In a test of one of the nation’s most restrictive laws limiting noncompete clauses in medicine, an Indiana pediatric critical-care physician is suing to stop his former hospital employer from controlling his future employment prospects.

David Lankford, DO, acknowledges that he signed a contract with the Lutheran Health Network that included a noncompete clause. However, he claims in a lawsuit filed July 5 in Allen County Superior Court that an Indiana law that took effect 4 days earlier nullifies the clause because he quit his job with cause. 

Indiana’s law is notable among states because if a physician terminates his/her job for cause, the noncompete may be considered unenforceable.

“When you have physicians who are unable to work in their community, it creates a barrier for access to care for patients,” Dr. Lankford said in an interview. “I’m fighting to decrease barriers and continue to have patients be able to see their doctors in their own hometown or their own county.”

Lutheran Health’s media relations department did not respond to requests for comment.
 

Noncompete clauses ‘extremely common’

Non-compete clauses – which typically restrict when and where employees can take future jobs – are common in physician contracts, Anu Murthy, JD, who reviews employee contracts for a firm called Contract Diagnostics, said in an interview.

However, the tide has been turning against them.

About a dozen states and the District of Columbia have enacted legislation to limit the use of noncompetes in employment contracts, and about half of states have pending legislation that could dilute noncompete clauses, Ms. Murthy said. In June, the state of New York sent a noncompete ban bill to the governor’s desk.

For more about state-by-state restrictions on noncompete clauses, check this chart.

In his lawsuit, Dr. Lankford said he was hired in 2017 to work at Lutheran Hospital in Fort Wayne.

Dr. Lankford signed an employee renewal contract in 2020 that included a noncompete clause; his attorneys declined to provide details about the clause because of confidentiality restrictions. 

In 2022, the lawsuit says, Lutheran Hospital told Dr. Lankford that he’d need to take on more work due to layoffs of pediatric hospitalists. His patient load subsequently grew by 4-5 times, and he quit as of Jan. 7, 2023. 

Dr. Lankford wrote that he found a new job at Parkview Regional Medical Center in Fort Wayne, but his former employer threatened to take action under the noncompete clause, and Parkview withdrew its offer.

Among other things, the new Indiana law says that the clauses are not enforceable “if physician terminates the physician’s employment for cause.”

The lawsuit asks for a judge to prevent Lutheran Health Network from enforcing the clause.
 

Impact on patients

The new Indiana law also bans noncompete clauses for primary care physicians. Kathleen A. DeLaney, JD, one of Dr. Lankford’s attorneys, said in an interview that this provision came about because rural legislators didn’t want to add to the challenges of attracting primary care doctors to move to their communities.  

State legislators have become less friendly to noncompete clauses in medicine because they’re wary of the negative effects on patients, Evan Starr, PhD, said in an interview. The clauses prevent doctors from taking new jobs where they could continue to treat their previous patients, said Dr. Starr, associate professor in the department of management and organization at the University of Maryland.

However, he said, hospitals are fighting to preserve the clauses, arguing that they provide a base of patients to physicians in return for their agreement not to go work for a competitor.

The legal landscape may change even more. The Federal Trade Commission has proposed banning the clauses nationally, and a decision is expected in 2024. However, it’s an election year, which may delay a decision, attorney Ms. Murthy said, “and there is also language in the proposed rule that could exempt nonprofit hospitals, which further complicates the issues.”

For now, Ms. Murthy said, “we are still seeing noncompetes and other restrictive covenants in almost every contract we review in all 50 states and across all specialties. We explicitly explain to every client that they should only sign the agreement with the expectation that their specific noncompete will be enforced as written. Large employer groups, including hospital systems, will likely fight any kind of restriction or dilution of noncompetes, and these types of legal challenges could be tied up in court for many years.”
 

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

In a test of one of the nation’s most restrictive laws limiting noncompete clauses in medicine, an Indiana pediatric critical-care physician is suing to stop his former hospital employer from controlling his future employment prospects.

David Lankford, DO, acknowledges that he signed a contract with the Lutheran Health Network that included a noncompete clause. However, he claims in a lawsuit filed July 5 in Allen County Superior Court that an Indiana law that took effect 4 days earlier nullifies the clause because he quit his job with cause. 

Indiana’s law is notable among states because if a physician terminates his/her job for cause, the noncompete may be considered unenforceable.

“When you have physicians who are unable to work in their community, it creates a barrier for access to care for patients,” Dr. Lankford said in an interview. “I’m fighting to decrease barriers and continue to have patients be able to see their doctors in their own hometown or their own county.”

Lutheran Health’s media relations department did not respond to requests for comment.
 

Noncompete clauses ‘extremely common’

Non-compete clauses – which typically restrict when and where employees can take future jobs – are common in physician contracts, Anu Murthy, JD, who reviews employee contracts for a firm called Contract Diagnostics, said in an interview.

However, the tide has been turning against them.

About a dozen states and the District of Columbia have enacted legislation to limit the use of noncompetes in employment contracts, and about half of states have pending legislation that could dilute noncompete clauses, Ms. Murthy said. In June, the state of New York sent a noncompete ban bill to the governor’s desk.

For more about state-by-state restrictions on noncompete clauses, check this chart.

In his lawsuit, Dr. Lankford said he was hired in 2017 to work at Lutheran Hospital in Fort Wayne.

Dr. Lankford signed an employee renewal contract in 2020 that included a noncompete clause; his attorneys declined to provide details about the clause because of confidentiality restrictions. 

In 2022, the lawsuit says, Lutheran Hospital told Dr. Lankford that he’d need to take on more work due to layoffs of pediatric hospitalists. His patient load subsequently grew by 4-5 times, and he quit as of Jan. 7, 2023. 

Dr. Lankford wrote that he found a new job at Parkview Regional Medical Center in Fort Wayne, but his former employer threatened to take action under the noncompete clause, and Parkview withdrew its offer.

Among other things, the new Indiana law says that the clauses are not enforceable “if physician terminates the physician’s employment for cause.”

The lawsuit asks for a judge to prevent Lutheran Health Network from enforcing the clause.
 

Impact on patients

The new Indiana law also bans noncompete clauses for primary care physicians. Kathleen A. DeLaney, JD, one of Dr. Lankford’s attorneys, said in an interview that this provision came about because rural legislators didn’t want to add to the challenges of attracting primary care doctors to move to their communities.  

State legislators have become less friendly to noncompete clauses in medicine because they’re wary of the negative effects on patients, Evan Starr, PhD, said in an interview. The clauses prevent doctors from taking new jobs where they could continue to treat their previous patients, said Dr. Starr, associate professor in the department of management and organization at the University of Maryland.

However, he said, hospitals are fighting to preserve the clauses, arguing that they provide a base of patients to physicians in return for their agreement not to go work for a competitor.

The legal landscape may change even more. The Federal Trade Commission has proposed banning the clauses nationally, and a decision is expected in 2024. However, it’s an election year, which may delay a decision, attorney Ms. Murthy said, “and there is also language in the proposed rule that could exempt nonprofit hospitals, which further complicates the issues.”

For now, Ms. Murthy said, “we are still seeing noncompetes and other restrictive covenants in almost every contract we review in all 50 states and across all specialties. We explicitly explain to every client that they should only sign the agreement with the expectation that their specific noncompete will be enforced as written. Large employer groups, including hospital systems, will likely fight any kind of restriction or dilution of noncompetes, and these types of legal challenges could be tied up in court for many years.”
 

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

About one-third of older patients in a cohort study who were considered frail and then required resuscitation from cardiac arrest during noncardiac surgery survived to at least a month after hospital discharge.

And the frailer that patients were going into surgery, according to their scores on an established frailty index, the greater their adjusted mortality risk at 30 days and the likelier they were to be discharged to a location other than their home.

The findings are based on more than 3,000 patients in an American College of Surgeons (ACS) quality improvement registry who underwent CPR at noncardiac surgery, about one-fourth of whom scored a least 40 on the revised Risk Analysis Index (RAI). The frailty index accounts for the patient’s comorbidities, cognition, functional and nutritional status, and other factors as predictors of postoperative mortality risk.

Such CPR for perioperative cardiac arrest “should not be considered futile just because a patient is frail, but neither should cardiac arrest be considered as ‘reversible’ in this population, as previously thought,” lead author Matthew B. Allen, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

“We know that patients who are frail have higher risk of complications and mortality after surgery, and recent studies have demonstrated that frailty is associated with very poor outcomes following CPR in nonsurgical settings,” said Dr. Allen, an attending physician in the department of anesthesiology, perioperative, and pain medicine at his center.

Although cardiac arrest is typically regarded as being “more reversible” in the setting of surgery and anesthesia than elsewhere in the hospital, he observed, there’s very little data on whether that is indeed the case for frail patients.

The current analysis provides “a heretofore absent base of evidence to guide decision-making regarding CPR in patients with frailty who undergo surgery,” states the report, published in JAMA Network Open.

The 3,058 patients in the analysis, from the ACS National Surgical Quality Improvement database, received CPR for cardiac arrest during or soon after noncardiac surgery. Their mean age was 71 and 44% were women.

Their RAI scores ranged from 14 to 71 and averaged 37.7; one-fourth of the patients had scores of 40 or higher, the study’s threshold for identifying patients as “frail.”

Overall in the cohort, more cardiac arrests occurred during surgeries that entailed  low-to-moderate physiologic stress (an Operative Stress Score of 1 to 3) than in the setting of emergency surgery: 67.9% vs. 39.1%, respectively.

During emergency surgeries, a greater proportion of frail than nonfrail patients experienced cardiac arrest, 42% and 38%, respectively. The same relationship was observed during low-to-moderate stress surgeries: 76.6% of frail patients and 64.8% of nonfrail patients. General anesthesia was used in about 93% of procedures for both frail and nonfrail patients, the report states.

The primary endpoint, 30-day mortality, was 58.6% overall, 67.4% in frail patients, and 55.6% for nonfrail patients. Frailty and mortality were positively associated, with an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 1.35 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.65, P = .003) in multivariate analysis.

Of the cohort’s 1,164 patients who had been admitted from home and survived to discharge, 38.6% were discharged to a destination other than home; the corresponding rates for frail and nonfrail patients were 59.3% and 33.9%, respectively. Frailty and nonhome discharge were positively correlated with an AOR of 1.85 (95% CI, 1.31-2.62, P  < .001).

“There is no such thing as a low-risk procedure in patients who are frail,” Dr. Allen said in an interview. “Frail patients should be medically optimized prior to undergoing surgery and anesthesia, and plans should be tailored to patients’ vulnerabilities to reduce the risk of complications and facilitate rapid recognition and treatment when they occur.”

Moreover, he said, management of clinical decompensation in the perioperative period should be a part of the shared decision-making process “to establish a plan aligned with the patients’ priorities whenever possible.”

The current study quantifies risk associated with frailty in the surgical setting, and “this quantification can help providers, patients, and insurers better grasp the growing frailty problem,” Balachundhar Subramaniam, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

Universal screening for frailty is “a must in all surgical patients” to help identify those who are high-risk and reduce their chances for perioperative adverse events, said Dr. Subramaniam, who was not involved in the study.

“Prehabilitation with education, nutrition, physical fitness, and psychological support offer the best chance of significantly reducing poor outcomes” in frail patients, he said, along with “continuous education” in the care of frail patients.

University of Colorado surgeon Joseph Cleveland, MD, not part of the current study, said that it “provides a framework for counseling patients” regarding their do-not-resuscitate status.

“We can counsel patients with frailty with this information,” he said, “that if their heart should stop or go into in irregular rhythm, their chances of surviving are not greater than 50% and they have a more than 50% chance of not being discharged home.”

Dr. Allen reported receiving a clinical translational starter grant from Brigham and Women’s Hospital Department of Anesthesiology; disclosures for the other authors are in the original article. Dr. Subramaniam disclosed research funding from Masimo and Merck and serving as an education consultant for Masimo. Dr. Cleveland reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

About one-third of older patients in a cohort study who were considered frail and then required resuscitation from cardiac arrest during noncardiac surgery survived to at least a month after hospital discharge.

And the frailer that patients were going into surgery, according to their scores on an established frailty index, the greater their adjusted mortality risk at 30 days and the likelier they were to be discharged to a location other than their home.

The findings are based on more than 3,000 patients in an American College of Surgeons (ACS) quality improvement registry who underwent CPR at noncardiac surgery, about one-fourth of whom scored a least 40 on the revised Risk Analysis Index (RAI). The frailty index accounts for the patient’s comorbidities, cognition, functional and nutritional status, and other factors as predictors of postoperative mortality risk.

Such CPR for perioperative cardiac arrest “should not be considered futile just because a patient is frail, but neither should cardiac arrest be considered as ‘reversible’ in this population, as previously thought,” lead author Matthew B. Allen, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

“We know that patients who are frail have higher risk of complications and mortality after surgery, and recent studies have demonstrated that frailty is associated with very poor outcomes following CPR in nonsurgical settings,” said Dr. Allen, an attending physician in the department of anesthesiology, perioperative, and pain medicine at his center.

Although cardiac arrest is typically regarded as being “more reversible” in the setting of surgery and anesthesia than elsewhere in the hospital, he observed, there’s very little data on whether that is indeed the case for frail patients.

The current analysis provides “a heretofore absent base of evidence to guide decision-making regarding CPR in patients with frailty who undergo surgery,” states the report, published in JAMA Network Open.

The 3,058 patients in the analysis, from the ACS National Surgical Quality Improvement database, received CPR for cardiac arrest during or soon after noncardiac surgery. Their mean age was 71 and 44% were women.

Their RAI scores ranged from 14 to 71 and averaged 37.7; one-fourth of the patients had scores of 40 or higher, the study’s threshold for identifying patients as “frail.”

Overall in the cohort, more cardiac arrests occurred during surgeries that entailed  low-to-moderate physiologic stress (an Operative Stress Score of 1 to 3) than in the setting of emergency surgery: 67.9% vs. 39.1%, respectively.

During emergency surgeries, a greater proportion of frail than nonfrail patients experienced cardiac arrest, 42% and 38%, respectively. The same relationship was observed during low-to-moderate stress surgeries: 76.6% of frail patients and 64.8% of nonfrail patients. General anesthesia was used in about 93% of procedures for both frail and nonfrail patients, the report states.

The primary endpoint, 30-day mortality, was 58.6% overall, 67.4% in frail patients, and 55.6% for nonfrail patients. Frailty and mortality were positively associated, with an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 1.35 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.65, P = .003) in multivariate analysis.

Of the cohort’s 1,164 patients who had been admitted from home and survived to discharge, 38.6% were discharged to a destination other than home; the corresponding rates for frail and nonfrail patients were 59.3% and 33.9%, respectively. Frailty and nonhome discharge were positively correlated with an AOR of 1.85 (95% CI, 1.31-2.62, P  < .001).

“There is no such thing as a low-risk procedure in patients who are frail,” Dr. Allen said in an interview. “Frail patients should be medically optimized prior to undergoing surgery and anesthesia, and plans should be tailored to patients’ vulnerabilities to reduce the risk of complications and facilitate rapid recognition and treatment when they occur.”

Moreover, he said, management of clinical decompensation in the perioperative period should be a part of the shared decision-making process “to establish a plan aligned with the patients’ priorities whenever possible.”

The current study quantifies risk associated with frailty in the surgical setting, and “this quantification can help providers, patients, and insurers better grasp the growing frailty problem,” Balachundhar Subramaniam, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

Universal screening for frailty is “a must in all surgical patients” to help identify those who are high-risk and reduce their chances for perioperative adverse events, said Dr. Subramaniam, who was not involved in the study.

“Prehabilitation with education, nutrition, physical fitness, and psychological support offer the best chance of significantly reducing poor outcomes” in frail patients, he said, along with “continuous education” in the care of frail patients.

University of Colorado surgeon Joseph Cleveland, MD, not part of the current study, said that it “provides a framework for counseling patients” regarding their do-not-resuscitate status.

“We can counsel patients with frailty with this information,” he said, “that if their heart should stop or go into in irregular rhythm, their chances of surviving are not greater than 50% and they have a more than 50% chance of not being discharged home.”

Dr. Allen reported receiving a clinical translational starter grant from Brigham and Women’s Hospital Department of Anesthesiology; disclosures for the other authors are in the original article. Dr. Subramaniam disclosed research funding from Masimo and Merck and serving as an education consultant for Masimo. Dr. Cleveland reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

About one-third of older patients in a cohort study who were considered frail and then required resuscitation from cardiac arrest during noncardiac surgery survived to at least a month after hospital discharge.

And the frailer that patients were going into surgery, according to their scores on an established frailty index, the greater their adjusted mortality risk at 30 days and the likelier they were to be discharged to a location other than their home.

The findings are based on more than 3,000 patients in an American College of Surgeons (ACS) quality improvement registry who underwent CPR at noncardiac surgery, about one-fourth of whom scored a least 40 on the revised Risk Analysis Index (RAI). The frailty index accounts for the patient’s comorbidities, cognition, functional and nutritional status, and other factors as predictors of postoperative mortality risk.

Such CPR for perioperative cardiac arrest “should not be considered futile just because a patient is frail, but neither should cardiac arrest be considered as ‘reversible’ in this population, as previously thought,” lead author Matthew B. Allen, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

“We know that patients who are frail have higher risk of complications and mortality after surgery, and recent studies have demonstrated that frailty is associated with very poor outcomes following CPR in nonsurgical settings,” said Dr. Allen, an attending physician in the department of anesthesiology, perioperative, and pain medicine at his center.

Although cardiac arrest is typically regarded as being “more reversible” in the setting of surgery and anesthesia than elsewhere in the hospital, he observed, there’s very little data on whether that is indeed the case for frail patients.

The current analysis provides “a heretofore absent base of evidence to guide decision-making regarding CPR in patients with frailty who undergo surgery,” states the report, published in JAMA Network Open.

The 3,058 patients in the analysis, from the ACS National Surgical Quality Improvement database, received CPR for cardiac arrest during or soon after noncardiac surgery. Their mean age was 71 and 44% were women.

Their RAI scores ranged from 14 to 71 and averaged 37.7; one-fourth of the patients had scores of 40 or higher, the study’s threshold for identifying patients as “frail.”

Overall in the cohort, more cardiac arrests occurred during surgeries that entailed  low-to-moderate physiologic stress (an Operative Stress Score of 1 to 3) than in the setting of emergency surgery: 67.9% vs. 39.1%, respectively.

During emergency surgeries, a greater proportion of frail than nonfrail patients experienced cardiac arrest, 42% and 38%, respectively. The same relationship was observed during low-to-moderate stress surgeries: 76.6% of frail patients and 64.8% of nonfrail patients. General anesthesia was used in about 93% of procedures for both frail and nonfrail patients, the report states.

The primary endpoint, 30-day mortality, was 58.6% overall, 67.4% in frail patients, and 55.6% for nonfrail patients. Frailty and mortality were positively associated, with an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 1.35 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.65, P = .003) in multivariate analysis.

Of the cohort’s 1,164 patients who had been admitted from home and survived to discharge, 38.6% were discharged to a destination other than home; the corresponding rates for frail and nonfrail patients were 59.3% and 33.9%, respectively. Frailty and nonhome discharge were positively correlated with an AOR of 1.85 (95% CI, 1.31-2.62, P  < .001).

“There is no such thing as a low-risk procedure in patients who are frail,” Dr. Allen said in an interview. “Frail patients should be medically optimized prior to undergoing surgery and anesthesia, and plans should be tailored to patients’ vulnerabilities to reduce the risk of complications and facilitate rapid recognition and treatment when they occur.”

Moreover, he said, management of clinical decompensation in the perioperative period should be a part of the shared decision-making process “to establish a plan aligned with the patients’ priorities whenever possible.”

The current study quantifies risk associated with frailty in the surgical setting, and “this quantification can help providers, patients, and insurers better grasp the growing frailty problem,” Balachundhar Subramaniam, MD, MPH, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

Universal screening for frailty is “a must in all surgical patients” to help identify those who are high-risk and reduce their chances for perioperative adverse events, said Dr. Subramaniam, who was not involved in the study.

“Prehabilitation with education, nutrition, physical fitness, and psychological support offer the best chance of significantly reducing poor outcomes” in frail patients, he said, along with “continuous education” in the care of frail patients.

University of Colorado surgeon Joseph Cleveland, MD, not part of the current study, said that it “provides a framework for counseling patients” regarding their do-not-resuscitate status.

“We can counsel patients with frailty with this information,” he said, “that if their heart should stop or go into in irregular rhythm, their chances of surviving are not greater than 50% and they have a more than 50% chance of not being discharged home.”

Dr. Allen reported receiving a clinical translational starter grant from Brigham and Women’s Hospital Department of Anesthesiology; disclosures for the other authors are in the original article. Dr. Subramaniam disclosed research funding from Masimo and Merck and serving as an education consultant for Masimo. Dr. Cleveland reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Performing coronary reactivity (CR) testing during angiography in patients with angina without obstructive coronary disease (ANOCA) adds complexity and cost to the procedure but may, in the end, turn out to be a bargain.
 

A retrospective, single-center study suggests that CR testing in ANOCA patients can save money, perhaps a lot of money, probably by helping to limit downstream procedures and other use of health care resources. 

In the retrospective study, CR testing included both adenosine and acetylcholine challenges to differentiate endothelium-dependent from endothelium-independent coronary reactivity as the physiological cause of ANOCA in individuals. Clarifying the cause at this stage of the patient’s clinical journey seemed to sharpen subsequent testing and management decisions, the researchers said.

Of the 414 patients with ANOCA who underwent invasive diagnostic angiography, 207 also received CR testing during the procedure. The difference in total healthcare costs between the two groups over 2 years averaged about $20,000, largely because of the CR-testing group’s reduced use of downstream imaging, interventional procedures, and other tests, notes a report on the study published in Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions.

For such patients referred for coronary angiography found to be without obstructive disease, “the right thing to do is a vascular reactivity test to assess if there is any abnormality that can contribute to this patient’s symptoms and events,” senior author Amir Lerman, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview. Coronary reactivity testing “is expensive to set up initially, but it actually saves money by reducing the need for additional unnecessary testing and hospitalizations in these patients.”

The financial burden linked to the diagnosis and treatment of patients with chest pain is considerable, Dr. Lerman observed. It can involve a series of tests and culminate in a coronary angiogram. However, symptoms may continue if therapy does not correctly target one or more of several different potential mechanisms, including microvascular dysfunction and vasospastic disorders.

“This paper says that if you establish a program of coronary reactivity testing you will ultimately reduce health care costs, because patients stop coming back to the hospital, or their physician stops ordering more tests or repeat angiograms because the patient has a true diagnosis,” observed Morton J. Kern, MD, University of California, Irvine, and VA Long Beach (Calif.) Health Care.

“That elimination of uncertainty and reduction of testing has a good payoff,” Dr. Kern said in an interview. “The concept is good; the only challenge is that this is a complicated set of manipulations in the cath lab to get to the results.”

A minority of cardiac cath labs in the United States perform CR testing, despite its inclusion for ANOCA in guidelines from both the European Society of Cardiology and the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology, the authors noted. Cost and its requirement for specialized expertise may contribute to its poor uptake in practice.

In an editorial accompanying the report, Dr. Kern and David J. Cohen, MD, Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, and St. Francis Hospital and Heart Center, Roslyn, N.Y., said they agree with the authors’ recommendation for more widespread use of CR testing.

However, the initiation of a CR testing program is no small task. “In addition to motivated practitioners, operators with specific procedural expertise must have formalized technical training to produce valid results and to limit the procedural risks,” they wrote.

Moreover, expenses for a CR testing program “will likely be incurred without balanced reimbursement, but the health care system will benefit in the long run.”

The total health-related costs for the two groups of 207 in the analysis were tracked for 2 years after the procedure and found to be significantly higher (P < .001) in the group that had received coronary angiography without CR testing. Their average annual cost was $37,804 (range, $26,933-$48,674), compared with $13,679 (range, $9,447-$17,910) for those that had undergone CR testing.

The angiography-only group’s costs for procedures (including surgical or percutaneous intervention, endoscopy, and bronchoscopy) averaged $5,872 (range, $3,798-$7,946), compared with $2,104 (range, $1,202-$3,006) in the CR testing group (P = .001).

Similarly, costs for any type of imaging, including at cardiac catheterization, averaged $2,639 (range, $2,093 to $3,185) and $1,426 (range, $1,090 to $1,761), respectively (P < .001).

Annual total hospital services costs were also higher in the angiography-only group at $21,820 versus $6,409 (P < .001) for the group that underwent CR testing.

Caution is required when interpreting these results, Matthew Tomey, MD, Mount Sinai Morningside Hospital and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“The observed cost differences are interesting and hypothesis generating but they fall short of providing strong evidence that [CR testing] saves money or that [it] should be incorporated into routine practice,” Dr. Tomey said. “Multiple biases can skew findings of retrospective observational studies. A prospective, randomized study would be needed to draw stronger conclusions.”

Still, it’s true that “there is substantial opportunity to do better in diagnosing chest pain in our patients with no apparent, explanatory obstructive coronary atherosclerosis,” he said. “There are emerging invasive and noninvasive ways to do so. Helping our patients get to the right diagnosis is the right thing to do. It will lead to better treatment recommendations, improved patient symptoms, improved patient confidence, and – it stands to reason – cost benefits in the long term.”

The study was funded by a grant from Philips. Dr. Lerman reported receiving honoraria from Philips Volcano. Dr. Kern disclosed speaking for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Acist, Opsens, and Zoll. Dr. Cohen disclosed receiving institutional grant support from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, CathWorks, and Philips; and consulting income from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Tomey reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Performing coronary reactivity (CR) testing during angiography in patients with angina without obstructive coronary disease (ANOCA) adds complexity and cost to the procedure but may, in the end, turn out to be a bargain.
 

A retrospective, single-center study suggests that CR testing in ANOCA patients can save money, perhaps a lot of money, probably by helping to limit downstream procedures and other use of health care resources. 

In the retrospective study, CR testing included both adenosine and acetylcholine challenges to differentiate endothelium-dependent from endothelium-independent coronary reactivity as the physiological cause of ANOCA in individuals. Clarifying the cause at this stage of the patient’s clinical journey seemed to sharpen subsequent testing and management decisions, the researchers said.

Of the 414 patients with ANOCA who underwent invasive diagnostic angiography, 207 also received CR testing during the procedure. The difference in total healthcare costs between the two groups over 2 years averaged about $20,000, largely because of the CR-testing group’s reduced use of downstream imaging, interventional procedures, and other tests, notes a report on the study published in Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions.

For such patients referred for coronary angiography found to be without obstructive disease, “the right thing to do is a vascular reactivity test to assess if there is any abnormality that can contribute to this patient’s symptoms and events,” senior author Amir Lerman, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview. Coronary reactivity testing “is expensive to set up initially, but it actually saves money by reducing the need for additional unnecessary testing and hospitalizations in these patients.”

The financial burden linked to the diagnosis and treatment of patients with chest pain is considerable, Dr. Lerman observed. It can involve a series of tests and culminate in a coronary angiogram. However, symptoms may continue if therapy does not correctly target one or more of several different potential mechanisms, including microvascular dysfunction and vasospastic disorders.

“This paper says that if you establish a program of coronary reactivity testing you will ultimately reduce health care costs, because patients stop coming back to the hospital, or their physician stops ordering more tests or repeat angiograms because the patient has a true diagnosis,” observed Morton J. Kern, MD, University of California, Irvine, and VA Long Beach (Calif.) Health Care.

“That elimination of uncertainty and reduction of testing has a good payoff,” Dr. Kern said in an interview. “The concept is good; the only challenge is that this is a complicated set of manipulations in the cath lab to get to the results.”

A minority of cardiac cath labs in the United States perform CR testing, despite its inclusion for ANOCA in guidelines from both the European Society of Cardiology and the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology, the authors noted. Cost and its requirement for specialized expertise may contribute to its poor uptake in practice.

In an editorial accompanying the report, Dr. Kern and David J. Cohen, MD, Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, and St. Francis Hospital and Heart Center, Roslyn, N.Y., said they agree with the authors’ recommendation for more widespread use of CR testing.

However, the initiation of a CR testing program is no small task. “In addition to motivated practitioners, operators with specific procedural expertise must have formalized technical training to produce valid results and to limit the procedural risks,” they wrote.

Moreover, expenses for a CR testing program “will likely be incurred without balanced reimbursement, but the health care system will benefit in the long run.”

The total health-related costs for the two groups of 207 in the analysis were tracked for 2 years after the procedure and found to be significantly higher (P < .001) in the group that had received coronary angiography without CR testing. Their average annual cost was $37,804 (range, $26,933-$48,674), compared with $13,679 (range, $9,447-$17,910) for those that had undergone CR testing.

The angiography-only group’s costs for procedures (including surgical or percutaneous intervention, endoscopy, and bronchoscopy) averaged $5,872 (range, $3,798-$7,946), compared with $2,104 (range, $1,202-$3,006) in the CR testing group (P = .001).

Similarly, costs for any type of imaging, including at cardiac catheterization, averaged $2,639 (range, $2,093 to $3,185) and $1,426 (range, $1,090 to $1,761), respectively (P < .001).

Annual total hospital services costs were also higher in the angiography-only group at $21,820 versus $6,409 (P < .001) for the group that underwent CR testing.

Caution is required when interpreting these results, Matthew Tomey, MD, Mount Sinai Morningside Hospital and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“The observed cost differences are interesting and hypothesis generating but they fall short of providing strong evidence that [CR testing] saves money or that [it] should be incorporated into routine practice,” Dr. Tomey said. “Multiple biases can skew findings of retrospective observational studies. A prospective, randomized study would be needed to draw stronger conclusions.”

Still, it’s true that “there is substantial opportunity to do better in diagnosing chest pain in our patients with no apparent, explanatory obstructive coronary atherosclerosis,” he said. “There are emerging invasive and noninvasive ways to do so. Helping our patients get to the right diagnosis is the right thing to do. It will lead to better treatment recommendations, improved patient symptoms, improved patient confidence, and – it stands to reason – cost benefits in the long term.”

The study was funded by a grant from Philips. Dr. Lerman reported receiving honoraria from Philips Volcano. Dr. Kern disclosed speaking for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Acist, Opsens, and Zoll. Dr. Cohen disclosed receiving institutional grant support from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, CathWorks, and Philips; and consulting income from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Tomey reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Performing coronary reactivity (CR) testing during angiography in patients with angina without obstructive coronary disease (ANOCA) adds complexity and cost to the procedure but may, in the end, turn out to be a bargain.
 

A retrospective, single-center study suggests that CR testing in ANOCA patients can save money, perhaps a lot of money, probably by helping to limit downstream procedures and other use of health care resources. 

In the retrospective study, CR testing included both adenosine and acetylcholine challenges to differentiate endothelium-dependent from endothelium-independent coronary reactivity as the physiological cause of ANOCA in individuals. Clarifying the cause at this stage of the patient’s clinical journey seemed to sharpen subsequent testing and management decisions, the researchers said.

Of the 414 patients with ANOCA who underwent invasive diagnostic angiography, 207 also received CR testing during the procedure. The difference in total healthcare costs between the two groups over 2 years averaged about $20,000, largely because of the CR-testing group’s reduced use of downstream imaging, interventional procedures, and other tests, notes a report on the study published in Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions.

For such patients referred for coronary angiography found to be without obstructive disease, “the right thing to do is a vascular reactivity test to assess if there is any abnormality that can contribute to this patient’s symptoms and events,” senior author Amir Lerman, MD, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., said in an interview. Coronary reactivity testing “is expensive to set up initially, but it actually saves money by reducing the need for additional unnecessary testing and hospitalizations in these patients.”

The financial burden linked to the diagnosis and treatment of patients with chest pain is considerable, Dr. Lerman observed. It can involve a series of tests and culminate in a coronary angiogram. However, symptoms may continue if therapy does not correctly target one or more of several different potential mechanisms, including microvascular dysfunction and vasospastic disorders.

“This paper says that if you establish a program of coronary reactivity testing you will ultimately reduce health care costs, because patients stop coming back to the hospital, or their physician stops ordering more tests or repeat angiograms because the patient has a true diagnosis,” observed Morton J. Kern, MD, University of California, Irvine, and VA Long Beach (Calif.) Health Care.

“That elimination of uncertainty and reduction of testing has a good payoff,” Dr. Kern said in an interview. “The concept is good; the only challenge is that this is a complicated set of manipulations in the cath lab to get to the results.”

A minority of cardiac cath labs in the United States perform CR testing, despite its inclusion for ANOCA in guidelines from both the European Society of Cardiology and the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology, the authors noted. Cost and its requirement for specialized expertise may contribute to its poor uptake in practice.

In an editorial accompanying the report, Dr. Kern and David J. Cohen, MD, Cardiovascular Research Foundation, New York, and St. Francis Hospital and Heart Center, Roslyn, N.Y., said they agree with the authors’ recommendation for more widespread use of CR testing.

However, the initiation of a CR testing program is no small task. “In addition to motivated practitioners, operators with specific procedural expertise must have formalized technical training to produce valid results and to limit the procedural risks,” they wrote.

Moreover, expenses for a CR testing program “will likely be incurred without balanced reimbursement, but the health care system will benefit in the long run.”

The total health-related costs for the two groups of 207 in the analysis were tracked for 2 years after the procedure and found to be significantly higher (P < .001) in the group that had received coronary angiography without CR testing. Their average annual cost was $37,804 (range, $26,933-$48,674), compared with $13,679 (range, $9,447-$17,910) for those that had undergone CR testing.

The angiography-only group’s costs for procedures (including surgical or percutaneous intervention, endoscopy, and bronchoscopy) averaged $5,872 (range, $3,798-$7,946), compared with $2,104 (range, $1,202-$3,006) in the CR testing group (P = .001).

Similarly, costs for any type of imaging, including at cardiac catheterization, averaged $2,639 (range, $2,093 to $3,185) and $1,426 (range, $1,090 to $1,761), respectively (P < .001).

Annual total hospital services costs were also higher in the angiography-only group at $21,820 versus $6,409 (P < .001) for the group that underwent CR testing.

Caution is required when interpreting these results, Matthew Tomey, MD, Mount Sinai Morningside Hospital and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

“The observed cost differences are interesting and hypothesis generating but they fall short of providing strong evidence that [CR testing] saves money or that [it] should be incorporated into routine practice,” Dr. Tomey said. “Multiple biases can skew findings of retrospective observational studies. A prospective, randomized study would be needed to draw stronger conclusions.”

Still, it’s true that “there is substantial opportunity to do better in diagnosing chest pain in our patients with no apparent, explanatory obstructive coronary atherosclerosis,” he said. “There are emerging invasive and noninvasive ways to do so. Helping our patients get to the right diagnosis is the right thing to do. It will lead to better treatment recommendations, improved patient symptoms, improved patient confidence, and – it stands to reason – cost benefits in the long term.”

The study was funded by a grant from Philips. Dr. Lerman reported receiving honoraria from Philips Volcano. Dr. Kern disclosed speaking for Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Acist, Opsens, and Zoll. Dr. Cohen disclosed receiving institutional grant support from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, CathWorks, and Philips; and consulting income from Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Tomey reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

MADRID – A late diagnosis of chronic kidney disease is cause for concern. Scientific societies are therefore advocating for screening at younger ages to reverse this trend and slow the progression of the disease. Nearly all patients seen in primary care are candidates for screening because of their risk factors for kidney disease.

During the 29th National Conference of General and Family Medicine of the Spanish Society for General and Family Physicians, Teresa Benedito, MD, family doctor and member of the society’s cardiovascular group, and Roberto Alcázar, MD, nephrologist at the Infanta Leonor University Hospital, Madrid, presented a clinical case encountered in primary care. They used this case to frame a strong argument for the importance of early screening for chronic kidney disease, and they discussed how to properly manage such screening.

The presentation followed the guidelines in the SEMG publication regarding the management and referral of patients with type 2 diabetes. Dr. Benedito explained that the first thing to ask oneself during a patient visit is “whether they present risk factors for kidney disease. If so, we can’t let them leave before we do a kidney screening.” She then listed the factors in question: age older than 60 years, African heritage, family history of chronic kidney disease, decreased kidney mass, weight loss at birth, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, obesity, and low socioeconomic status.

For his part, Dr. Alcázar mentioned how these factors are similar to cardiovascular risk factors, because “the kidneys are a ball of vessels with double capillarization for purifying blood. They’re the organs with the most arteries per unit of weight, so anything that can damage the arteries can damage the kidneys.”
 

Candidates for screening

“Chronic kidney disease develops in 15% of the adult population in Spain. So, it’s worth asking how many patients have been diagnosed and who should we should be screening.” To the factors listed above, Dr. Alcázar added treatment with nephrotoxic drugs (including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) for patients with obstructive urinary tract disease, and a history of acute kidney injury for patients with chronic autoimmune disease or neoplasms. “Thus, nearly all patients seen in primary care would need to be screened.”

Another fundamental question raised was whether patients should be screened before age 60 years. “As a nephrologist, I feel that we have been diagnosing chronic kidney disease late, even though we’ve been doing everything by the book,” said Dr. Alcázar. In his opinion, “the answer to whether we should be screening earlier ... is yes, for two reasons: first, because it’s cost-effective, and second, because it’s very inexpensive.”

Dr. Benedito explained in detail the process for diagnosing this disease. She began by defining the disease as changes in kidney structure and function that last longer than 3 months. These changes are identified by use of two criteria: glomerular filtration rate less than 60 mL/min and kidney injury or lesions with or without reduced filtration rate (renal biopsy, albumin/creatinine ratio greater than 30 mg/g, proteinuria, alterations in urinary sediment or in imaging tests). Thus, “if one of these two criteria persists for more than 3 months, the diagnosis is chronic kidney disease. Also, high creatinine levels are not diagnostic for the disease,” she emphasized.
 

Two related parameters

Glomerular filtration and albuminuria “are highly relevant, because screening for chronic kidney disease is based on these two parameters,” said Dr. Benedito. Glomerular filtration rate varies with age, sex, ethnicity, and body mass. It is useful for identifying the stage of the disease and for monitoring disease progression. Albuminuria, on the other hand, is an indication of the severity of the disease. It’s an early marker for kidney injury and systemic disease and is more sensitive than proteinuria. Therefore, “this factor, together with glomerular filtration rate, allows us to detect, classify, and monitor the progression of chronic kidney disease.”

On this point, Dr. Alcázar emphasized the importance of trends, since variation in glomerular filtration depends on serum creatinine, which can vary by nearly 9%. He explained that glomerular filtration rate is related to the number of nephrons remaining. A glomerular filtration rate of less than 60 mL/min implies that more than half of the nephrons in each kidney have been lost. Albuminuria informs about structural damage (that is, the condition of the remaining nephrons). It’s therefore essential to test for both parameters. “We need to be actively monitoring and then making our decisions based on trends and not on isolated results. We need to be aware of albuminuria when we make our decisions,” said Dr. Alcázar. Some studies have shown the importance of testing for albuminuria whenever creatinine level is assessed. “We need to buy into this. If we don’t do this, we’ll only ever have half the information we need.”
 

Reducing late diagnosis

According to the IBERICAN study, 14% of patients seen in primary care in Spain have chronic kidney disease. “This statistic should make us stop and think, own our responsibility, and ask ourselves why this screening isn’t taking place [earlier],” said Dr. Benedito. She added, “We need to head off this trend toward late diagnosis. As the disease progresses, it significantly increases cardiovascular risk and leads to higher mortality, going on dialysis, transplants, et cetera.”

Dr. Alcázar noted that 80% of nephrology cases that are referred to him come from primary care. He explained the need to understand that “these patients have a sevenfold greater risk of suffering a serious cardiovascular event within the next year than people without kidney problems.” Most of these patients will experience an event, even if they don’t undergo dialysis (stage 3 and those near stage 4).
 

Correct staging

Also fundamental is having a detailed understanding of how staging is performed. Dr. Benedito explained that a chart that pairs glomerular filtration rate (six categories) with the level of albuminuria (three categories) should be used during the visit. For example, a case might be classified as G3a-A2. However, the simplified form of the chart may prove more practical. It classifies chronic kidney disease as being associated with mild, moderate, and severe risk, using different colors to aid comprehension.

Dr. Alcázar noted that the latest guidelines from the European Society of Hypertension for 2023 include albuminuria as an important parameter. The guidelines indicate that for a patient with moderate or severe risk, it is not necessary to calculate their score. “It’s considered high cardiovascular risk, and steps would need to be taken for intervention.”

He then listed the tools available for reversing albuminuria. The process begins by reducing salt consumption and involves the use of medications (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor antagonists, aldosterone receptor antagonists, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, which slow kidney damage regardless of other measures) and strict management of cardiovascular risk factors (smoking, weight management, blood glucose, hypertension, and moderate physical activity).
 

Reducing cardiovascular risk

Dr. Alcázar highlighted important factors to keep in mind when managing each of the cardiovascular risk factors. For hypertension, the aim is to achieve levels less than 130/80 mm Hg, although recommendations vary, depending on the guidelines consulted. “KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) 2021 states that there is no evidence for monitoring diastolic blood pressure, only systolic blood pressure. If we measure it according to the standardized form, SBP should be less than 120 mm Hg, and if not, we would fall back on readings of 130/80 mm Hg.”

For lipid control (specifically, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol), the staging chart indicates that for patients at mild risk, levels should be less than 100 mg/dL; for those at moderate risk, less than 70 mg/dL; and for those at severe risk, less than 55 mg/dL. Hypertriglyceridemia “should only be treated with fibrates if it comes in over 1,000 mg/dL. Also, care must be taken, because these drugs interfere with creatinine excretion, increasing it,” said Dr. Alcázar.

Guidelines from the KDIGO and the American Diabetes Association state that anyone with diabetes and chronic kidney disease should receive a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor if their glomerular filtration rate exceeds 20 mL/min, “which may contradict slightly what it says on the label. Also, if they have hypertension, they should take an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor,” said Dr. Alcázar. He added that “oral antidiabetics, including metformin, must be adjusted based on renal function if glomerular filtration rate is under 30 mL/min.”
 

Act immediately

When asked whether the course of chronic kidney disease can be changed, Dr. Alcázar responded with an emphatic yes and added that cardiovascular risk can also be substantially reduced. “As nephrologists, we don’t have access to patients in early stages. But family doctors do. Hence the importance of early screening, because going on dialysis at age 60 isn’t the same as at 80.” Currently, “scientific societies are encouraging authorities to screen for chronic kidney disease at earlier ages.”

Regarding drug-based therapy, Dr. Alcázar said that “empagliflozin is not currently indicated for chronic kidney disease in adults.” This sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor delays kidney disease and reduces morbidity. Both benefits were highlighted in two recent studies (DAPA-CKD and CREDENCE). Published in January, EMPA-KIDNEY presents a new twist on nephroprotection for patients with chronic kidney disease (diabetic or not) whose glomerular filtration rates are between 20 and 40 mL/min without albuminuria or whose glomerular filtration rates are between 45 and 90 mL/min with albuminuria. For more than 6,000 patients, empagliflozin was observed “to clearly reduce kidney disease progression, cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality, and the need to go on dialysis,” stated Dr. Alcázar.
 

What professionals expect

Dr. Benedito also explained the criteria for referral to a specialist: glomerular filtration rate less than 30 mL/min (unless the patient is older than 80 years and does not have progressively worsening renal function), albumin/creatinine ratio greater than 300 mg/g, acute worsening of renal function, progressive worsening of renal function of greater than 5 mL/min/yr, chronic kidney disease, hypertension treated with triple therapy (including a diuretic) at maximum doses, anemia of less than 10 g/dL, and nonurologic hematuria, especially in combination with albuminuria.

Dr. Benedito explained what nephrologists expect from family doctors in the management of chronic kidney disease: “screening for early detection, identifying and treating risk factors for chronic kidney disease, detecting progression and complications, adjusting drugs based on glomerular filtration rate, and ensuring that our patients are benefiting from sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. These are among the most important steps to be taken.”

Dr. Alcázar mentioned what family doctors expect from nephrologists: “two-way communication, accessibility, coordination of actions to be taken, and using shared and mutually agreed-upon protocols.”

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

MADRID – A late diagnosis of chronic kidney disease is cause for concern. Scientific societies are therefore advocating for screening at younger ages to reverse this trend and slow the progression of the disease. Nearly all patients seen in primary care are candidates for screening because of their risk factors for kidney disease.

During the 29th National Conference of General and Family Medicine of the Spanish Society for General and Family Physicians, Teresa Benedito, MD, family doctor and member of the society’s cardiovascular group, and Roberto Alcázar, MD, nephrologist at the Infanta Leonor University Hospital, Madrid, presented a clinical case encountered in primary care. They used this case to frame a strong argument for the importance of early screening for chronic kidney disease, and they discussed how to properly manage such screening.

The presentation followed the guidelines in the SEMG publication regarding the management and referral of patients with type 2 diabetes. Dr. Benedito explained that the first thing to ask oneself during a patient visit is “whether they present risk factors for kidney disease. If so, we can’t let them leave before we do a kidney screening.” She then listed the factors in question: age older than 60 years, African heritage, family history of chronic kidney disease, decreased kidney mass, weight loss at birth, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, obesity, and low socioeconomic status.

For his part, Dr. Alcázar mentioned how these factors are similar to cardiovascular risk factors, because “the kidneys are a ball of vessels with double capillarization for purifying blood. They’re the organs with the most arteries per unit of weight, so anything that can damage the arteries can damage the kidneys.”
 

Candidates for screening

“Chronic kidney disease develops in 15% of the adult population in Spain. So, it’s worth asking how many patients have been diagnosed and who should we should be screening.” To the factors listed above, Dr. Alcázar added treatment with nephrotoxic drugs (including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) for patients with obstructive urinary tract disease, and a history of acute kidney injury for patients with chronic autoimmune disease or neoplasms. “Thus, nearly all patients seen in primary care would need to be screened.”

Another fundamental question raised was whether patients should be screened before age 60 years. “As a nephrologist, I feel that we have been diagnosing chronic kidney disease late, even though we’ve been doing everything by the book,” said Dr. Alcázar. In his opinion, “the answer to whether we should be screening earlier ... is yes, for two reasons: first, because it’s cost-effective, and second, because it’s very inexpensive.”

Dr. Benedito explained in detail the process for diagnosing this disease. She began by defining the disease as changes in kidney structure and function that last longer than 3 months. These changes are identified by use of two criteria: glomerular filtration rate less than 60 mL/min and kidney injury or lesions with or without reduced filtration rate (renal biopsy, albumin/creatinine ratio greater than 30 mg/g, proteinuria, alterations in urinary sediment or in imaging tests). Thus, “if one of these two criteria persists for more than 3 months, the diagnosis is chronic kidney disease. Also, high creatinine levels are not diagnostic for the disease,” she emphasized.
 

Two related parameters

Glomerular filtration and albuminuria “are highly relevant, because screening for chronic kidney disease is based on these two parameters,” said Dr. Benedito. Glomerular filtration rate varies with age, sex, ethnicity, and body mass. It is useful for identifying the stage of the disease and for monitoring disease progression. Albuminuria, on the other hand, is an indication of the severity of the disease. It’s an early marker for kidney injury and systemic disease and is more sensitive than proteinuria. Therefore, “this factor, together with glomerular filtration rate, allows us to detect, classify, and monitor the progression of chronic kidney disease.”

On this point, Dr. Alcázar emphasized the importance of trends, since variation in glomerular filtration depends on serum creatinine, which can vary by nearly 9%. He explained that glomerular filtration rate is related to the number of nephrons remaining. A glomerular filtration rate of less than 60 mL/min implies that more than half of the nephrons in each kidney have been lost. Albuminuria informs about structural damage (that is, the condition of the remaining nephrons). It’s therefore essential to test for both parameters. “We need to be actively monitoring and then making our decisions based on trends and not on isolated results. We need to be aware of albuminuria when we make our decisions,” said Dr. Alcázar. Some studies have shown the importance of testing for albuminuria whenever creatinine level is assessed. “We need to buy into this. If we don’t do this, we’ll only ever have half the information we need.”
 

Reducing late diagnosis

According to the IBERICAN study, 14% of patients seen in primary care in Spain have chronic kidney disease. “This statistic should make us stop and think, own our responsibility, and ask ourselves why this screening isn’t taking place [earlier],” said Dr. Benedito. She added, “We need to head off this trend toward late diagnosis. As the disease progresses, it significantly increases cardiovascular risk and leads to higher mortality, going on dialysis, transplants, et cetera.”

Dr. Alcázar noted that 80% of nephrology cases that are referred to him come from primary care. He explained the need to understand that “these patients have a sevenfold greater risk of suffering a serious cardiovascular event within the next year than people without kidney problems.” Most of these patients will experience an event, even if they don’t undergo dialysis (stage 3 and those near stage 4).
 

Correct staging

Also fundamental is having a detailed understanding of how staging is performed. Dr. Benedito explained that a chart that pairs glomerular filtration rate (six categories) with the level of albuminuria (three categories) should be used during the visit. For example, a case might be classified as G3a-A2. However, the simplified form of the chart may prove more practical. It classifies chronic kidney disease as being associated with mild, moderate, and severe risk, using different colors to aid comprehension.

Dr. Alcázar noted that the latest guidelines from the European Society of Hypertension for 2023 include albuminuria as an important parameter. The guidelines indicate that for a patient with moderate or severe risk, it is not necessary to calculate their score. “It’s considered high cardiovascular risk, and steps would need to be taken for intervention.”

He then listed the tools available for reversing albuminuria. The process begins by reducing salt consumption and involves the use of medications (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor antagonists, aldosterone receptor antagonists, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, which slow kidney damage regardless of other measures) and strict management of cardiovascular risk factors (smoking, weight management, blood glucose, hypertension, and moderate physical activity).
 

Reducing cardiovascular risk

Dr. Alcázar highlighted important factors to keep in mind when managing each of the cardiovascular risk factors. For hypertension, the aim is to achieve levels less than 130/80 mm Hg, although recommendations vary, depending on the guidelines consulted. “KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) 2021 states that there is no evidence for monitoring diastolic blood pressure, only systolic blood pressure. If we measure it according to the standardized form, SBP should be less than 120 mm Hg, and if not, we would fall back on readings of 130/80 mm Hg.”

For lipid control (specifically, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol), the staging chart indicates that for patients at mild risk, levels should be less than 100 mg/dL; for those at moderate risk, less than 70 mg/dL; and for those at severe risk, less than 55 mg/dL. Hypertriglyceridemia “should only be treated with fibrates if it comes in over 1,000 mg/dL. Also, care must be taken, because these drugs interfere with creatinine excretion, increasing it,” said Dr. Alcázar.

Guidelines from the KDIGO and the American Diabetes Association state that anyone with diabetes and chronic kidney disease should receive a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor if their glomerular filtration rate exceeds 20 mL/min, “which may contradict slightly what it says on the label. Also, if they have hypertension, they should take an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor,” said Dr. Alcázar. He added that “oral antidiabetics, including metformin, must be adjusted based on renal function if glomerular filtration rate is under 30 mL/min.”
 

Act immediately

When asked whether the course of chronic kidney disease can be changed, Dr. Alcázar responded with an emphatic yes and added that cardiovascular risk can also be substantially reduced. “As nephrologists, we don’t have access to patients in early stages. But family doctors do. Hence the importance of early screening, because going on dialysis at age 60 isn’t the same as at 80.” Currently, “scientific societies are encouraging authorities to screen for chronic kidney disease at earlier ages.”

Regarding drug-based therapy, Dr. Alcázar said that “empagliflozin is not currently indicated for chronic kidney disease in adults.” This sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor delays kidney disease and reduces morbidity. Both benefits were highlighted in two recent studies (DAPA-CKD and CREDENCE). Published in January, EMPA-KIDNEY presents a new twist on nephroprotection for patients with chronic kidney disease (diabetic or not) whose glomerular filtration rates are between 20 and 40 mL/min without albuminuria or whose glomerular filtration rates are between 45 and 90 mL/min with albuminuria. For more than 6,000 patients, empagliflozin was observed “to clearly reduce kidney disease progression, cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality, and the need to go on dialysis,” stated Dr. Alcázar.
 

What professionals expect

Dr. Benedito also explained the criteria for referral to a specialist: glomerular filtration rate less than 30 mL/min (unless the patient is older than 80 years and does not have progressively worsening renal function), albumin/creatinine ratio greater than 300 mg/g, acute worsening of renal function, progressive worsening of renal function of greater than 5 mL/min/yr, chronic kidney disease, hypertension treated with triple therapy (including a diuretic) at maximum doses, anemia of less than 10 g/dL, and nonurologic hematuria, especially in combination with albuminuria.

Dr. Benedito explained what nephrologists expect from family doctors in the management of chronic kidney disease: “screening for early detection, identifying and treating risk factors for chronic kidney disease, detecting progression and complications, adjusting drugs based on glomerular filtration rate, and ensuring that our patients are benefiting from sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. These are among the most important steps to be taken.”

Dr. Alcázar mentioned what family doctors expect from nephrologists: “two-way communication, accessibility, coordination of actions to be taken, and using shared and mutually agreed-upon protocols.”

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

MADRID – A late diagnosis of chronic kidney disease is cause for concern. Scientific societies are therefore advocating for screening at younger ages to reverse this trend and slow the progression of the disease. Nearly all patients seen in primary care are candidates for screening because of their risk factors for kidney disease.

During the 29th National Conference of General and Family Medicine of the Spanish Society for General and Family Physicians, Teresa Benedito, MD, family doctor and member of the society’s cardiovascular group, and Roberto Alcázar, MD, nephrologist at the Infanta Leonor University Hospital, Madrid, presented a clinical case encountered in primary care. They used this case to frame a strong argument for the importance of early screening for chronic kidney disease, and they discussed how to properly manage such screening.

The presentation followed the guidelines in the SEMG publication regarding the management and referral of patients with type 2 diabetes. Dr. Benedito explained that the first thing to ask oneself during a patient visit is “whether they present risk factors for kidney disease. If so, we can’t let them leave before we do a kidney screening.” She then listed the factors in question: age older than 60 years, African heritage, family history of chronic kidney disease, decreased kidney mass, weight loss at birth, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, obesity, and low socioeconomic status.

For his part, Dr. Alcázar mentioned how these factors are similar to cardiovascular risk factors, because “the kidneys are a ball of vessels with double capillarization for purifying blood. They’re the organs with the most arteries per unit of weight, so anything that can damage the arteries can damage the kidneys.”
 

Candidates for screening

“Chronic kidney disease develops in 15% of the adult population in Spain. So, it’s worth asking how many patients have been diagnosed and who should we should be screening.” To the factors listed above, Dr. Alcázar added treatment with nephrotoxic drugs (including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) for patients with obstructive urinary tract disease, and a history of acute kidney injury for patients with chronic autoimmune disease or neoplasms. “Thus, nearly all patients seen in primary care would need to be screened.”

Another fundamental question raised was whether patients should be screened before age 60 years. “As a nephrologist, I feel that we have been diagnosing chronic kidney disease late, even though we’ve been doing everything by the book,” said Dr. Alcázar. In his opinion, “the answer to whether we should be screening earlier ... is yes, for two reasons: first, because it’s cost-effective, and second, because it’s very inexpensive.”

Dr. Benedito explained in detail the process for diagnosing this disease. She began by defining the disease as changes in kidney structure and function that last longer than 3 months. These changes are identified by use of two criteria: glomerular filtration rate less than 60 mL/min and kidney injury or lesions with or without reduced filtration rate (renal biopsy, albumin/creatinine ratio greater than 30 mg/g, proteinuria, alterations in urinary sediment or in imaging tests). Thus, “if one of these two criteria persists for more than 3 months, the diagnosis is chronic kidney disease. Also, high creatinine levels are not diagnostic for the disease,” she emphasized.
 

Two related parameters

Glomerular filtration and albuminuria “are highly relevant, because screening for chronic kidney disease is based on these two parameters,” said Dr. Benedito. Glomerular filtration rate varies with age, sex, ethnicity, and body mass. It is useful for identifying the stage of the disease and for monitoring disease progression. Albuminuria, on the other hand, is an indication of the severity of the disease. It’s an early marker for kidney injury and systemic disease and is more sensitive than proteinuria. Therefore, “this factor, together with glomerular filtration rate, allows us to detect, classify, and monitor the progression of chronic kidney disease.”

On this point, Dr. Alcázar emphasized the importance of trends, since variation in glomerular filtration depends on serum creatinine, which can vary by nearly 9%. He explained that glomerular filtration rate is related to the number of nephrons remaining. A glomerular filtration rate of less than 60 mL/min implies that more than half of the nephrons in each kidney have been lost. Albuminuria informs about structural damage (that is, the condition of the remaining nephrons). It’s therefore essential to test for both parameters. “We need to be actively monitoring and then making our decisions based on trends and not on isolated results. We need to be aware of albuminuria when we make our decisions,” said Dr. Alcázar. Some studies have shown the importance of testing for albuminuria whenever creatinine level is assessed. “We need to buy into this. If we don’t do this, we’ll only ever have half the information we need.”
 

Reducing late diagnosis

According to the IBERICAN study, 14% of patients seen in primary care in Spain have chronic kidney disease. “This statistic should make us stop and think, own our responsibility, and ask ourselves why this screening isn’t taking place [earlier],” said Dr. Benedito. She added, “We need to head off this trend toward late diagnosis. As the disease progresses, it significantly increases cardiovascular risk and leads to higher mortality, going on dialysis, transplants, et cetera.”

Dr. Alcázar noted that 80% of nephrology cases that are referred to him come from primary care. He explained the need to understand that “these patients have a sevenfold greater risk of suffering a serious cardiovascular event within the next year than people without kidney problems.” Most of these patients will experience an event, even if they don’t undergo dialysis (stage 3 and those near stage 4).
 

Correct staging

Also fundamental is having a detailed understanding of how staging is performed. Dr. Benedito explained that a chart that pairs glomerular filtration rate (six categories) with the level of albuminuria (three categories) should be used during the visit. For example, a case might be classified as G3a-A2. However, the simplified form of the chart may prove more practical. It classifies chronic kidney disease as being associated with mild, moderate, and severe risk, using different colors to aid comprehension.

Dr. Alcázar noted that the latest guidelines from the European Society of Hypertension for 2023 include albuminuria as an important parameter. The guidelines indicate that for a patient with moderate or severe risk, it is not necessary to calculate their score. “It’s considered high cardiovascular risk, and steps would need to be taken for intervention.”

He then listed the tools available for reversing albuminuria. The process begins by reducing salt consumption and involves the use of medications (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor antagonists, aldosterone receptor antagonists, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, which slow kidney damage regardless of other measures) and strict management of cardiovascular risk factors (smoking, weight management, blood glucose, hypertension, and moderate physical activity).
 

Reducing cardiovascular risk

Dr. Alcázar highlighted important factors to keep in mind when managing each of the cardiovascular risk factors. For hypertension, the aim is to achieve levels less than 130/80 mm Hg, although recommendations vary, depending on the guidelines consulted. “KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) 2021 states that there is no evidence for monitoring diastolic blood pressure, only systolic blood pressure. If we measure it according to the standardized form, SBP should be less than 120 mm Hg, and if not, we would fall back on readings of 130/80 mm Hg.”

For lipid control (specifically, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol), the staging chart indicates that for patients at mild risk, levels should be less than 100 mg/dL; for those at moderate risk, less than 70 mg/dL; and for those at severe risk, less than 55 mg/dL. Hypertriglyceridemia “should only be treated with fibrates if it comes in over 1,000 mg/dL. Also, care must be taken, because these drugs interfere with creatinine excretion, increasing it,” said Dr. Alcázar.

Guidelines from the KDIGO and the American Diabetes Association state that anyone with diabetes and chronic kidney disease should receive a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor if their glomerular filtration rate exceeds 20 mL/min, “which may contradict slightly what it says on the label. Also, if they have hypertension, they should take an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor,” said Dr. Alcázar. He added that “oral antidiabetics, including metformin, must be adjusted based on renal function if glomerular filtration rate is under 30 mL/min.”
 

Act immediately

When asked whether the course of chronic kidney disease can be changed, Dr. Alcázar responded with an emphatic yes and added that cardiovascular risk can also be substantially reduced. “As nephrologists, we don’t have access to patients in early stages. But family doctors do. Hence the importance of early screening, because going on dialysis at age 60 isn’t the same as at 80.” Currently, “scientific societies are encouraging authorities to screen for chronic kidney disease at earlier ages.”

Regarding drug-based therapy, Dr. Alcázar said that “empagliflozin is not currently indicated for chronic kidney disease in adults.” This sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor delays kidney disease and reduces morbidity. Both benefits were highlighted in two recent studies (DAPA-CKD and CREDENCE). Published in January, EMPA-KIDNEY presents a new twist on nephroprotection for patients with chronic kidney disease (diabetic or not) whose glomerular filtration rates are between 20 and 40 mL/min without albuminuria or whose glomerular filtration rates are between 45 and 90 mL/min with albuminuria. For more than 6,000 patients, empagliflozin was observed “to clearly reduce kidney disease progression, cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality, and the need to go on dialysis,” stated Dr. Alcázar.
 

What professionals expect

Dr. Benedito also explained the criteria for referral to a specialist: glomerular filtration rate less than 30 mL/min (unless the patient is older than 80 years and does not have progressively worsening renal function), albumin/creatinine ratio greater than 300 mg/g, acute worsening of renal function, progressive worsening of renal function of greater than 5 mL/min/yr, chronic kidney disease, hypertension treated with triple therapy (including a diuretic) at maximum doses, anemia of less than 10 g/dL, and nonurologic hematuria, especially in combination with albuminuria.

Dr. Benedito explained what nephrologists expect from family doctors in the management of chronic kidney disease: “screening for early detection, identifying and treating risk factors for chronic kidney disease, detecting progression and complications, adjusting drugs based on glomerular filtration rate, and ensuring that our patients are benefiting from sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. These are among the most important steps to be taken.”

Dr. Alcázar mentioned what family doctors expect from nephrologists: “two-way communication, accessibility, coordination of actions to be taken, and using shared and mutually agreed-upon protocols.”

This article was translated from the Medscape Spanish Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

Medical student loans top hundreds of thousands of dollars, so it’s understandable that physicians may want to select a specialty that pays well.

But overwhelmingly, the physicians this news organization spoke to said they chose a specialty they were passionate about rather than focusing on going where more money was. Moreover, most advised young doctors to follow their hearts rather than their wallets.

“There is no question that many young kids immediately think about money when deciding to pursue medicine, but the thought of a big paycheck will never sustain someone long enough to get them here,” says Sergio Alvarez, MD, a board-certified plastic surgeon based in Miami, Fla., and the CEO and medical director of Mia Aesthetics, which has several national locations.

“Getting into medicine is a long game, and there are many hurdles along the way that only the dedicated overcome,” says Dr. Alvarez.

Unfortunately, he says it may be late in that long game before some realize that the pay rate for certain specialties isn’t commensurate with the immense workload and responsibility they require.

“The short of it is that to become a happy doctor, medicine really needs to be a calling: a passion! There are far easier things to do to make money.”

Here is what physicians said about choosing between love or money.
 

The lowest-paying subspecialty in a low-paying specialty

Sophia Yen, MD, MPH, cofounder and CEO of Pandia Health, a women-founded, doctor-led birth control delivery service in Sunnyvale, Calif., and clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, says you should pursue a specialty because you love the work.

“I chose the lowest-paying subspecialty (adolescent medicine) of a low-paying specialty (pediatrics), but I’d do it all again because I love the patient population – I love what I do.”

Dr. Yen says she chose adolescent medicine because she loves doing “outpatient gynecology” without going through the surgical training of a full ob.gyn. “I love the target population of young adults because you can talk to the patient versus in pediatrics, where you often talk to the parent. With young adults you can catch things – for example, teach a young person about consent, alcohol, marijuana’s effects on the growing brain, prevent unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections, instill healthy eating, and more.

“Do I wish that I got paid as much as a surgeon?” Dr. Yen says yes. “I hope that someday society will realize the time spent preventing future disease is worth it and pay us accordingly.”

Unfortunately, she says, since the health care system makes more money if you get pregnant, need a cardiac bypass, or need gastric surgery, those who deliver babies or do surgery get paid more than someone who prevents the need for those services.
 

Money doesn’t buy happiness

Stella Bard, MD, a rheumatologist in McKinney, Tex., says she eats, lives, and breathes rheumatology. “I never regret the decision of choosing this specialty for a single second,” says Dr. Bard. “I feel like it’s a rewarding experience with every single patient encounter.” Dr. Bard notes that money is no guarantee of happiness and that she feels blessed to wake up every morning doing what she loves.

Career or calling?

For Dr. Alvarez, inspiration came when watching his father help change people’s lives. “I saw how impactful a doctor is during a person’s most desperate moments, and that was enough to make medicine my life’s passion at the age of 10.”

He says once you’re in medical school, choosing a specialty is far easier than you think. “Each specialty requires a certain personality or specific characteristics, and some will call to you while others simply won’t.”

“For me, plastics was about finesse, art, and life-changing surgeries that affected people from kids to adults and involved every aspect of the human body. Changing someone’s outward appearance has a profoundly positive impact on their confidence and self-esteem, making plastic surgery a genuinely transformative experience.”

Patricia Celan, MD, a postgraduate psychiatry resident in Canada, also chose psychiatry for the love of the field. “I enjoy helping vulnerable people and exploring what makes a person tick, the source of their difficulties, and how to help people counteract and overcome the difficult cards they’ve been dealt in life.”

She says it’s incredibly rewarding to watch someone turn their life around from severe mental illness, especially those who have been victimized and traumatized, and learn to trust people again.

“I could have made more money in a higher-paying specialty, yes, but I’m not sure I would have felt as fulfilled as psychiatry can make me feel.”

Dr. Celan says everyone has their calling, and some lucky people find their deepest passion in higher-paying specialties. “My calling is psychiatry, and I am at peace with this no matter the money.”
 

For the love of surgery

“In my experience, most people don’t choose their specialty based on money,” says Nicole Aaronson, MD, MBA, an otolaryngologist and board-certified in the subspecialty of pediatric otolaryngology, an attending surgeon at Nemours Children’s Health of Delaware and clinical associate professor of otolaryngology and pediatrics at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia.

“The first decision point in medical school is usually figuring out if you are a surgery person or a medicine person. I knew very early that I wanted to be a surgeon and wanted to spend time in the OR fixing problems with my hands.”

Part of what attracted Dr. Aaronson to otolaryngology was the variety of conditions managed within the specialty, from head and neck cancer to voice problems to sleep disorders to sinus disease. “I chose my subspecialty because I enjoy working with children and making an impact that will help them live their best possible lives.”

She says a relatively simple surgery like placing ear tubes may help a child’s hearing and allow them to be more successful in school, opening up a new world of opportunities for the child’s future.

“While I don’t think most people choose their specialty based on prospective compensation, I do think all physicians want to be compensated fairly for their time, effort, and level of training,” says Dr. Aaronson.
 

Choosing a specialty for the money can lead to burnout and dissatisfaction

“For me, the decision to pursue gastroenterology went beyond financial considerations,” says Saurabh Sethi, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist specializing in hepatology and interventional endoscopy. “While financial stability is undoubtedly important, no doctor enters this field solely for the love of money. The primary driving force for most medical professionals, myself included, is the passion to help people and make a positive difference in their lives.”

Dr. Sethi says the gratification that comes from providing quality care and witnessing patients’ improved well-being is priceless. Moreover, he believes that selecting a specialty based solely on financial gain is likely to lead to burnout and greater dissatisfaction over time.

“By following my love for gut health and prioritizing patient care, I have found a sense of fulfillment and purpose in my career. It has been a rewarding journey, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the well-being of my patients through my expertise in gastroenterology.”
 

Key takeaways: Love or money?

Multiple factors influence doctors’ specialty choices, including genuine love for the work and the future of the specialty. Others include job prospects, hands-on experience they receive, mentors, childhood dreams, parental expectations, complexity of cases, the lifestyle of each specialty, including office hours worked, on-call requirements, and autonomy.

Physicians also mentioned other factors they considered when choosing their specialty:

• Personal interest.
• Intellectual stimulation.
• Work-life balance.
• Patient populations.
• Future opportunities.
• Desire to make a difference.
• Passion.
• Financial stability.
• Being personally fulfilled.

Overwhelmingly, doctors say to pick a specialty you can envision yourself loving 40 years from now and you won’t go wrong.

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

Medical student loans top hundreds of thousands of dollars, so it’s understandable that physicians may want to select a specialty that pays well.

But overwhelmingly, the physicians this news organization spoke to said they chose a specialty they were passionate about rather than focusing on going where more money was. Moreover, most advised young doctors to follow their hearts rather than their wallets.

“There is no question that many young kids immediately think about money when deciding to pursue medicine, but the thought of a big paycheck will never sustain someone long enough to get them here,” says Sergio Alvarez, MD, a board-certified plastic surgeon based in Miami, Fla., and the CEO and medical director of Mia Aesthetics, which has several national locations.

“Getting into medicine is a long game, and there are many hurdles along the way that only the dedicated overcome,” says Dr. Alvarez.

Unfortunately, he says it may be late in that long game before some realize that the pay rate for certain specialties isn’t commensurate with the immense workload and responsibility they require.

“The short of it is that to become a happy doctor, medicine really needs to be a calling: a passion! There are far easier things to do to make money.”

Here is what physicians said about choosing between love or money.
 

The lowest-paying subspecialty in a low-paying specialty

Sophia Yen, MD, MPH, cofounder and CEO of Pandia Health, a women-founded, doctor-led birth control delivery service in Sunnyvale, Calif., and clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, says you should pursue a specialty because you love the work.

“I chose the lowest-paying subspecialty (adolescent medicine) of a low-paying specialty (pediatrics), but I’d do it all again because I love the patient population – I love what I do.”

Dr. Yen says she chose adolescent medicine because she loves doing “outpatient gynecology” without going through the surgical training of a full ob.gyn. “I love the target population of young adults because you can talk to the patient versus in pediatrics, where you often talk to the parent. With young adults you can catch things – for example, teach a young person about consent, alcohol, marijuana’s effects on the growing brain, prevent unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections, instill healthy eating, and more.

“Do I wish that I got paid as much as a surgeon?” Dr. Yen says yes. “I hope that someday society will realize the time spent preventing future disease is worth it and pay us accordingly.”

Unfortunately, she says, since the health care system makes more money if you get pregnant, need a cardiac bypass, or need gastric surgery, those who deliver babies or do surgery get paid more than someone who prevents the need for those services.
 

Money doesn’t buy happiness

Stella Bard, MD, a rheumatologist in McKinney, Tex., says she eats, lives, and breathes rheumatology. “I never regret the decision of choosing this specialty for a single second,” says Dr. Bard. “I feel like it’s a rewarding experience with every single patient encounter.” Dr. Bard notes that money is no guarantee of happiness and that she feels blessed to wake up every morning doing what she loves.

Career or calling?

For Dr. Alvarez, inspiration came when watching his father help change people’s lives. “I saw how impactful a doctor is during a person’s most desperate moments, and that was enough to make medicine my life’s passion at the age of 10.”

He says once you’re in medical school, choosing a specialty is far easier than you think. “Each specialty requires a certain personality or specific characteristics, and some will call to you while others simply won’t.”

“For me, plastics was about finesse, art, and life-changing surgeries that affected people from kids to adults and involved every aspect of the human body. Changing someone’s outward appearance has a profoundly positive impact on their confidence and self-esteem, making plastic surgery a genuinely transformative experience.”

Patricia Celan, MD, a postgraduate psychiatry resident in Canada, also chose psychiatry for the love of the field. “I enjoy helping vulnerable people and exploring what makes a person tick, the source of their difficulties, and how to help people counteract and overcome the difficult cards they’ve been dealt in life.”

She says it’s incredibly rewarding to watch someone turn their life around from severe mental illness, especially those who have been victimized and traumatized, and learn to trust people again.

“I could have made more money in a higher-paying specialty, yes, but I’m not sure I would have felt as fulfilled as psychiatry can make me feel.”

Dr. Celan says everyone has their calling, and some lucky people find their deepest passion in higher-paying specialties. “My calling is psychiatry, and I am at peace with this no matter the money.”
 

For the love of surgery

“In my experience, most people don’t choose their specialty based on money,” says Nicole Aaronson, MD, MBA, an otolaryngologist and board-certified in the subspecialty of pediatric otolaryngology, an attending surgeon at Nemours Children’s Health of Delaware and clinical associate professor of otolaryngology and pediatrics at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia.

“The first decision point in medical school is usually figuring out if you are a surgery person or a medicine person. I knew very early that I wanted to be a surgeon and wanted to spend time in the OR fixing problems with my hands.”

Part of what attracted Dr. Aaronson to otolaryngology was the variety of conditions managed within the specialty, from head and neck cancer to voice problems to sleep disorders to sinus disease. “I chose my subspecialty because I enjoy working with children and making an impact that will help them live their best possible lives.”

She says a relatively simple surgery like placing ear tubes may help a child’s hearing and allow them to be more successful in school, opening up a new world of opportunities for the child’s future.

“While I don’t think most people choose their specialty based on prospective compensation, I do think all physicians want to be compensated fairly for their time, effort, and level of training,” says Dr. Aaronson.
 

Choosing a specialty for the money can lead to burnout and dissatisfaction

“For me, the decision to pursue gastroenterology went beyond financial considerations,” says Saurabh Sethi, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist specializing in hepatology and interventional endoscopy. “While financial stability is undoubtedly important, no doctor enters this field solely for the love of money. The primary driving force for most medical professionals, myself included, is the passion to help people and make a positive difference in their lives.”

Dr. Sethi says the gratification that comes from providing quality care and witnessing patients’ improved well-being is priceless. Moreover, he believes that selecting a specialty based solely on financial gain is likely to lead to burnout and greater dissatisfaction over time.

“By following my love for gut health and prioritizing patient care, I have found a sense of fulfillment and purpose in my career. It has been a rewarding journey, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the well-being of my patients through my expertise in gastroenterology.”
 

Key takeaways: Love or money?

Multiple factors influence doctors’ specialty choices, including genuine love for the work and the future of the specialty. Others include job prospects, hands-on experience they receive, mentors, childhood dreams, parental expectations, complexity of cases, the lifestyle of each specialty, including office hours worked, on-call requirements, and autonomy.

Physicians also mentioned other factors they considered when choosing their specialty:

• Personal interest.
• Intellectual stimulation.
• Work-life balance.
• Patient populations.
• Future opportunities.
• Desire to make a difference.
• Passion.
• Financial stability.
• Being personally fulfilled.

Overwhelmingly, doctors say to pick a specialty you can envision yourself loving 40 years from now and you won’t go wrong.

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

Medical student loans top hundreds of thousands of dollars, so it’s understandable that physicians may want to select a specialty that pays well.

But overwhelmingly, the physicians this news organization spoke to said they chose a specialty they were passionate about rather than focusing on going where more money was. Moreover, most advised young doctors to follow their hearts rather than their wallets.

“There is no question that many young kids immediately think about money when deciding to pursue medicine, but the thought of a big paycheck will never sustain someone long enough to get them here,” says Sergio Alvarez, MD, a board-certified plastic surgeon based in Miami, Fla., and the CEO and medical director of Mia Aesthetics, which has several national locations.

“Getting into medicine is a long game, and there are many hurdles along the way that only the dedicated overcome,” says Dr. Alvarez.

Unfortunately, he says it may be late in that long game before some realize that the pay rate for certain specialties isn’t commensurate with the immense workload and responsibility they require.

“The short of it is that to become a happy doctor, medicine really needs to be a calling: a passion! There are far easier things to do to make money.”

Here is what physicians said about choosing between love or money.
 

The lowest-paying subspecialty in a low-paying specialty

Sophia Yen, MD, MPH, cofounder and CEO of Pandia Health, a women-founded, doctor-led birth control delivery service in Sunnyvale, Calif., and clinical associate professor at Stanford (Calif.) University, says you should pursue a specialty because you love the work.

“I chose the lowest-paying subspecialty (adolescent medicine) of a low-paying specialty (pediatrics), but I’d do it all again because I love the patient population – I love what I do.”

Dr. Yen says she chose adolescent medicine because she loves doing “outpatient gynecology” without going through the surgical training of a full ob.gyn. “I love the target population of young adults because you can talk to the patient versus in pediatrics, where you often talk to the parent. With young adults you can catch things – for example, teach a young person about consent, alcohol, marijuana’s effects on the growing brain, prevent unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections, instill healthy eating, and more.

“Do I wish that I got paid as much as a surgeon?” Dr. Yen says yes. “I hope that someday society will realize the time spent preventing future disease is worth it and pay us accordingly.”

Unfortunately, she says, since the health care system makes more money if you get pregnant, need a cardiac bypass, or need gastric surgery, those who deliver babies or do surgery get paid more than someone who prevents the need for those services.
 

Money doesn’t buy happiness

Stella Bard, MD, a rheumatologist in McKinney, Tex., says she eats, lives, and breathes rheumatology. “I never regret the decision of choosing this specialty for a single second,” says Dr. Bard. “I feel like it’s a rewarding experience with every single patient encounter.” Dr. Bard notes that money is no guarantee of happiness and that she feels blessed to wake up every morning doing what she loves.

Career or calling?

For Dr. Alvarez, inspiration came when watching his father help change people’s lives. “I saw how impactful a doctor is during a person’s most desperate moments, and that was enough to make medicine my life’s passion at the age of 10.”

He says once you’re in medical school, choosing a specialty is far easier than you think. “Each specialty requires a certain personality or specific characteristics, and some will call to you while others simply won’t.”

“For me, plastics was about finesse, art, and life-changing surgeries that affected people from kids to adults and involved every aspect of the human body. Changing someone’s outward appearance has a profoundly positive impact on their confidence and self-esteem, making plastic surgery a genuinely transformative experience.”

Patricia Celan, MD, a postgraduate psychiatry resident in Canada, also chose psychiatry for the love of the field. “I enjoy helping vulnerable people and exploring what makes a person tick, the source of their difficulties, and how to help people counteract and overcome the difficult cards they’ve been dealt in life.”

She says it’s incredibly rewarding to watch someone turn their life around from severe mental illness, especially those who have been victimized and traumatized, and learn to trust people again.

“I could have made more money in a higher-paying specialty, yes, but I’m not sure I would have felt as fulfilled as psychiatry can make me feel.”

Dr. Celan says everyone has their calling, and some lucky people find their deepest passion in higher-paying specialties. “My calling is psychiatry, and I am at peace with this no matter the money.”
 

For the love of surgery

“In my experience, most people don’t choose their specialty based on money,” says Nicole Aaronson, MD, MBA, an otolaryngologist and board-certified in the subspecialty of pediatric otolaryngology, an attending surgeon at Nemours Children’s Health of Delaware and clinical associate professor of otolaryngology and pediatrics at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia.

“The first decision point in medical school is usually figuring out if you are a surgery person or a medicine person. I knew very early that I wanted to be a surgeon and wanted to spend time in the OR fixing problems with my hands.”

Part of what attracted Dr. Aaronson to otolaryngology was the variety of conditions managed within the specialty, from head and neck cancer to voice problems to sleep disorders to sinus disease. “I chose my subspecialty because I enjoy working with children and making an impact that will help them live their best possible lives.”

She says a relatively simple surgery like placing ear tubes may help a child’s hearing and allow them to be more successful in school, opening up a new world of opportunities for the child’s future.

“While I don’t think most people choose their specialty based on prospective compensation, I do think all physicians want to be compensated fairly for their time, effort, and level of training,” says Dr. Aaronson.
 

Choosing a specialty for the money can lead to burnout and dissatisfaction

“For me, the decision to pursue gastroenterology went beyond financial considerations,” says Saurabh Sethi, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist specializing in hepatology and interventional endoscopy. “While financial stability is undoubtedly important, no doctor enters this field solely for the love of money. The primary driving force for most medical professionals, myself included, is the passion to help people and make a positive difference in their lives.”

Dr. Sethi says the gratification that comes from providing quality care and witnessing patients’ improved well-being is priceless. Moreover, he believes that selecting a specialty based solely on financial gain is likely to lead to burnout and greater dissatisfaction over time.

“By following my love for gut health and prioritizing patient care, I have found a sense of fulfillment and purpose in my career. It has been a rewarding journey, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the well-being of my patients through my expertise in gastroenterology.”
 

Key takeaways: Love or money?

Multiple factors influence doctors’ specialty choices, including genuine love for the work and the future of the specialty. Others include job prospects, hands-on experience they receive, mentors, childhood dreams, parental expectations, complexity of cases, the lifestyle of each specialty, including office hours worked, on-call requirements, and autonomy.

Physicians also mentioned other factors they considered when choosing their specialty:

• Personal interest.
• Intellectual stimulation.
• Work-life balance.
• Patient populations.
• Future opportunities.
• Desire to make a difference.
• Passion.
• Financial stability.
• Being personally fulfilled.

Overwhelmingly, doctors say to pick a specialty you can envision yourself loving 40 years from now and you won’t go wrong.

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

The antiplatelet of choice for long-term, secondary prevention for patients with established coronary artery disease (CAD) may well be a P2Y12 inhibitor such as clopidogrel or ticagrelor rather than aspirin, suggests a patient-level meta-analysis of seven randomized trials.

The more than 24,000 patients in the meta-analysis, called PANTHER, had documented stable CAD, prior myocardial infarction (MI), or recent or remote surgical or percutaneous coronary revascularization.

About half of patients in each antiplatelet monotherapy trial received clopidogrel or ticagrelor, and the other half received aspirin. Follow-ups ranged from 6 months to 3 years.

Those taking a P2Y12 inhibitor showed a 12% reduction in risk (P = .012) for the primary efficacy outcome, a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, MI, and stroke, over a median of about 1.35 years. The difference was driven primarily by a 23% reduction in risk for MI (P < .001); mortality seemed unaffected by antiplatelet treatment assignment.

Although the P2Y12 inhibitor and aspirin groups were similar with respect to risk of major bleeding, the P2Y12 inhibitor group showed significant reductions in risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, definite stent thrombosis, and hemorrhagic stroke; rates of hemorrhagic stroke were well under 1% in both groups.

The treatment effects were consistent across patient subgroups, including whether the aspirin comparison was with clopidogrel or ticagrelor.

“Taken together, our data challenge the central role of aspirin in secondary prevention and support a paradigm shift toward P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy as long-term antiplatelet strategy in the sizable population of patients with coronary atherosclerosis,” Felice Gragnano, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “Given [their] superior efficacy and similar overall safety, P2Y12 inhibitors may be preferred [over] aspirin for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with CAD.”

Dr. Gragnano, of the University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Caserta, Italy, who called PANTHER “the largest and most comprehensive synthesis of individual patient data from randomized trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with aspirin monotherapy,” is lead author of the study, which was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Current guidelines recommend aspirin for antiplatelet monotherapy for patients with established CAD, Dr. Gragnano said, but “the primacy of aspirin in secondary prevention is based on historical trials conducted in the 1970s and 1980s and may not apply to contemporary practice.”

Moreover, later trials that compared P2Y12 inhibitors with aspirin for secondary prevention produced “inconsistent results,” possibly owing to their heterogeneous populations of patients with coronary, cerebrovascular, or peripheral vascular disease, he said. Study-level meta-analyses in this area “provide inconclusive evidence” because they haven’t evaluated treatment effects exclusively in patients with established CAD.

Most of the seven trials’ 24,325 participants had a history of MI, and some had peripheral artery disease (PAD); the rates were 56.2% and 9.1%, respectively. Coronary revascularization, either percutaneous or surgical, had been performed for about 70%. Most (61%) had presented with acute coronary syndromes, and the remainder had presented with chronic CAD.

About 76% of the combined cohorts were from Europe or North America; the rest were from Asia. The mean age of the patients was 64 years, and about 22% were women.

In all, 12,175 had been assigned to P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (62% received clopidogrel and 38% received ticagrelor); 12,147 received aspirin at dosages ranging from 75 mg to 325 mg daily.

The hazard ratio (HR) for the primary efficacy outcome, P2Y12 inhibitors vs. aspirin, was significantly reduced, at 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.97; P = .012); the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one primary event over 2 years was 121, the report states.

The corresponding HR for MI was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.66-0.90; P < .001), for an NNT benefit of 136. For net adverse clinical events, the HR was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.81-0.98; P = .020), for an NNT benefit of 121.

Risk for major bleeding was not significantly different (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.70-1.09; P = .23), nor were risks for stroke (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70-1.02; P = .076) or cardiovascular death (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86-1.20; P = .82).

Still, the P2Y12 inhibitor group showed significant risk reductions for the following:

• GI bleeding: HR, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.57-0.97; P = .027)
• Definite stent thrombosis: HR, 0.42 (95% CI, 0.19-0.97; P = .028)
• Hemorrhagic stroke: HR, 0.43 (95% CI, 0.23-0.83; P = .012)

The current findings are “hypothesis-generating but not definitive,” Dharam Kumbhani, MD, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, said in an interview.

It remains unclear “whether aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy is better for long-term maintenance use among patients with established CAD. Aspirin has historically been the agent of choice for this indication,” said Dr. Kumbhani, who with James A. de Lemos, MD, of the same institution, wrote an editorial accompanying the PANTHER report.

“It certainly would be appropriate to consider P2Y12 monotherapy preferentially for patients with prior or currently at high risk for GI or intracranial bleeding, for instance,” Dr. Kumbhani said. For the remainder, aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors are both “reasonable alternatives.”

In their editorial, Dr. Kumbhani and Dr. de Lemos call the PANTHER meta-analysis “a well-done study with potentially important clinical implications.” The findings “make biological sense: P2Y12 inhibitors are more potent antiplatelet agents than aspirin and have less effect on gastrointestinal mucosal integrity.”

But for now, they wrote, “both aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors remain viable alternatives for prevention of atherothrombotic events among patients with established CAD.”

Dr. Gragnano had no disclosures; potential conflicts for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Kumbhani reports no relevant relationships; Dr. de Lemos has received honoraria for participation in data safety monitoring boards from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, and Janssen.

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

The antiplatelet of choice for long-term, secondary prevention for patients with established coronary artery disease (CAD) may well be a P2Y12 inhibitor such as clopidogrel or ticagrelor rather than aspirin, suggests a patient-level meta-analysis of seven randomized trials.

The more than 24,000 patients in the meta-analysis, called PANTHER, had documented stable CAD, prior myocardial infarction (MI), or recent or remote surgical or percutaneous coronary revascularization.

About half of patients in each antiplatelet monotherapy trial received clopidogrel or ticagrelor, and the other half received aspirin. Follow-ups ranged from 6 months to 3 years.

Those taking a P2Y12 inhibitor showed a 12% reduction in risk (P = .012) for the primary efficacy outcome, a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, MI, and stroke, over a median of about 1.35 years. The difference was driven primarily by a 23% reduction in risk for MI (P < .001); mortality seemed unaffected by antiplatelet treatment assignment.

Although the P2Y12 inhibitor and aspirin groups were similar with respect to risk of major bleeding, the P2Y12 inhibitor group showed significant reductions in risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, definite stent thrombosis, and hemorrhagic stroke; rates of hemorrhagic stroke were well under 1% in both groups.

The treatment effects were consistent across patient subgroups, including whether the aspirin comparison was with clopidogrel or ticagrelor.

“Taken together, our data challenge the central role of aspirin in secondary prevention and support a paradigm shift toward P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy as long-term antiplatelet strategy in the sizable population of patients with coronary atherosclerosis,” Felice Gragnano, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “Given [their] superior efficacy and similar overall safety, P2Y12 inhibitors may be preferred [over] aspirin for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with CAD.”

Dr. Gragnano, of the University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Caserta, Italy, who called PANTHER “the largest and most comprehensive synthesis of individual patient data from randomized trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with aspirin monotherapy,” is lead author of the study, which was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Current guidelines recommend aspirin for antiplatelet monotherapy for patients with established CAD, Dr. Gragnano said, but “the primacy of aspirin in secondary prevention is based on historical trials conducted in the 1970s and 1980s and may not apply to contemporary practice.”

Moreover, later trials that compared P2Y12 inhibitors with aspirin for secondary prevention produced “inconsistent results,” possibly owing to their heterogeneous populations of patients with coronary, cerebrovascular, or peripheral vascular disease, he said. Study-level meta-analyses in this area “provide inconclusive evidence” because they haven’t evaluated treatment effects exclusively in patients with established CAD.

Most of the seven trials’ 24,325 participants had a history of MI, and some had peripheral artery disease (PAD); the rates were 56.2% and 9.1%, respectively. Coronary revascularization, either percutaneous or surgical, had been performed for about 70%. Most (61%) had presented with acute coronary syndromes, and the remainder had presented with chronic CAD.

About 76% of the combined cohorts were from Europe or North America; the rest were from Asia. The mean age of the patients was 64 years, and about 22% were women.

In all, 12,175 had been assigned to P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (62% received clopidogrel and 38% received ticagrelor); 12,147 received aspirin at dosages ranging from 75 mg to 325 mg daily.

The hazard ratio (HR) for the primary efficacy outcome, P2Y12 inhibitors vs. aspirin, was significantly reduced, at 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.97; P = .012); the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one primary event over 2 years was 121, the report states.

The corresponding HR for MI was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.66-0.90; P < .001), for an NNT benefit of 136. For net adverse clinical events, the HR was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.81-0.98; P = .020), for an NNT benefit of 121.

Risk for major bleeding was not significantly different (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.70-1.09; P = .23), nor were risks for stroke (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70-1.02; P = .076) or cardiovascular death (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86-1.20; P = .82).

Still, the P2Y12 inhibitor group showed significant risk reductions for the following:

• GI bleeding: HR, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.57-0.97; P = .027)
• Definite stent thrombosis: HR, 0.42 (95% CI, 0.19-0.97; P = .028)
• Hemorrhagic stroke: HR, 0.43 (95% CI, 0.23-0.83; P = .012)

The current findings are “hypothesis-generating but not definitive,” Dharam Kumbhani, MD, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, said in an interview.

It remains unclear “whether aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy is better for long-term maintenance use among patients with established CAD. Aspirin has historically been the agent of choice for this indication,” said Dr. Kumbhani, who with James A. de Lemos, MD, of the same institution, wrote an editorial accompanying the PANTHER report.

“It certainly would be appropriate to consider P2Y12 monotherapy preferentially for patients with prior or currently at high risk for GI or intracranial bleeding, for instance,” Dr. Kumbhani said. For the remainder, aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors are both “reasonable alternatives.”

In their editorial, Dr. Kumbhani and Dr. de Lemos call the PANTHER meta-analysis “a well-done study with potentially important clinical implications.” The findings “make biological sense: P2Y12 inhibitors are more potent antiplatelet agents than aspirin and have less effect on gastrointestinal mucosal integrity.”

But for now, they wrote, “both aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors remain viable alternatives for prevention of atherothrombotic events among patients with established CAD.”

Dr. Gragnano had no disclosures; potential conflicts for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Kumbhani reports no relevant relationships; Dr. de Lemos has received honoraria for participation in data safety monitoring boards from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, and Janssen.

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

The antiplatelet of choice for long-term, secondary prevention for patients with established coronary artery disease (CAD) may well be a P2Y12 inhibitor such as clopidogrel or ticagrelor rather than aspirin, suggests a patient-level meta-analysis of seven randomized trials.

The more than 24,000 patients in the meta-analysis, called PANTHER, had documented stable CAD, prior myocardial infarction (MI), or recent or remote surgical or percutaneous coronary revascularization.

About half of patients in each antiplatelet monotherapy trial received clopidogrel or ticagrelor, and the other half received aspirin. Follow-ups ranged from 6 months to 3 years.

Those taking a P2Y12 inhibitor showed a 12% reduction in risk (P = .012) for the primary efficacy outcome, a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, MI, and stroke, over a median of about 1.35 years. The difference was driven primarily by a 23% reduction in risk for MI (P < .001); mortality seemed unaffected by antiplatelet treatment assignment.

Although the P2Y12 inhibitor and aspirin groups were similar with respect to risk of major bleeding, the P2Y12 inhibitor group showed significant reductions in risk for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, definite stent thrombosis, and hemorrhagic stroke; rates of hemorrhagic stroke were well under 1% in both groups.

The treatment effects were consistent across patient subgroups, including whether the aspirin comparison was with clopidogrel or ticagrelor.

“Taken together, our data challenge the central role of aspirin in secondary prevention and support a paradigm shift toward P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy as long-term antiplatelet strategy in the sizable population of patients with coronary atherosclerosis,” Felice Gragnano, MD, PhD, said in an interview. “Given [their] superior efficacy and similar overall safety, P2Y12 inhibitors may be preferred [over] aspirin for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with CAD.”

Dr. Gragnano, of the University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Caserta, Italy, who called PANTHER “the largest and most comprehensive synthesis of individual patient data from randomized trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with aspirin monotherapy,” is lead author of the study, which was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Current guidelines recommend aspirin for antiplatelet monotherapy for patients with established CAD, Dr. Gragnano said, but “the primacy of aspirin in secondary prevention is based on historical trials conducted in the 1970s and 1980s and may not apply to contemporary practice.”

Moreover, later trials that compared P2Y12 inhibitors with aspirin for secondary prevention produced “inconsistent results,” possibly owing to their heterogeneous populations of patients with coronary, cerebrovascular, or peripheral vascular disease, he said. Study-level meta-analyses in this area “provide inconclusive evidence” because they haven’t evaluated treatment effects exclusively in patients with established CAD.

Most of the seven trials’ 24,325 participants had a history of MI, and some had peripheral artery disease (PAD); the rates were 56.2% and 9.1%, respectively. Coronary revascularization, either percutaneous or surgical, had been performed for about 70%. Most (61%) had presented with acute coronary syndromes, and the remainder had presented with chronic CAD.

About 76% of the combined cohorts were from Europe or North America; the rest were from Asia. The mean age of the patients was 64 years, and about 22% were women.

In all, 12,175 had been assigned to P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (62% received clopidogrel and 38% received ticagrelor); 12,147 received aspirin at dosages ranging from 75 mg to 325 mg daily.

The hazard ratio (HR) for the primary efficacy outcome, P2Y12 inhibitors vs. aspirin, was significantly reduced, at 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.97; P = .012); the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one primary event over 2 years was 121, the report states.

The corresponding HR for MI was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.66-0.90; P < .001), for an NNT benefit of 136. For net adverse clinical events, the HR was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.81-0.98; P = .020), for an NNT benefit of 121.

Risk for major bleeding was not significantly different (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.70-1.09; P = .23), nor were risks for stroke (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70-1.02; P = .076) or cardiovascular death (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86-1.20; P = .82).

Still, the P2Y12 inhibitor group showed significant risk reductions for the following:

• GI bleeding: HR, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.57-0.97; P = .027)
• Definite stent thrombosis: HR, 0.42 (95% CI, 0.19-0.97; P = .028)
• Hemorrhagic stroke: HR, 0.43 (95% CI, 0.23-0.83; P = .012)

The current findings are “hypothesis-generating but not definitive,” Dharam Kumbhani, MD, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, said in an interview.

It remains unclear “whether aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy is better for long-term maintenance use among patients with established CAD. Aspirin has historically been the agent of choice for this indication,” said Dr. Kumbhani, who with James A. de Lemos, MD, of the same institution, wrote an editorial accompanying the PANTHER report.

“It certainly would be appropriate to consider P2Y12 monotherapy preferentially for patients with prior or currently at high risk for GI or intracranial bleeding, for instance,” Dr. Kumbhani said. For the remainder, aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors are both “reasonable alternatives.”

In their editorial, Dr. Kumbhani and Dr. de Lemos call the PANTHER meta-analysis “a well-done study with potentially important clinical implications.” The findings “make biological sense: P2Y12 inhibitors are more potent antiplatelet agents than aspirin and have less effect on gastrointestinal mucosal integrity.”

But for now, they wrote, “both aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors remain viable alternatives for prevention of atherothrombotic events among patients with established CAD.”

Dr. Gragnano had no disclosures; potential conflicts for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Kumbhani reports no relevant relationships; Dr. de Lemos has received honoraria for participation in data safety monitoring boards from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, and Janssen.

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

Feelings of inadequacy, in terms of skills and expectations in an ever-changing system, are common emotions that many doctors have experienced since the start of the pandemic.

COVID-19 imposed challenges on health care professionals and systems by forcing changes in how doctors organize themselves professionally as well as in their relationships with patients and in their expectations (realistic or not) of their roles. The situation was bound to generate high rates of frustration and discomfort among younger and older physicians. It was compounded by a generational transition of the profession, which was accelerated by the virus. It was not managed by the decision-makers and was painful for doctors and patients.

Impostor syndrome (IS) is a psychological construct characterized by the persistent belief that one’s success is undeserved, rather than stemming from personal effort, skill, and ability. The phenomenon is common among medics for various reasons, including professional burnout. Recent studies have helped to better define the extent and characteristic features of the syndrome, as well as efforts to combat it.
 

Doctors and burnout

Although occupational burnout among physicians is a systemic issue primarily attributable to problems in the practice environment, professional norms and aspects of medical culture often contribute to the distress that individual physicians experience.

These dimensions have been well characterized and include suggestions that physicians should be impervious to normal human limitations (that is, superhuman), that work should always come first, and that seeking help is a sign of weakness. In aggregate, these attitudes lead many physicians to engage in unhealthy levels of self-sacrifice, manifested by excessive work hours, anxiety about missing something that would benefit their patients, and prioritizing work over personal health. These factors are familiar to many hospital-based and family physicians.
 

The impostor phenomenon

The impostor phenomenon (IP) is a psychological experience of intellectual and professional fraud. Individuals who suffer from it believe that others have inflated perceptions of the individual’s abilities and fear being judged. This fear persists despite continual proof of the individual’s successes. These people ignore praise, are highly self-critical, and attribute their successes to external factors, such as luck, hard work, or receiving help from others, rather than to qualities such as skill, intelligence, or ability.

IP is common among men and women. Some studies suggest it may be more prevalent among women. Studies across industries suggest that the phenomenon is associated with personal consequences (for example, low emotional well-being, problems with work-life integration, anxiety, depression, suicide) and professional consequences (for example, impaired job performance, occupational burnout). Studies involving U.S. medical students have revealed that more than one in four medical students experience IP and that those who experience it are at higher risk for burnout.
 

Surveying IS

IS, which is not a formal psychiatric diagnosis, is defined as having feelings of uncertainty, inadequacy, and being undeserving of one’s achievements despite evidence to the contrary. There are five subtypes of IS:

• Perfectionist: insecurity related to self-imposed, unachievable goals
• Expert: feeling inadequate from lacking sufficient knowledge
• Superperson: assuming excessive workloads just to feel okay among peers
• Natural genius: experiencing shame when it takes effort to develop a skill
• Soloist: believing that requesting help is a sign of weakness

Risk factors

Studies suggest that IS is a problem early in the physician training process. There is limited information on IS among physicians in practice.

Because transitions represent a risk factor for IP, the frequent rotation between clerkships and being a “perpetual novice” during medical school training may contribute to the high prevalence. Qualitative studies suggest that, once in practice, other professional experiences (for example, unfavorable patient outcomes, patient complaints, rejection of grants or manuscripts, and poor teaching evaluations or patient satisfaction scores) may contribute to IP.
 

Impact on doctors

Several methods have been used to classify how much the phenomenon interferes with a person’s life. The Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale is a 20-item scale that asks respondents to indicate how well each item characterizes their experience on a 5-point scale. Options range from “not at all” to “very true.” The sum of responses to the individual items is used to create an aggregate score (IP score). The higher the score, the more frequently and seriously IP interferes with a person’s life.

A simplified version of the IP score was used in a study of 3,237 U.S. doctors that investigated the association between IS and burnout among doctors and to compare their rates of IS with those of other professionals.

Mean IP scores were higher for female physicians than for male physicians (mean, 10.91 vs. 9.12; P < .001). Scores decreased with age and were lower among those who were married or widowed.

With respect to professional characteristics, IP scores were greater among those in academic practice or who worked in the Veterans Affairs medical system and decreased with years in practice.

The highest IP scores were among pediatric subspecialists, general pediatricians, and emergency medicine physicians. Scores were lowest among ophthalmologists, radiologists, and orthopedic surgeons. IP has been independently associated with the risk of burnout and low professional fulfillment.
 

Lessening the impact

An article commenting on the study highlighted the following expert practice strategies that doctors can use to reduce the impact of IS in their professional life.

• Review and celebrate feats that have led to your professional role.
• Share concerns with trusted colleagues who can validate your accomplishments and normalize your feelings by reporting their own struggles with IS.
• Combat perfectionism by accepting that it is okay to be good enough when meeting the challenges of a demanding profession.
• Exercise self-compassion as an alternative to relying on an external locus of self-worth.
• Understand that IS may be common, especially during transitions, such as when entering medical school, graduate medical training, or starting a new career.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Feelings of inadequacy, in terms of skills and expectations in an ever-changing system, are common emotions that many doctors have experienced since the start of the pandemic.

COVID-19 imposed challenges on health care professionals and systems by forcing changes in how doctors organize themselves professionally as well as in their relationships with patients and in their expectations (realistic or not) of their roles. The situation was bound to generate high rates of frustration and discomfort among younger and older physicians. It was compounded by a generational transition of the profession, which was accelerated by the virus. It was not managed by the decision-makers and was painful for doctors and patients.

Impostor syndrome (IS) is a psychological construct characterized by the persistent belief that one’s success is undeserved, rather than stemming from personal effort, skill, and ability. The phenomenon is common among medics for various reasons, including professional burnout. Recent studies have helped to better define the extent and characteristic features of the syndrome, as well as efforts to combat it.
 

Doctors and burnout

Although occupational burnout among physicians is a systemic issue primarily attributable to problems in the practice environment, professional norms and aspects of medical culture often contribute to the distress that individual physicians experience.

These dimensions have been well characterized and include suggestions that physicians should be impervious to normal human limitations (that is, superhuman), that work should always come first, and that seeking help is a sign of weakness. In aggregate, these attitudes lead many physicians to engage in unhealthy levels of self-sacrifice, manifested by excessive work hours, anxiety about missing something that would benefit their patients, and prioritizing work over personal health. These factors are familiar to many hospital-based and family physicians.
 

The impostor phenomenon

The impostor phenomenon (IP) is a psychological experience of intellectual and professional fraud. Individuals who suffer from it believe that others have inflated perceptions of the individual’s abilities and fear being judged. This fear persists despite continual proof of the individual’s successes. These people ignore praise, are highly self-critical, and attribute their successes to external factors, such as luck, hard work, or receiving help from others, rather than to qualities such as skill, intelligence, or ability.

IP is common among men and women. Some studies suggest it may be more prevalent among women. Studies across industries suggest that the phenomenon is associated with personal consequences (for example, low emotional well-being, problems with work-life integration, anxiety, depression, suicide) and professional consequences (for example, impaired job performance, occupational burnout). Studies involving U.S. medical students have revealed that more than one in four medical students experience IP and that those who experience it are at higher risk for burnout.
 

Surveying IS

IS, which is not a formal psychiatric diagnosis, is defined as having feelings of uncertainty, inadequacy, and being undeserving of one’s achievements despite evidence to the contrary. There are five subtypes of IS:

• Perfectionist: insecurity related to self-imposed, unachievable goals
• Expert: feeling inadequate from lacking sufficient knowledge
• Superperson: assuming excessive workloads just to feel okay among peers
• Natural genius: experiencing shame when it takes effort to develop a skill
• Soloist: believing that requesting help is a sign of weakness

Risk factors

Studies suggest that IS is a problem early in the physician training process. There is limited information on IS among physicians in practice.

Because transitions represent a risk factor for IP, the frequent rotation between clerkships and being a “perpetual novice” during medical school training may contribute to the high prevalence. Qualitative studies suggest that, once in practice, other professional experiences (for example, unfavorable patient outcomes, patient complaints, rejection of grants or manuscripts, and poor teaching evaluations or patient satisfaction scores) may contribute to IP.
 

Impact on doctors

Several methods have been used to classify how much the phenomenon interferes with a person’s life. The Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale is a 20-item scale that asks respondents to indicate how well each item characterizes their experience on a 5-point scale. Options range from “not at all” to “very true.” The sum of responses to the individual items is used to create an aggregate score (IP score). The higher the score, the more frequently and seriously IP interferes with a person’s life.

A simplified version of the IP score was used in a study of 3,237 U.S. doctors that investigated the association between IS and burnout among doctors and to compare their rates of IS with those of other professionals.

Mean IP scores were higher for female physicians than for male physicians (mean, 10.91 vs. 9.12; P < .001). Scores decreased with age and were lower among those who were married or widowed.

With respect to professional characteristics, IP scores were greater among those in academic practice or who worked in the Veterans Affairs medical system and decreased with years in practice.

The highest IP scores were among pediatric subspecialists, general pediatricians, and emergency medicine physicians. Scores were lowest among ophthalmologists, radiologists, and orthopedic surgeons. IP has been independently associated with the risk of burnout and low professional fulfillment.
 

Lessening the impact

An article commenting on the study highlighted the following expert practice strategies that doctors can use to reduce the impact of IS in their professional life.

• Review and celebrate feats that have led to your professional role.
• Share concerns with trusted colleagues who can validate your accomplishments and normalize your feelings by reporting their own struggles with IS.
• Combat perfectionism by accepting that it is okay to be good enough when meeting the challenges of a demanding profession.
• Exercise self-compassion as an alternative to relying on an external locus of self-worth.
• Understand that IS may be common, especially during transitions, such as when entering medical school, graduate medical training, or starting a new career.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

Feelings of inadequacy, in terms of skills and expectations in an ever-changing system, are common emotions that many doctors have experienced since the start of the pandemic.

COVID-19 imposed challenges on health care professionals and systems by forcing changes in how doctors organize themselves professionally as well as in their relationships with patients and in their expectations (realistic or not) of their roles. The situation was bound to generate high rates of frustration and discomfort among younger and older physicians. It was compounded by a generational transition of the profession, which was accelerated by the virus. It was not managed by the decision-makers and was painful for doctors and patients.

Impostor syndrome (IS) is a psychological construct characterized by the persistent belief that one’s success is undeserved, rather than stemming from personal effort, skill, and ability. The phenomenon is common among medics for various reasons, including professional burnout. Recent studies have helped to better define the extent and characteristic features of the syndrome, as well as efforts to combat it.
 

Doctors and burnout

Although occupational burnout among physicians is a systemic issue primarily attributable to problems in the practice environment, professional norms and aspects of medical culture often contribute to the distress that individual physicians experience.

These dimensions have been well characterized and include suggestions that physicians should be impervious to normal human limitations (that is, superhuman), that work should always come first, and that seeking help is a sign of weakness. In aggregate, these attitudes lead many physicians to engage in unhealthy levels of self-sacrifice, manifested by excessive work hours, anxiety about missing something that would benefit their patients, and prioritizing work over personal health. These factors are familiar to many hospital-based and family physicians.
 

The impostor phenomenon

The impostor phenomenon (IP) is a psychological experience of intellectual and professional fraud. Individuals who suffer from it believe that others have inflated perceptions of the individual’s abilities and fear being judged. This fear persists despite continual proof of the individual’s successes. These people ignore praise, are highly self-critical, and attribute their successes to external factors, such as luck, hard work, or receiving help from others, rather than to qualities such as skill, intelligence, or ability.

IP is common among men and women. Some studies suggest it may be more prevalent among women. Studies across industries suggest that the phenomenon is associated with personal consequences (for example, low emotional well-being, problems with work-life integration, anxiety, depression, suicide) and professional consequences (for example, impaired job performance, occupational burnout). Studies involving U.S. medical students have revealed that more than one in four medical students experience IP and that those who experience it are at higher risk for burnout.
 

Surveying IS

IS, which is not a formal psychiatric diagnosis, is defined as having feelings of uncertainty, inadequacy, and being undeserving of one’s achievements despite evidence to the contrary. There are five subtypes of IS:

• Perfectionist: insecurity related to self-imposed, unachievable goals
• Expert: feeling inadequate from lacking sufficient knowledge
• Superperson: assuming excessive workloads just to feel okay among peers
• Natural genius: experiencing shame when it takes effort to develop a skill
• Soloist: believing that requesting help is a sign of weakness

Risk factors

Studies suggest that IS is a problem early in the physician training process. There is limited information on IS among physicians in practice.

Because transitions represent a risk factor for IP, the frequent rotation between clerkships and being a “perpetual novice” during medical school training may contribute to the high prevalence. Qualitative studies suggest that, once in practice, other professional experiences (for example, unfavorable patient outcomes, patient complaints, rejection of grants or manuscripts, and poor teaching evaluations or patient satisfaction scores) may contribute to IP.
 

Impact on doctors

Several methods have been used to classify how much the phenomenon interferes with a person’s life. The Clance Impostor Phenomenon Scale is a 20-item scale that asks respondents to indicate how well each item characterizes their experience on a 5-point scale. Options range from “not at all” to “very true.” The sum of responses to the individual items is used to create an aggregate score (IP score). The higher the score, the more frequently and seriously IP interferes with a person’s life.

A simplified version of the IP score was used in a study of 3,237 U.S. doctors that investigated the association between IS and burnout among doctors and to compare their rates of IS with those of other professionals.

Mean IP scores were higher for female physicians than for male physicians (mean, 10.91 vs. 9.12; P < .001). Scores decreased with age and were lower among those who were married or widowed.

With respect to professional characteristics, IP scores were greater among those in academic practice or who worked in the Veterans Affairs medical system and decreased with years in practice.

The highest IP scores were among pediatric subspecialists, general pediatricians, and emergency medicine physicians. Scores were lowest among ophthalmologists, radiologists, and orthopedic surgeons. IP has been independently associated with the risk of burnout and low professional fulfillment.
 

Lessening the impact

An article commenting on the study highlighted the following expert practice strategies that doctors can use to reduce the impact of IS in their professional life.

• Review and celebrate feats that have led to your professional role.
• Share concerns with trusted colleagues who can validate your accomplishments and normalize your feelings by reporting their own struggles with IS.
• Combat perfectionism by accepting that it is okay to be good enough when meeting the challenges of a demanding profession.
• Exercise self-compassion as an alternative to relying on an external locus of self-worth.
• Understand that IS may be common, especially during transitions, such as when entering medical school, graduate medical training, or starting a new career.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has published a draft decision memo on carotid artery stenting (CAS) that would expand Medicare coverage of the procedure and remove certain requirements for CAS facilities and operators.

The new memo follows a national coverage analysis for CAS that was initiated in January 2023 and considers 193 public comments received in the ensuing month.

That analysis followed a request from the Multispecialty Carotid Alliance (MSCA) to make the existing guidelines less restrictive.

The decision proposal would expand coverage for CAS “to standard surgical risk patients by removing the limitation of coverage to only high surgical risk patients.” It would limit it to patients for whom CAS is considered “reasonable and necessary” and who are either symptomatic with carotid stenosis of 50% or greater or asymptomatic with carotid stenosis of at least 70%.

The proposal would require practitioners to “engage in a formal shared decision-making interaction with the beneficiary” that involves use of a “validated decision-making tool.” The conversation must include discussion of all treatment options and their risks and benefits and cover information from the clinical guidelines, as well as “incorporate the patient’s personal preferences and priorities.”

Much of the proposed coverage criteria resemble recommendations from several societies that offered comments in response to the Jan. 12 CMS statement that led to the current draft proposal. They include, along with MSCA, the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons, and jointly the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association.

Carotid stenting, commented the ACC/AHA, “was first introduced in 1994, and the field has matured in the last 3 decades.” The procedure “is a well-established treatment option.” The groups declared support for “removal of the facility and operator requirement for CAS consistent with the current state of the published literature and standard clinical practice.”

The current CMS draft proposal acknowledges the publication of five major randomized controlled trials and a number of “large, prospective registry-based studies” since 2009 that support its proposed coverage criteria.

Collectively, it states, the evidence “suffices to demonstrate that CAS and [carotid endarterectomy] are similarly effective” with respect to the clinical primary endpoints of recent trials “in patients with either standard or high surgical risk and who are symptomatic with carotid artery stenosis ≥ 50% or asymptomatic with stenosis ≥ 70%.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has published a draft decision memo on carotid artery stenting (CAS) that would expand Medicare coverage of the procedure and remove certain requirements for CAS facilities and operators.

The new memo follows a national coverage analysis for CAS that was initiated in January 2023 and considers 193 public comments received in the ensuing month.

That analysis followed a request from the Multispecialty Carotid Alliance (MSCA) to make the existing guidelines less restrictive.

The decision proposal would expand coverage for CAS “to standard surgical risk patients by removing the limitation of coverage to only high surgical risk patients.” It would limit it to patients for whom CAS is considered “reasonable and necessary” and who are either symptomatic with carotid stenosis of 50% or greater or asymptomatic with carotid stenosis of at least 70%.

The proposal would require practitioners to “engage in a formal shared decision-making interaction with the beneficiary” that involves use of a “validated decision-making tool.” The conversation must include discussion of all treatment options and their risks and benefits and cover information from the clinical guidelines, as well as “incorporate the patient’s personal preferences and priorities.”

Much of the proposed coverage criteria resemble recommendations from several societies that offered comments in response to the Jan. 12 CMS statement that led to the current draft proposal. They include, along with MSCA, the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons, and jointly the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association.

Carotid stenting, commented the ACC/AHA, “was first introduced in 1994, and the field has matured in the last 3 decades.” The procedure “is a well-established treatment option.” The groups declared support for “removal of the facility and operator requirement for CAS consistent with the current state of the published literature and standard clinical practice.”

The current CMS draft proposal acknowledges the publication of five major randomized controlled trials and a number of “large, prospective registry-based studies” since 2009 that support its proposed coverage criteria.

Collectively, it states, the evidence “suffices to demonstrate that CAS and [carotid endarterectomy] are similarly effective” with respect to the clinical primary endpoints of recent trials “in patients with either standard or high surgical risk and who are symptomatic with carotid artery stenosis ≥ 50% or asymptomatic with stenosis ≥ 70%.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has published a draft decision memo on carotid artery stenting (CAS) that would expand Medicare coverage of the procedure and remove certain requirements for CAS facilities and operators.

The new memo follows a national coverage analysis for CAS that was initiated in January 2023 and considers 193 public comments received in the ensuing month.

That analysis followed a request from the Multispecialty Carotid Alliance (MSCA) to make the existing guidelines less restrictive.

The decision proposal would expand coverage for CAS “to standard surgical risk patients by removing the limitation of coverage to only high surgical risk patients.” It would limit it to patients for whom CAS is considered “reasonable and necessary” and who are either symptomatic with carotid stenosis of 50% or greater or asymptomatic with carotid stenosis of at least 70%.

The proposal would require practitioners to “engage in a formal shared decision-making interaction with the beneficiary” that involves use of a “validated decision-making tool.” The conversation must include discussion of all treatment options and their risks and benefits and cover information from the clinical guidelines, as well as “incorporate the patient’s personal preferences and priorities.”

Much of the proposed coverage criteria resemble recommendations from several societies that offered comments in response to the Jan. 12 CMS statement that led to the current draft proposal. They include, along with MSCA, the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons, and jointly the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association.

Carotid stenting, commented the ACC/AHA, “was first introduced in 1994, and the field has matured in the last 3 decades.” The procedure “is a well-established treatment option.” The groups declared support for “removal of the facility and operator requirement for CAS consistent with the current state of the published literature and standard clinical practice.”

The current CMS draft proposal acknowledges the publication of five major randomized controlled trials and a number of “large, prospective registry-based studies” since 2009 that support its proposed coverage criteria.

Collectively, it states, the evidence “suffices to demonstrate that CAS and [carotid endarterectomy] are similarly effective” with respect to the clinical primary endpoints of recent trials “in patients with either standard or high surgical risk and who are symptomatic with carotid artery stenosis ≥ 50% or asymptomatic with stenosis ≥ 70%.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Measured one way, success for peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) in the femoropopliteal arteries for patients with intermittent claudication has improved, as the need for repeat PVI appears to be very low, and lower than in recent years, a new analysis suggests. But measured another way, the researchers said, PVI’s record of success in peripheral arterial disease (PAD) remains marred by a substantial risk for amputation involving the treated limb.

In their analysis, the “persistent and not insignificant risk” of treated-limb amputation in such patients who underwent femoropopliteal PVI was 4.3% over 4 years. The rate for popliteal interventions was significantly higher than for PVI limited to the superficial femoral artery (SFA), 7.5% and 3.4%, respectively.

The 4-year rate of repeat target-vessel revascularization, however, was “lower than expected” at 15.2% in the analysis, which was based on the PINC AI Healthcare Data database covering over 1,100 U.S. hospitals. The study was published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

The amputation rates for index treated limbs “surprised us,” lead author S. Elissa Altin, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. The increased rate after procedures limited to the popliteal artery, compared with the SFA, “were even more concerning,” she said. “This is higher than accepted natural history rates of amputation in patients with conservatively managed claudication.”

Of particular concern in the study, agreed the author of an accompanying editorial, “is the finding of a 1 in 25 risk for amputation among patients with [intermittent claudication] undergoing revascularization, which underscores that both patients and physicians must ensure that evidence-based lifestyle and medical therapies are exhausted prior to pursuing [femoropopliteal] revascularization.”

Given such amputation concerns “and the availability of effective lifestyle and medical therapies,” wrote Debabrata Mukherjee, MD, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso, “PVI should be restricted in stable PAD only for those with persistent lifestyle-limiting claudication despite [guideline-directed medical therapy] and structured exercise therapy.”

Dr. Altin and colleagues analyzed data from 19,324 patients with intermittent claudication (mean age, 69 years; 59% men) who underwent femoropopliteal PVI from 2016 to 2020.

Use of atherectomy and of drug-eluting balloons were both similarly prevalent for popliteal and SFA target arteries; however, SFA lesions were more commonly treated with stents.

The rate of amputation in the treated limb over 4 years was 4.3%; the rate of major (above the ankle) amputation was 3.2%.

The multivariable-adjusted treated-limb amputation hazard ratio for popliteal versus SFA procedures was for 2.10 (95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.92) for any amputation and 1.98 (95% CI, 1.32-2.95) for major amputation.

The 4-year rate of index-limb repeat revascularization was 16.7% overall, 20.1% for patients with an index procedure in both the popliteal and SFA segments, 19% after popliteal-only procedures, and 15.4% after SFA-only procedures (P < .0001), the report stated.

The overall lower-than-expected revascularization rates, the authors proposed, may reflect improvements in endovascular therapies for femoropopliteal lesions, such as drug-eluting stents and advances in medical therapy.

“Additionally, this may underscore a difference between trial-defined target-lesion revascularization compared with clinically driven target-lesion revascularization in practice,” they wrote.

The study’s revascularization rates could have been underestimated because “some of the patients in this study may have had procedures conducted in other hospital systems or at an office-based lab during the study period,” proposed interventional cardiologist Seyi Bolorunduro MD, MPH, INOVA Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Va.

“This and other studies highlight the need to be cautious about offering PVI to patients with intermittent claudication,” said Dr. Bolorunduro, who was not connected with the current study. On the other hand, he added, randomized trial data show “that combination therapy with PVI followed by supervised exercise results in greater improvement in walking distances and quality-of-life scores, compared with supervised exercise alone, at 1 year.’

Femoropopliteal PVI “is an important tool for patients with residual, truly lifestyle-limiting claudication after exhausting medical therapies, complete smoking cessation, and structured exercise programs,” Dr. Altin said. Future studies, she added, should look prospectively at patients with claudication who underwent early versus delayed invasive management.

In his editorial, Dr. Mukherjee said that, for patients with PAD and claudication, a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor may be recommended if LDL cholesterol remains 70 mg/dL or higher and symptoms persist after a regimen of lifestyle modification, exercise, antiplatelet therapy, and high-intensity statins and other guideline-directed medical therapy. He also suggests a direct oral anticoagulant be considered before resorting to endovascular or surgical revascularization.

“We need to optimize risk-factor modification, medical therapy and exercise, and only reserve PVI for patients with severe lifestyle-limiting intermittent claudication who have tried and failed everything else,” Dr. Bolorunduro agreed in an interview. “I educate my patients about [the amputation] risk and let them know that PVI is not a panacea.”

Dr. Altin has disclosed no relevant relationships. Dr. Mukherjee and Dr. Bolorunduro have no relevant disclosures.

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

Measured one way, success for peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) in the femoropopliteal arteries for patients with intermittent claudication has improved, as the need for repeat PVI appears to be very low, and lower than in recent years, a new analysis suggests. But measured another way, the researchers said, PVI’s record of success in peripheral arterial disease (PAD) remains marred by a substantial risk for amputation involving the treated limb.

In their analysis, the “persistent and not insignificant risk” of treated-limb amputation in such patients who underwent femoropopliteal PVI was 4.3% over 4 years. The rate for popliteal interventions was significantly higher than for PVI limited to the superficial femoral artery (SFA), 7.5% and 3.4%, respectively.

The 4-year rate of repeat target-vessel revascularization, however, was “lower than expected” at 15.2% in the analysis, which was based on the PINC AI Healthcare Data database covering over 1,100 U.S. hospitals. The study was published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

The amputation rates for index treated limbs “surprised us,” lead author S. Elissa Altin, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. The increased rate after procedures limited to the popliteal artery, compared with the SFA, “were even more concerning,” she said. “This is higher than accepted natural history rates of amputation in patients with conservatively managed claudication.”

Of particular concern in the study, agreed the author of an accompanying editorial, “is the finding of a 1 in 25 risk for amputation among patients with [intermittent claudication] undergoing revascularization, which underscores that both patients and physicians must ensure that evidence-based lifestyle and medical therapies are exhausted prior to pursuing [femoropopliteal] revascularization.”

Given such amputation concerns “and the availability of effective lifestyle and medical therapies,” wrote Debabrata Mukherjee, MD, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso, “PVI should be restricted in stable PAD only for those with persistent lifestyle-limiting claudication despite [guideline-directed medical therapy] and structured exercise therapy.”

Dr. Altin and colleagues analyzed data from 19,324 patients with intermittent claudication (mean age, 69 years; 59% men) who underwent femoropopliteal PVI from 2016 to 2020.

Use of atherectomy and of drug-eluting balloons were both similarly prevalent for popliteal and SFA target arteries; however, SFA lesions were more commonly treated with stents.

The rate of amputation in the treated limb over 4 years was 4.3%; the rate of major (above the ankle) amputation was 3.2%.

The multivariable-adjusted treated-limb amputation hazard ratio for popliteal versus SFA procedures was for 2.10 (95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.92) for any amputation and 1.98 (95% CI, 1.32-2.95) for major amputation.

The 4-year rate of index-limb repeat revascularization was 16.7% overall, 20.1% for patients with an index procedure in both the popliteal and SFA segments, 19% after popliteal-only procedures, and 15.4% after SFA-only procedures (P < .0001), the report stated.

The overall lower-than-expected revascularization rates, the authors proposed, may reflect improvements in endovascular therapies for femoropopliteal lesions, such as drug-eluting stents and advances in medical therapy.

“Additionally, this may underscore a difference between trial-defined target-lesion revascularization compared with clinically driven target-lesion revascularization in practice,” they wrote.

The study’s revascularization rates could have been underestimated because “some of the patients in this study may have had procedures conducted in other hospital systems or at an office-based lab during the study period,” proposed interventional cardiologist Seyi Bolorunduro MD, MPH, INOVA Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Va.

“This and other studies highlight the need to be cautious about offering PVI to patients with intermittent claudication,” said Dr. Bolorunduro, who was not connected with the current study. On the other hand, he added, randomized trial data show “that combination therapy with PVI followed by supervised exercise results in greater improvement in walking distances and quality-of-life scores, compared with supervised exercise alone, at 1 year.’

Femoropopliteal PVI “is an important tool for patients with residual, truly lifestyle-limiting claudication after exhausting medical therapies, complete smoking cessation, and structured exercise programs,” Dr. Altin said. Future studies, she added, should look prospectively at patients with claudication who underwent early versus delayed invasive management.

In his editorial, Dr. Mukherjee said that, for patients with PAD and claudication, a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor may be recommended if LDL cholesterol remains 70 mg/dL or higher and symptoms persist after a regimen of lifestyle modification, exercise, antiplatelet therapy, and high-intensity statins and other guideline-directed medical therapy. He also suggests a direct oral anticoagulant be considered before resorting to endovascular or surgical revascularization.

“We need to optimize risk-factor modification, medical therapy and exercise, and only reserve PVI for patients with severe lifestyle-limiting intermittent claudication who have tried and failed everything else,” Dr. Bolorunduro agreed in an interview. “I educate my patients about [the amputation] risk and let them know that PVI is not a panacea.”

Dr. Altin has disclosed no relevant relationships. Dr. Mukherjee and Dr. Bolorunduro have no relevant disclosures.

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

Measured one way, success for peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) in the femoropopliteal arteries for patients with intermittent claudication has improved, as the need for repeat PVI appears to be very low, and lower than in recent years, a new analysis suggests. But measured another way, the researchers said, PVI’s record of success in peripheral arterial disease (PAD) remains marred by a substantial risk for amputation involving the treated limb.

In their analysis, the “persistent and not insignificant risk” of treated-limb amputation in such patients who underwent femoropopliteal PVI was 4.3% over 4 years. The rate for popliteal interventions was significantly higher than for PVI limited to the superficial femoral artery (SFA), 7.5% and 3.4%, respectively.

The 4-year rate of repeat target-vessel revascularization, however, was “lower than expected” at 15.2% in the analysis, which was based on the PINC AI Healthcare Data database covering over 1,100 U.S. hospitals. The study was published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.

The amputation rates for index treated limbs “surprised us,” lead author S. Elissa Altin, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview. The increased rate after procedures limited to the popliteal artery, compared with the SFA, “were even more concerning,” she said. “This is higher than accepted natural history rates of amputation in patients with conservatively managed claudication.”

Of particular concern in the study, agreed the author of an accompanying editorial, “is the finding of a 1 in 25 risk for amputation among patients with [intermittent claudication] undergoing revascularization, which underscores that both patients and physicians must ensure that evidence-based lifestyle and medical therapies are exhausted prior to pursuing [femoropopliteal] revascularization.”

Given such amputation concerns “and the availability of effective lifestyle and medical therapies,” wrote Debabrata Mukherjee, MD, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso, “PVI should be restricted in stable PAD only for those with persistent lifestyle-limiting claudication despite [guideline-directed medical therapy] and structured exercise therapy.”

Dr. Altin and colleagues analyzed data from 19,324 patients with intermittent claudication (mean age, 69 years; 59% men) who underwent femoropopliteal PVI from 2016 to 2020.

Use of atherectomy and of drug-eluting balloons were both similarly prevalent for popliteal and SFA target arteries; however, SFA lesions were more commonly treated with stents.

The rate of amputation in the treated limb over 4 years was 4.3%; the rate of major (above the ankle) amputation was 3.2%.

The multivariable-adjusted treated-limb amputation hazard ratio for popliteal versus SFA procedures was for 2.10 (95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.92) for any amputation and 1.98 (95% CI, 1.32-2.95) for major amputation.

The 4-year rate of index-limb repeat revascularization was 16.7% overall, 20.1% for patients with an index procedure in both the popliteal and SFA segments, 19% after popliteal-only procedures, and 15.4% after SFA-only procedures (P < .0001), the report stated.

The overall lower-than-expected revascularization rates, the authors proposed, may reflect improvements in endovascular therapies for femoropopliteal lesions, such as drug-eluting stents and advances in medical therapy.

“Additionally, this may underscore a difference between trial-defined target-lesion revascularization compared with clinically driven target-lesion revascularization in practice,” they wrote.

The study’s revascularization rates could have been underestimated because “some of the patients in this study may have had procedures conducted in other hospital systems or at an office-based lab during the study period,” proposed interventional cardiologist Seyi Bolorunduro MD, MPH, INOVA Heart and Vascular Institute, Falls Church, Va.

“This and other studies highlight the need to be cautious about offering PVI to patients with intermittent claudication,” said Dr. Bolorunduro, who was not connected with the current study. On the other hand, he added, randomized trial data show “that combination therapy with PVI followed by supervised exercise results in greater improvement in walking distances and quality-of-life scores, compared with supervised exercise alone, at 1 year.’

Femoropopliteal PVI “is an important tool for patients with residual, truly lifestyle-limiting claudication after exhausting medical therapies, complete smoking cessation, and structured exercise programs,” Dr. Altin said. Future studies, she added, should look prospectively at patients with claudication who underwent early versus delayed invasive management.

In his editorial, Dr. Mukherjee said that, for patients with PAD and claudication, a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor may be recommended if LDL cholesterol remains 70 mg/dL or higher and symptoms persist after a regimen of lifestyle modification, exercise, antiplatelet therapy, and high-intensity statins and other guideline-directed medical therapy. He also suggests a direct oral anticoagulant be considered before resorting to endovascular or surgical revascularization.

“We need to optimize risk-factor modification, medical therapy and exercise, and only reserve PVI for patients with severe lifestyle-limiting intermittent claudication who have tried and failed everything else,” Dr. Bolorunduro agreed in an interview. “I educate my patients about [the amputation] risk and let them know that PVI is not a panacea.”

Dr. Altin has disclosed no relevant relationships. Dr. Mukherjee and Dr. Bolorunduro have no relevant disclosures.

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

Stop me if you’ve heard this before. There’s a controversy over blood pressure targets. Some argue for 140/90 mm Hg, others for 130/80 mm Hg, and some super ambitious folks think that we should aim for 120/80 mm Hg. If this sounds familiar, it should. We did it in 2017. It’s unclear what, if anything, we learned from the experience. On the upside, it’s not as bad as it was 100 years ago.

When high blood pressure was a ‘good’ thing

Back then, many believed that you needed higher blood pressure as you got older to push the blood through your progressively stiffened and hardened arteries. Hence the name “essential” hypertension. The concern was that lowering blood pressure would hypoperfuse your organs and be dangerous. In the 1930s, John Hay told an audience at a British Medical Association lecture: “The greatest danger to a man with high blood pressure lies in its discovery, because then some fool is certain to try and reduce it.”

The 1900s were a simpler time when people had fatal strokes in their 50s, and their families were consoled by the knowledge that they had lived a good life.

If our thinking around blood pressure had evolved slightly faster, perhaps President Roosevelt wouldn’t have died of a stroke during World War II as his doctors watched his systolic blood pressure climb above 200 mm Hg and suggested massages and barbiturates to take the edge off.
 

The current controversy

Not that long ago, 180 mm Hg was considered mild hypertension. Now, we are arguing about a systolic blood pressure of 140 versus 130 mm Hg.

The American Academy of Family Physicians takes the view that 140/90 mm Hg is good enough for most people. Their most recent clinical practice guideline, based primarily on two 2020 Cochrane Reviews of blood pressure targets in patients with and without cardiovascular disease, did not find any mortality benefit for a lower blood pressure threshold.

This puts the AAFP guideline in conflict with the 2017 guideline issued jointly by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and nine other groups, which recommended a target of 130/80 mm Hg for pretty much everyone. Though they say greater than 140/90 mm Hg should be the threshold for low-risk patients or for starting therapy post stroke, we often forget those nuances. The main point of contention is that the AAFP guideline was looking for a mortality benefit, whereas the ACC/AHA/everyone else guideline was looking at preventing cardiovascular events. The latter guideline was driven mainly by the results of the SPRINT trial. ACC/AHA argue for more aggressive targets to prevent the things that cardiologists care about, namely heart attacks.

The AAFP guideline conceded that more aggressive control will result in fewer myocardial infarctions but warn that it comes with more adverse events. Treating 1,000 patients to this lower target would theoretically prevent four MIs, possibly prevent three strokes, but result in 30 adverse events.

In the end, what we are seeing here is not so much a debate over the evidence as a debate over priorities. The AAFP’s main focus is all-cause mortality; the ACC/AHA’s is cardiovascular events. Interventions that don’t improve mortality can be questioned in terms of their cost effectiveness. But you probably don’t want to have a heart attack (even a nonfatal one). And you certainly don’t want to have a stroke. However, lower blood pressure targets inevitably require more medications. Notwithstanding the economic costs, the dangers of polypharmacy, medication interactions, side effects, and syncope leading to falls cannot be ignored. Falls are not benign adverse events, especially in older adults.

The counter argument is that physicians are human and often let things slide. Set the target at 140/90 mm Hg, and many physicians won’t jump on a systolic blood pressure of 144 mm Hg. Set the target at 130 mm Hg, and maybe they’ll be more likely to react. There’s a fine line between permissiveness and complacency.

If you zoom out and look at the multitude of blood pressure guidelines, you start to notice an important fact. There is not much daylight between them. There are subtle differences in what constitutes high risk and different definitions of older (older should be defined as 10 years older than the reader’s current age). But otherwise, the blood pressure targets are not that different.

Does that final 10 mm Hg really matter when barriers to care mean that tens of millions in the United States are unaware they have hypertension? Even among those diagnosed, many are either untreated or inadequately treated.

With this context, perhaps the most insightful thing that can be said about the blood pressure guideline controversy is that it’s not all that controversial. We can likely all agree that we need to be better at treating hypertension and that creative solutions to reach underserved communities are necessary.

Arguing about 140/90 mm Hg or 130/80 mm Hg is less important than acknowledging that we should be aggressive in screening for and treating hypertension. We should acknowledge that beyond a certain point any cardiovascular benefit comes at the cost of hypotension and side effects. That tipping point will be different for different groups, and probably at a higher set point in older patients.

Individualizing care isn’t difficult. We do it all the time. We just shouldn’t be letting people walk around with untreated hypertension. It’s not the 1900s anymore.

Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montreal. He reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Stop me if you’ve heard this before. There’s a controversy over blood pressure targets. Some argue for 140/90 mm Hg, others for 130/80 mm Hg, and some super ambitious folks think that we should aim for 120/80 mm Hg. If this sounds familiar, it should. We did it in 2017. It’s unclear what, if anything, we learned from the experience. On the upside, it’s not as bad as it was 100 years ago.

When high blood pressure was a ‘good’ thing

Back then, many believed that you needed higher blood pressure as you got older to push the blood through your progressively stiffened and hardened arteries. Hence the name “essential” hypertension. The concern was that lowering blood pressure would hypoperfuse your organs and be dangerous. In the 1930s, John Hay told an audience at a British Medical Association lecture: “The greatest danger to a man with high blood pressure lies in its discovery, because then some fool is certain to try and reduce it.”

The 1900s were a simpler time when people had fatal strokes in their 50s, and their families were consoled by the knowledge that they had lived a good life.

If our thinking around blood pressure had evolved slightly faster, perhaps President Roosevelt wouldn’t have died of a stroke during World War II as his doctors watched his systolic blood pressure climb above 200 mm Hg and suggested massages and barbiturates to take the edge off.
 

The current controversy

Not that long ago, 180 mm Hg was considered mild hypertension. Now, we are arguing about a systolic blood pressure of 140 versus 130 mm Hg.

The American Academy of Family Physicians takes the view that 140/90 mm Hg is good enough for most people. Their most recent clinical practice guideline, based primarily on two 2020 Cochrane Reviews of blood pressure targets in patients with and without cardiovascular disease, did not find any mortality benefit for a lower blood pressure threshold.

This puts the AAFP guideline in conflict with the 2017 guideline issued jointly by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and nine other groups, which recommended a target of 130/80 mm Hg for pretty much everyone. Though they say greater than 140/90 mm Hg should be the threshold for low-risk patients or for starting therapy post stroke, we often forget those nuances. The main point of contention is that the AAFP guideline was looking for a mortality benefit, whereas the ACC/AHA/everyone else guideline was looking at preventing cardiovascular events. The latter guideline was driven mainly by the results of the SPRINT trial. ACC/AHA argue for more aggressive targets to prevent the things that cardiologists care about, namely heart attacks.

The AAFP guideline conceded that more aggressive control will result in fewer myocardial infarctions but warn that it comes with more adverse events. Treating 1,000 patients to this lower target would theoretically prevent four MIs, possibly prevent three strokes, but result in 30 adverse events.

In the end, what we are seeing here is not so much a debate over the evidence as a debate over priorities. The AAFP’s main focus is all-cause mortality; the ACC/AHA’s is cardiovascular events. Interventions that don’t improve mortality can be questioned in terms of their cost effectiveness. But you probably don’t want to have a heart attack (even a nonfatal one). And you certainly don’t want to have a stroke. However, lower blood pressure targets inevitably require more medications. Notwithstanding the economic costs, the dangers of polypharmacy, medication interactions, side effects, and syncope leading to falls cannot be ignored. Falls are not benign adverse events, especially in older adults.

The counter argument is that physicians are human and often let things slide. Set the target at 140/90 mm Hg, and many physicians won’t jump on a systolic blood pressure of 144 mm Hg. Set the target at 130 mm Hg, and maybe they’ll be more likely to react. There’s a fine line between permissiveness and complacency.

If you zoom out and look at the multitude of blood pressure guidelines, you start to notice an important fact. There is not much daylight between them. There are subtle differences in what constitutes high risk and different definitions of older (older should be defined as 10 years older than the reader’s current age). But otherwise, the blood pressure targets are not that different.

Does that final 10 mm Hg really matter when barriers to care mean that tens of millions in the United States are unaware they have hypertension? Even among those diagnosed, many are either untreated or inadequately treated.

With this context, perhaps the most insightful thing that can be said about the blood pressure guideline controversy is that it’s not all that controversial. We can likely all agree that we need to be better at treating hypertension and that creative solutions to reach underserved communities are necessary.

Arguing about 140/90 mm Hg or 130/80 mm Hg is less important than acknowledging that we should be aggressive in screening for and treating hypertension. We should acknowledge that beyond a certain point any cardiovascular benefit comes at the cost of hypotension and side effects. That tipping point will be different for different groups, and probably at a higher set point in older patients.

Individualizing care isn’t difficult. We do it all the time. We just shouldn’t be letting people walk around with untreated hypertension. It’s not the 1900s anymore.

Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montreal. He reported no conflicts of interest.

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

Stop me if you’ve heard this before. There’s a controversy over blood pressure targets. Some argue for 140/90 mm Hg, others for 130/80 mm Hg, and some super ambitious folks think that we should aim for 120/80 mm Hg. If this sounds familiar, it should. We did it in 2017. It’s unclear what, if anything, we learned from the experience. On the upside, it’s not as bad as it was 100 years ago.

When high blood pressure was a ‘good’ thing

Back then, many believed that you needed higher blood pressure as you got older to push the blood through your progressively stiffened and hardened arteries. Hence the name “essential” hypertension. The concern was that lowering blood pressure would hypoperfuse your organs and be dangerous. In the 1930s, John Hay told an audience at a British Medical Association lecture: “The greatest danger to a man with high blood pressure lies in its discovery, because then some fool is certain to try and reduce it.”

The 1900s were a simpler time when people had fatal strokes in their 50s, and their families were consoled by the knowledge that they had lived a good life.

If our thinking around blood pressure had evolved slightly faster, perhaps President Roosevelt wouldn’t have died of a stroke during World War II as his doctors watched his systolic blood pressure climb above 200 mm Hg and suggested massages and barbiturates to take the edge off.
 

The current controversy

Not that long ago, 180 mm Hg was considered mild hypertension. Now, we are arguing about a systolic blood pressure of 140 versus 130 mm Hg.

The American Academy of Family Physicians takes the view that 140/90 mm Hg is good enough for most people. Their most recent clinical practice guideline, based primarily on two 2020 Cochrane Reviews of blood pressure targets in patients with and without cardiovascular disease, did not find any mortality benefit for a lower blood pressure threshold.

This puts the AAFP guideline in conflict with the 2017 guideline issued jointly by the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and nine other groups, which recommended a target of 130/80 mm Hg for pretty much everyone. Though they say greater than 140/90 mm Hg should be the threshold for low-risk patients or for starting therapy post stroke, we often forget those nuances. The main point of contention is that the AAFP guideline was looking for a mortality benefit, whereas the ACC/AHA/everyone else guideline was looking at preventing cardiovascular events. The latter guideline was driven mainly by the results of the SPRINT trial. ACC/AHA argue for more aggressive targets to prevent the things that cardiologists care about, namely heart attacks.

The AAFP guideline conceded that more aggressive control will result in fewer myocardial infarctions but warn that it comes with more adverse events. Treating 1,000 patients to this lower target would theoretically prevent four MIs, possibly prevent three strokes, but result in 30 adverse events.

In the end, what we are seeing here is not so much a debate over the evidence as a debate over priorities. The AAFP’s main focus is all-cause mortality; the ACC/AHA’s is cardiovascular events. Interventions that don’t improve mortality can be questioned in terms of their cost effectiveness. But you probably don’t want to have a heart attack (even a nonfatal one). And you certainly don’t want to have a stroke. However, lower blood pressure targets inevitably require more medications. Notwithstanding the economic costs, the dangers of polypharmacy, medication interactions, side effects, and syncope leading to falls cannot be ignored. Falls are not benign adverse events, especially in older adults.

The counter argument is that physicians are human and often let things slide. Set the target at 140/90 mm Hg, and many physicians won’t jump on a systolic blood pressure of 144 mm Hg. Set the target at 130 mm Hg, and maybe they’ll be more likely to react. There’s a fine line between permissiveness and complacency.

If you zoom out and look at the multitude of blood pressure guidelines, you start to notice an important fact. There is not much daylight between them. There are subtle differences in what constitutes high risk and different definitions of older (older should be defined as 10 years older than the reader’s current age). But otherwise, the blood pressure targets are not that different.

Does that final 10 mm Hg really matter when barriers to care mean that tens of millions in the United States are unaware they have hypertension? Even among those diagnosed, many are either untreated or inadequately treated.

With this context, perhaps the most insightful thing that can be said about the blood pressure guideline controversy is that it’s not all that controversial. We can likely all agree that we need to be better at treating hypertension and that creative solutions to reach underserved communities are necessary.

Arguing about 140/90 mm Hg or 130/80 mm Hg is less important than acknowledging that we should be aggressive in screening for and treating hypertension. We should acknowledge that beyond a certain point any cardiovascular benefit comes at the cost of hypotension and side effects. That tipping point will be different for different groups, and probably at a higher set point in older patients.

Individualizing care isn’t difficult. We do it all the time. We just shouldn’t be letting people walk around with untreated hypertension. It’s not the 1900s anymore.

Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montreal. He reported no conflicts of interest.

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