User login
Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
Jeopardy! champion’s parents sue doctors, hospital when patient dies after colectomy
Mr. Smith, who suffered from ulcerative colitis, underwent a colectomy on Jan. 15, 2021, at St. Rose Dominican Hospital–San Martin Campus in Las Vegas. At the time, the 24-year-old man was malnourished, extremely weak, and was having more than 10 bloody bowel movements a day, according to a Jan. 11, 2022, lawsuit filed by Smith’s parents.
The allegations state that, after the procedure, hospital staff did not provide Mr. Smith with anticoagulants and did not administer or suggest that Mr. Smith take anticoagulants upon his discharge on Jan. 19. On Jan. 29, 2021, Mr. Smith collapsed at home and his family called an ambulance. He was taken back to St. Rose where he died from bilateral pulmonary emboli.
Mr. Smith’s legal complaint claims that treatment by Smith’s surgeon, hospitalist, and nursing staff fell below the standard of care because they failed to administer anticoagulants following the surgery. After the surgery, Mr. Smith’s surgeon referenced “DVT/VTE prophylaxis/anticoagulation” in the record and another note read “already ordered,” according to Keith Beiermeister, MD, a colon and rectal surgeon retained by the Smiths’ attorney, Robert E. Murdock. However, the order section of the notes included no specific order for heparin or Lovenox (enoxaparin). A hospitalist who cared for Mr. Smith after the surgery also mentioned “DVT prophylaxis” in the progress notes, but the hospitalist did not order it nor ensure that anticoagulants were given, the lawsuit claims.
“In a surgery such as this, the standard of care requires both mechanical and chemical anticoagulation,” Dr. Beiermeister wrote in the complaint. “This is especially true after colectomy and with Brayden’s history. Anticoagulants and mechanical anticoagulation are needed to prevent emboli. The medical literature is clear that patients undergoing colorectal surgery as compared to general surgery have a significant increase in the risk of emboli. This is especially true with preexisting inflammation as is present in inflammatory bowel disease.”
A spokesman for St. Rose said the hospital does not comment on pending litigation.
Mr. Smith was a five-time Jeopardy! winner and gained national fame during his championship run. In a statement, Jeopardy! officials said the Jeopardy! family was “heartbroken by the tragic loss of Brayden Smith” and that he “will be missed.”
Surgeon must face second trial in stroke suit
A cardiovascular surgeon must face a second trial over claims that he performed an unnecessary surgery that caused a patient’s stroke, the Iowa Supreme Court has ruled.
William McGrew visited a Waterloo, Iowa, cardiovascular surgeon in 2014 after experiencing transient foggy vision in one eye. An ophthalmologist initially diagnosed Mr. McGrew with cataract, but he was referred to the surgeon to rule out other possibilities.
Because of Mr. McGrew’s age (69) and history of hypertension, the cardiovascular surgeon suspected carotid disease and recommended a CT angiogram to further investigate, according to a summary in the Iowa Supreme Court’s opinion.
The CT angiogram was performed at a local imaging center and read by a radiologist who interpreted it as showing 65% stenosis, or narrowing, of the right carotid artery. The surgeon did his own review and interpreted the results as showing 70% stenosis, according to court documents. The surgeon believed that McGrew was at significant risk for stroke and he recommended surgery, specifically a right carotid endarterectomy to remove the plaque from the right carotid artery. He advised McGrew of the surgery’s possible risks, the most common being a stroke.
The endarterectomy initially appeared successful, but the next morning, Mr. McGrew experienced facial droop and weakness on his left side. An MRI and CT scan showed that Mr. McGrew experienced a stroke on the right side of his brain. A CT angiogram showed that his right carotid artery was blocked. The surgeon performed another surgery to remove the carotid artery blockage, but the second surgery did not alleviate Mr. McGrew’s symptoms, according to court documents. Mr. McGrew remains wheelchair-bound, unable to move his left side, and requires nursing home care.
Mr. McGrew and his family later went to a neurologist who analyzed Mr. McGrew’s prior CT angiogram. He interpreted the angiogram as showing only 40% stenosis. The neurologist also asked a neuroradiologist to analyze the CT angiogram, and he assessed the stenosis at 32%. In his opinion, 40% stenosis was not significant to justify an endarterectomy, the neurologist told Mr. McGrew.
Mr. McGrew sued the surgeon and the radiologist in 2016, and later settled with the radiologist. The McGrews claimed that the surgeon negligently misinterpreted the CT angiogram and performed an ill-advised surgery that resulted in a stroke. The McGrews sought damages for pain and suffering, permanent loss of function, loss of income, past and future medical expenses, and loss of consortium.
At trial, attorneys for the surgeon asked the court to limit his and the radiologist’s testimonies, arguing that their opinions were not properly disclosed in expert reports. The trial court granted the motion, and jurors heard only a limited version of the testimony. In addition, some medical records were redacted. A jury found in the surgeon’s favor, deeming him not negligent.
The McGrews appealed. In a Jan. 21, 2022, opinion, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing the earlier testimonies. Justices said both the neurologist and the neuroradiologist should have been allowed to testify on the applicable standard of care. The district court also abused its discretion in preventing Mr. McGrew from introducing complete versions of the contemporaneous medical records, the court ruled.
Justices reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for a new trial.
Court: Patient must pay doc’s legal expenses
A patient must pay a physician about $20,000 in legal expenses after the patient’s malpractice suit was thrown out, an Arizona appeals court has ruled.
Scottsdale plastic surgeon Corwin Martin, MD, performed dental implant surgery on Penny Preszler in February 2012. Following the surgery, Ms. Preszler claimed numbness in her face and mouth, according to the appellate decision. She sued Dr. Martin and his practice for malpractice in 2015.
As the case continued, Ms. Preszler withdrew her first expert and disclosed a new expert. When Ms. Preszler’s second standard of care expert withdrew, she was given 30 days to disclose a new expert. When she failed to do so, Dr. Martin asked the court to dismiss the suit based on Ms. Preszler’s failure to disclose a proper standard of care expert.
She eventually presented a third expert, but Martin’s attorneys argued that the doctor was not a qualified expert under state law because he was board certified in periodontia, while Dr. Martin is board certified in oral and maxillofacial surgery. By this time, the case had gone on for 4 years.
When Ms. Preszler couldn’t come up with a fourth expert who was qualified, the court dismissed the case. The judge also awarded Dr. Martin $19,279.05 for expenses incurred in discovery related to Ms. Preszler’s first expert, attorneys’ fees, and expenses.
Ms. Preszler appealed, arguing that the periodontist was qualified to testify against Martin because he performed dental implant surgeries in the past without the board certification Dr. Martin obtained. In its Jan. 20, 2022, decision, a panel of the Arizona Court of Appeals upheld the decision, ruling that the expert was not qualified to opine. The patient must also pay the physician’s legal expenses as ordered by the lower court.
“[Ms.] Preszler has not shown the superior court abused its discretion in the award issued,” appellate judges wrote. “Three years after [Ms.] Preszler disclosed her first expert witness, that expert withdrew. [Dr.] Martin claimed substantial expenses relating to discovery addressing [Ms.] Preszler’s first expert, which were no longer beneficial given his withdrawal. ... [Ms.] Preszler has not shown that the expenses awarded to [Dr.] Martin were unreasonable or disproportionate to the time and costs expended regarding the withdrawn expert.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Mr. Smith, who suffered from ulcerative colitis, underwent a colectomy on Jan. 15, 2021, at St. Rose Dominican Hospital–San Martin Campus in Las Vegas. At the time, the 24-year-old man was malnourished, extremely weak, and was having more than 10 bloody bowel movements a day, according to a Jan. 11, 2022, lawsuit filed by Smith’s parents.
The allegations state that, after the procedure, hospital staff did not provide Mr. Smith with anticoagulants and did not administer or suggest that Mr. Smith take anticoagulants upon his discharge on Jan. 19. On Jan. 29, 2021, Mr. Smith collapsed at home and his family called an ambulance. He was taken back to St. Rose where he died from bilateral pulmonary emboli.
Mr. Smith’s legal complaint claims that treatment by Smith’s surgeon, hospitalist, and nursing staff fell below the standard of care because they failed to administer anticoagulants following the surgery. After the surgery, Mr. Smith’s surgeon referenced “DVT/VTE prophylaxis/anticoagulation” in the record and another note read “already ordered,” according to Keith Beiermeister, MD, a colon and rectal surgeon retained by the Smiths’ attorney, Robert E. Murdock. However, the order section of the notes included no specific order for heparin or Lovenox (enoxaparin). A hospitalist who cared for Mr. Smith after the surgery also mentioned “DVT prophylaxis” in the progress notes, but the hospitalist did not order it nor ensure that anticoagulants were given, the lawsuit claims.
“In a surgery such as this, the standard of care requires both mechanical and chemical anticoagulation,” Dr. Beiermeister wrote in the complaint. “This is especially true after colectomy and with Brayden’s history. Anticoagulants and mechanical anticoagulation are needed to prevent emboli. The medical literature is clear that patients undergoing colorectal surgery as compared to general surgery have a significant increase in the risk of emboli. This is especially true with preexisting inflammation as is present in inflammatory bowel disease.”
A spokesman for St. Rose said the hospital does not comment on pending litigation.
Mr. Smith was a five-time Jeopardy! winner and gained national fame during his championship run. In a statement, Jeopardy! officials said the Jeopardy! family was “heartbroken by the tragic loss of Brayden Smith” and that he “will be missed.”
Surgeon must face second trial in stroke suit
A cardiovascular surgeon must face a second trial over claims that he performed an unnecessary surgery that caused a patient’s stroke, the Iowa Supreme Court has ruled.
William McGrew visited a Waterloo, Iowa, cardiovascular surgeon in 2014 after experiencing transient foggy vision in one eye. An ophthalmologist initially diagnosed Mr. McGrew with cataract, but he was referred to the surgeon to rule out other possibilities.
Because of Mr. McGrew’s age (69) and history of hypertension, the cardiovascular surgeon suspected carotid disease and recommended a CT angiogram to further investigate, according to a summary in the Iowa Supreme Court’s opinion.
The CT angiogram was performed at a local imaging center and read by a radiologist who interpreted it as showing 65% stenosis, or narrowing, of the right carotid artery. The surgeon did his own review and interpreted the results as showing 70% stenosis, according to court documents. The surgeon believed that McGrew was at significant risk for stroke and he recommended surgery, specifically a right carotid endarterectomy to remove the plaque from the right carotid artery. He advised McGrew of the surgery’s possible risks, the most common being a stroke.
The endarterectomy initially appeared successful, but the next morning, Mr. McGrew experienced facial droop and weakness on his left side. An MRI and CT scan showed that Mr. McGrew experienced a stroke on the right side of his brain. A CT angiogram showed that his right carotid artery was blocked. The surgeon performed another surgery to remove the carotid artery blockage, but the second surgery did not alleviate Mr. McGrew’s symptoms, according to court documents. Mr. McGrew remains wheelchair-bound, unable to move his left side, and requires nursing home care.
Mr. McGrew and his family later went to a neurologist who analyzed Mr. McGrew’s prior CT angiogram. He interpreted the angiogram as showing only 40% stenosis. The neurologist also asked a neuroradiologist to analyze the CT angiogram, and he assessed the stenosis at 32%. In his opinion, 40% stenosis was not significant to justify an endarterectomy, the neurologist told Mr. McGrew.
Mr. McGrew sued the surgeon and the radiologist in 2016, and later settled with the radiologist. The McGrews claimed that the surgeon negligently misinterpreted the CT angiogram and performed an ill-advised surgery that resulted in a stroke. The McGrews sought damages for pain and suffering, permanent loss of function, loss of income, past and future medical expenses, and loss of consortium.
At trial, attorneys for the surgeon asked the court to limit his and the radiologist’s testimonies, arguing that their opinions were not properly disclosed in expert reports. The trial court granted the motion, and jurors heard only a limited version of the testimony. In addition, some medical records were redacted. A jury found in the surgeon’s favor, deeming him not negligent.
The McGrews appealed. In a Jan. 21, 2022, opinion, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing the earlier testimonies. Justices said both the neurologist and the neuroradiologist should have been allowed to testify on the applicable standard of care. The district court also abused its discretion in preventing Mr. McGrew from introducing complete versions of the contemporaneous medical records, the court ruled.
Justices reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for a new trial.
Court: Patient must pay doc’s legal expenses
A patient must pay a physician about $20,000 in legal expenses after the patient’s malpractice suit was thrown out, an Arizona appeals court has ruled.
Scottsdale plastic surgeon Corwin Martin, MD, performed dental implant surgery on Penny Preszler in February 2012. Following the surgery, Ms. Preszler claimed numbness in her face and mouth, according to the appellate decision. She sued Dr. Martin and his practice for malpractice in 2015.
As the case continued, Ms. Preszler withdrew her first expert and disclosed a new expert. When Ms. Preszler’s second standard of care expert withdrew, she was given 30 days to disclose a new expert. When she failed to do so, Dr. Martin asked the court to dismiss the suit based on Ms. Preszler’s failure to disclose a proper standard of care expert.
She eventually presented a third expert, but Martin’s attorneys argued that the doctor was not a qualified expert under state law because he was board certified in periodontia, while Dr. Martin is board certified in oral and maxillofacial surgery. By this time, the case had gone on for 4 years.
When Ms. Preszler couldn’t come up with a fourth expert who was qualified, the court dismissed the case. The judge also awarded Dr. Martin $19,279.05 for expenses incurred in discovery related to Ms. Preszler’s first expert, attorneys’ fees, and expenses.
Ms. Preszler appealed, arguing that the periodontist was qualified to testify against Martin because he performed dental implant surgeries in the past without the board certification Dr. Martin obtained. In its Jan. 20, 2022, decision, a panel of the Arizona Court of Appeals upheld the decision, ruling that the expert was not qualified to opine. The patient must also pay the physician’s legal expenses as ordered by the lower court.
“[Ms.] Preszler has not shown the superior court abused its discretion in the award issued,” appellate judges wrote. “Three years after [Ms.] Preszler disclosed her first expert witness, that expert withdrew. [Dr.] Martin claimed substantial expenses relating to discovery addressing [Ms.] Preszler’s first expert, which were no longer beneficial given his withdrawal. ... [Ms.] Preszler has not shown that the expenses awarded to [Dr.] Martin were unreasonable or disproportionate to the time and costs expended regarding the withdrawn expert.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Mr. Smith, who suffered from ulcerative colitis, underwent a colectomy on Jan. 15, 2021, at St. Rose Dominican Hospital–San Martin Campus in Las Vegas. At the time, the 24-year-old man was malnourished, extremely weak, and was having more than 10 bloody bowel movements a day, according to a Jan. 11, 2022, lawsuit filed by Smith’s parents.
The allegations state that, after the procedure, hospital staff did not provide Mr. Smith with anticoagulants and did not administer or suggest that Mr. Smith take anticoagulants upon his discharge on Jan. 19. On Jan. 29, 2021, Mr. Smith collapsed at home and his family called an ambulance. He was taken back to St. Rose where he died from bilateral pulmonary emboli.
Mr. Smith’s legal complaint claims that treatment by Smith’s surgeon, hospitalist, and nursing staff fell below the standard of care because they failed to administer anticoagulants following the surgery. After the surgery, Mr. Smith’s surgeon referenced “DVT/VTE prophylaxis/anticoagulation” in the record and another note read “already ordered,” according to Keith Beiermeister, MD, a colon and rectal surgeon retained by the Smiths’ attorney, Robert E. Murdock. However, the order section of the notes included no specific order for heparin or Lovenox (enoxaparin). A hospitalist who cared for Mr. Smith after the surgery also mentioned “DVT prophylaxis” in the progress notes, but the hospitalist did not order it nor ensure that anticoagulants were given, the lawsuit claims.
“In a surgery such as this, the standard of care requires both mechanical and chemical anticoagulation,” Dr. Beiermeister wrote in the complaint. “This is especially true after colectomy and with Brayden’s history. Anticoagulants and mechanical anticoagulation are needed to prevent emboli. The medical literature is clear that patients undergoing colorectal surgery as compared to general surgery have a significant increase in the risk of emboli. This is especially true with preexisting inflammation as is present in inflammatory bowel disease.”
A spokesman for St. Rose said the hospital does not comment on pending litigation.
Mr. Smith was a five-time Jeopardy! winner and gained national fame during his championship run. In a statement, Jeopardy! officials said the Jeopardy! family was “heartbroken by the tragic loss of Brayden Smith” and that he “will be missed.”
Surgeon must face second trial in stroke suit
A cardiovascular surgeon must face a second trial over claims that he performed an unnecessary surgery that caused a patient’s stroke, the Iowa Supreme Court has ruled.
William McGrew visited a Waterloo, Iowa, cardiovascular surgeon in 2014 after experiencing transient foggy vision in one eye. An ophthalmologist initially diagnosed Mr. McGrew with cataract, but he was referred to the surgeon to rule out other possibilities.
Because of Mr. McGrew’s age (69) and history of hypertension, the cardiovascular surgeon suspected carotid disease and recommended a CT angiogram to further investigate, according to a summary in the Iowa Supreme Court’s opinion.
The CT angiogram was performed at a local imaging center and read by a radiologist who interpreted it as showing 65% stenosis, or narrowing, of the right carotid artery. The surgeon did his own review and interpreted the results as showing 70% stenosis, according to court documents. The surgeon believed that McGrew was at significant risk for stroke and he recommended surgery, specifically a right carotid endarterectomy to remove the plaque from the right carotid artery. He advised McGrew of the surgery’s possible risks, the most common being a stroke.
The endarterectomy initially appeared successful, but the next morning, Mr. McGrew experienced facial droop and weakness on his left side. An MRI and CT scan showed that Mr. McGrew experienced a stroke on the right side of his brain. A CT angiogram showed that his right carotid artery was blocked. The surgeon performed another surgery to remove the carotid artery blockage, but the second surgery did not alleviate Mr. McGrew’s symptoms, according to court documents. Mr. McGrew remains wheelchair-bound, unable to move his left side, and requires nursing home care.
Mr. McGrew and his family later went to a neurologist who analyzed Mr. McGrew’s prior CT angiogram. He interpreted the angiogram as showing only 40% stenosis. The neurologist also asked a neuroradiologist to analyze the CT angiogram, and he assessed the stenosis at 32%. In his opinion, 40% stenosis was not significant to justify an endarterectomy, the neurologist told Mr. McGrew.
Mr. McGrew sued the surgeon and the radiologist in 2016, and later settled with the radiologist. The McGrews claimed that the surgeon negligently misinterpreted the CT angiogram and performed an ill-advised surgery that resulted in a stroke. The McGrews sought damages for pain and suffering, permanent loss of function, loss of income, past and future medical expenses, and loss of consortium.
At trial, attorneys for the surgeon asked the court to limit his and the radiologist’s testimonies, arguing that their opinions were not properly disclosed in expert reports. The trial court granted the motion, and jurors heard only a limited version of the testimony. In addition, some medical records were redacted. A jury found in the surgeon’s favor, deeming him not negligent.
The McGrews appealed. In a Jan. 21, 2022, opinion, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing the earlier testimonies. Justices said both the neurologist and the neuroradiologist should have been allowed to testify on the applicable standard of care. The district court also abused its discretion in preventing Mr. McGrew from introducing complete versions of the contemporaneous medical records, the court ruled.
Justices reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for a new trial.
Court: Patient must pay doc’s legal expenses
A patient must pay a physician about $20,000 in legal expenses after the patient’s malpractice suit was thrown out, an Arizona appeals court has ruled.
Scottsdale plastic surgeon Corwin Martin, MD, performed dental implant surgery on Penny Preszler in February 2012. Following the surgery, Ms. Preszler claimed numbness in her face and mouth, according to the appellate decision. She sued Dr. Martin and his practice for malpractice in 2015.
As the case continued, Ms. Preszler withdrew her first expert and disclosed a new expert. When Ms. Preszler’s second standard of care expert withdrew, she was given 30 days to disclose a new expert. When she failed to do so, Dr. Martin asked the court to dismiss the suit based on Ms. Preszler’s failure to disclose a proper standard of care expert.
She eventually presented a third expert, but Martin’s attorneys argued that the doctor was not a qualified expert under state law because he was board certified in periodontia, while Dr. Martin is board certified in oral and maxillofacial surgery. By this time, the case had gone on for 4 years.
When Ms. Preszler couldn’t come up with a fourth expert who was qualified, the court dismissed the case. The judge also awarded Dr. Martin $19,279.05 for expenses incurred in discovery related to Ms. Preszler’s first expert, attorneys’ fees, and expenses.
Ms. Preszler appealed, arguing that the periodontist was qualified to testify against Martin because he performed dental implant surgeries in the past without the board certification Dr. Martin obtained. In its Jan. 20, 2022, decision, a panel of the Arizona Court of Appeals upheld the decision, ruling that the expert was not qualified to opine. The patient must also pay the physician’s legal expenses as ordered by the lower court.
“[Ms.] Preszler has not shown the superior court abused its discretion in the award issued,” appellate judges wrote. “Three years after [Ms.] Preszler disclosed her first expert witness, that expert withdrew. [Dr.] Martin claimed substantial expenses relating to discovery addressing [Ms.] Preszler’s first expert, which were no longer beneficial given his withdrawal. ... [Ms.] Preszler has not shown that the expenses awarded to [Dr.] Martin were unreasonable or disproportionate to the time and costs expended regarding the withdrawn expert.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
'The whitest specialty,' revisited
A recent STAT article by Usha Lee McFarling identified orthopedic surgery as “the whitest specialty.” That’s a problem many, perhaps most, orthopedic surgeons are aware of. But seeing it stated so bluntly is jolting. It’s disconcerting to think that the orthopedic community is making so little progress toward achieving the principal ideal articulated in our country’s fundamental declaration of moral values: that all people are created equal and that they have inalienable rights – in our case, that everyone, Black, brown, as well as White, has the right to the same high level of medical care.
Unfortunately, as study after study has shown, minorities do not enjoy the right to equitable care. Instead, they are subject to disparities in treatment and outcomes that speak to the prejudices that are built into the health care system and are present – sometimes consciously, but most often subconsciously – in the minds of physicians. One important contributing element to these disparities is the paucity of minority practitioners. Studies have also shown that Black patients, for example, respond better to Black physicians, who so often share a psychological and cultural sympathy unavailable to most White physicians. It’s for that reason that being identified as “the whitest specialty” is so immensely troubling.
In researching her STAT article, Ms. McFarling spoke with American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons leaders, practicing surgeons, residents, and med students about the dearth of minority and female orthopedic surgeons. What she heard was perplexity and frustration about why better progress hasn’t been made toward correcting the gross underrepresentation of everyone other than White men. The AAOS, she noted, was one of the first specialties to recognize the lack of diversity and over the years has put in great effort to address the problem, creating task forces, committees, and diversity awards and sponsoring conferences and discussions. Yet progress has been glacial, at best.
From her respondents, Ms. McFarling heard an array of reasons for this. Black, Hispanic, and Native American persons are underrepresented in medical schools, so the pool of potential applicants for orthopedic residencies is shallow to begin with. STEM studies are notoriously inadequate in poorer primary and secondary schools, in which so many minority students are educated. The MCAT and USMLE Step 1 test, which play a role in acceptance to residencies, have been shown to be biased. The specialty has few Black or brown role models and, consequently, few advocates and a lack of mentorship. Overt bias may be fairly rare (though microaggressions are still a common and ongoing problem), but most minority and female orthopedic surgeons feel strongly that implicit or subconscious bias is entrenched and works against acceptance to residencies, success in residencies, and advancement in the field.
One of this article’s authors (AW) saw all these factors at work as a resident, then as an admissions committee member at both Yale and Harvard. But the fact is that other medical specialties face exactly these problems and barriers, and yet have been substantially more successful in overcoming them.
What seems to be distinctive about orthopedics is that the mindset which perpetuated (and still perpetuates) In this regard, Kristy Weber, MD, the first female president of the AAOS, told Ms. McFarling that the critical first step to bringing in more women or people of color is changing the culture. There seems to be a consensus about that.
So, what does that mean, given that the AAOS has made serious efforts in that regard that have clearly been less than effective?
The answer, as we see it, is first – to not give in to frustration. The time frames involved in changing customary states of mind are typically elongated, and the deeper the habituation, the longer transformation takes. Deep changes always mean a long, hard slog. For transformations of this sort to take place, the requirements are a general agreement on the value of the transformation, exposure to the destructive consequences of the customary modus operandi, and persuasion for why change needs to happen.
In orthopedics, the first requirement has been met. The AAOS espouses diversity and inclusion as a high-level value. In terms of the second two requirements – exposure and persuasion – orthopedic surgeons have been witness to events, campaigns, conferences, et cetera. But these have not been enough, which means that efforts need to be focused, enlarged, sustained, determined, and innovative.
Does the orthopedic surgery community have the ability to do that?
The answer is: Yes, it does.
Currently the orthopedic surgeon community boasts a number of organizations, groups, and individuals pushing for change, in addition to the AAOS’s Diversity Advisory Board. The predominantly African American J. Robert Gladden Orthopaedic Society, the Ruth Jackson Orthopaedic Society of female orthopedic physicians, and the Association of Latino Orthopaedic Surgeons are all energetic advocates, as is Nth Dimensions, the Perry Initiative, and various ad hoc and individual endeavors.
These are all strong proponents for their own groups in their own way. But history has shown in so many cases that concerted rather than individual action empowers advocacy, and what orthopedic surgery needs in its current situation of gross underrepresentation of minorities and women is an enhanced campaign to raise awareness and redouble persuasion.
One of many examples of the power of collective action is the Association of Minority Health Professions Schools founded by Dr. Louis Sullivan in 1977.* Dr. Sullivan (later secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services) was at that time the founding dean of Morehouse School of Medicine. Morehouse had been launched on a shoestring and needed funding urgently. Other Black health schools, such as Meharry Medical College and Tuskegee College of Veterinary Medicine, were in even more pressing financial need. The coalition of schools that Dr. Sullivan organized became a powerful force in Congress and the National Institutes of Health, magnitudes more effective in raising funds from government and other sources than the best individual efforts of the separate institutions.
Dr. Sullivan’s association is only one of a multitude of historical examples of the effectiveness of unified action. AAOS currently has no single officer charged with bringing together the efforts of the change assets that already exist. It could, perhaps should, have someone in that position. AAOS could invest that same office with a mandate to survey the other medical specialties and bring to bear the most effective diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices in their arsenals.
Finally, despite the attention AAOS has brought to DEI needs, a look at the organization’s strategic goals, its core values, and its “key enablers” finds not a single mention of diversity or inclusion. Given the country’s current focus on the need for equality, given the poor performance of the orthopedic surgery specialty in terms of inclusion, the obvious question is: Should there not be an official declaration positing diversity as a primary AAOS desideratum?
There is recent precedent for this in the American College of Physicians/American Board of Internal Medicine’s Physician Charter on Professionalism, which includes “social justice” as a primary goal of medical practice. This highlights and reinforces the humanitarian strivings of the profession. In light of the paralysis illuminated by Ms. McFarling’s STAT article, a clear, concise declaration by the AAOS of the value and need for DEI as a central component of the organization’s values should be high on the AAOS order of business. A commitment in that form would serve as a powerful catalyst for bringing orthopedic surgery into step with its sister specialties, as well as affirming the core egalitarian principle that underlies all of medical care.
Dr. White is the Ellen and Melvin Gordon Distinguished Professor of Medical Education and Professor of Orthopedic Surgery at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Chanoff is a founding board member of the Augustus A. White III Institute for Healthcare Equity. Neither Dr. White nor Dr. Chanoff reported any conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Correction, 2/1/22: An earlier version of this article omitted the title of "Dr." before Dr. Louis Sullivan's name.
A recent STAT article by Usha Lee McFarling identified orthopedic surgery as “the whitest specialty.” That’s a problem many, perhaps most, orthopedic surgeons are aware of. But seeing it stated so bluntly is jolting. It’s disconcerting to think that the orthopedic community is making so little progress toward achieving the principal ideal articulated in our country’s fundamental declaration of moral values: that all people are created equal and that they have inalienable rights – in our case, that everyone, Black, brown, as well as White, has the right to the same high level of medical care.
Unfortunately, as study after study has shown, minorities do not enjoy the right to equitable care. Instead, they are subject to disparities in treatment and outcomes that speak to the prejudices that are built into the health care system and are present – sometimes consciously, but most often subconsciously – in the minds of physicians. One important contributing element to these disparities is the paucity of minority practitioners. Studies have also shown that Black patients, for example, respond better to Black physicians, who so often share a psychological and cultural sympathy unavailable to most White physicians. It’s for that reason that being identified as “the whitest specialty” is so immensely troubling.
In researching her STAT article, Ms. McFarling spoke with American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons leaders, practicing surgeons, residents, and med students about the dearth of minority and female orthopedic surgeons. What she heard was perplexity and frustration about why better progress hasn’t been made toward correcting the gross underrepresentation of everyone other than White men. The AAOS, she noted, was one of the first specialties to recognize the lack of diversity and over the years has put in great effort to address the problem, creating task forces, committees, and diversity awards and sponsoring conferences and discussions. Yet progress has been glacial, at best.
From her respondents, Ms. McFarling heard an array of reasons for this. Black, Hispanic, and Native American persons are underrepresented in medical schools, so the pool of potential applicants for orthopedic residencies is shallow to begin with. STEM studies are notoriously inadequate in poorer primary and secondary schools, in which so many minority students are educated. The MCAT and USMLE Step 1 test, which play a role in acceptance to residencies, have been shown to be biased. The specialty has few Black or brown role models and, consequently, few advocates and a lack of mentorship. Overt bias may be fairly rare (though microaggressions are still a common and ongoing problem), but most minority and female orthopedic surgeons feel strongly that implicit or subconscious bias is entrenched and works against acceptance to residencies, success in residencies, and advancement in the field.
One of this article’s authors (AW) saw all these factors at work as a resident, then as an admissions committee member at both Yale and Harvard. But the fact is that other medical specialties face exactly these problems and barriers, and yet have been substantially more successful in overcoming them.
What seems to be distinctive about orthopedics is that the mindset which perpetuated (and still perpetuates) In this regard, Kristy Weber, MD, the first female president of the AAOS, told Ms. McFarling that the critical first step to bringing in more women or people of color is changing the culture. There seems to be a consensus about that.
So, what does that mean, given that the AAOS has made serious efforts in that regard that have clearly been less than effective?
The answer, as we see it, is first – to not give in to frustration. The time frames involved in changing customary states of mind are typically elongated, and the deeper the habituation, the longer transformation takes. Deep changes always mean a long, hard slog. For transformations of this sort to take place, the requirements are a general agreement on the value of the transformation, exposure to the destructive consequences of the customary modus operandi, and persuasion for why change needs to happen.
In orthopedics, the first requirement has been met. The AAOS espouses diversity and inclusion as a high-level value. In terms of the second two requirements – exposure and persuasion – orthopedic surgeons have been witness to events, campaigns, conferences, et cetera. But these have not been enough, which means that efforts need to be focused, enlarged, sustained, determined, and innovative.
Does the orthopedic surgery community have the ability to do that?
The answer is: Yes, it does.
Currently the orthopedic surgeon community boasts a number of organizations, groups, and individuals pushing for change, in addition to the AAOS’s Diversity Advisory Board. The predominantly African American J. Robert Gladden Orthopaedic Society, the Ruth Jackson Orthopaedic Society of female orthopedic physicians, and the Association of Latino Orthopaedic Surgeons are all energetic advocates, as is Nth Dimensions, the Perry Initiative, and various ad hoc and individual endeavors.
These are all strong proponents for their own groups in their own way. But history has shown in so many cases that concerted rather than individual action empowers advocacy, and what orthopedic surgery needs in its current situation of gross underrepresentation of minorities and women is an enhanced campaign to raise awareness and redouble persuasion.
One of many examples of the power of collective action is the Association of Minority Health Professions Schools founded by Dr. Louis Sullivan in 1977.* Dr. Sullivan (later secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services) was at that time the founding dean of Morehouse School of Medicine. Morehouse had been launched on a shoestring and needed funding urgently. Other Black health schools, such as Meharry Medical College and Tuskegee College of Veterinary Medicine, were in even more pressing financial need. The coalition of schools that Dr. Sullivan organized became a powerful force in Congress and the National Institutes of Health, magnitudes more effective in raising funds from government and other sources than the best individual efforts of the separate institutions.
Dr. Sullivan’s association is only one of a multitude of historical examples of the effectiveness of unified action. AAOS currently has no single officer charged with bringing together the efforts of the change assets that already exist. It could, perhaps should, have someone in that position. AAOS could invest that same office with a mandate to survey the other medical specialties and bring to bear the most effective diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices in their arsenals.
Finally, despite the attention AAOS has brought to DEI needs, a look at the organization’s strategic goals, its core values, and its “key enablers” finds not a single mention of diversity or inclusion. Given the country’s current focus on the need for equality, given the poor performance of the orthopedic surgery specialty in terms of inclusion, the obvious question is: Should there not be an official declaration positing diversity as a primary AAOS desideratum?
There is recent precedent for this in the American College of Physicians/American Board of Internal Medicine’s Physician Charter on Professionalism, which includes “social justice” as a primary goal of medical practice. This highlights and reinforces the humanitarian strivings of the profession. In light of the paralysis illuminated by Ms. McFarling’s STAT article, a clear, concise declaration by the AAOS of the value and need for DEI as a central component of the organization’s values should be high on the AAOS order of business. A commitment in that form would serve as a powerful catalyst for bringing orthopedic surgery into step with its sister specialties, as well as affirming the core egalitarian principle that underlies all of medical care.
Dr. White is the Ellen and Melvin Gordon Distinguished Professor of Medical Education and Professor of Orthopedic Surgery at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Chanoff is a founding board member of the Augustus A. White III Institute for Healthcare Equity. Neither Dr. White nor Dr. Chanoff reported any conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Correction, 2/1/22: An earlier version of this article omitted the title of "Dr." before Dr. Louis Sullivan's name.
A recent STAT article by Usha Lee McFarling identified orthopedic surgery as “the whitest specialty.” That’s a problem many, perhaps most, orthopedic surgeons are aware of. But seeing it stated so bluntly is jolting. It’s disconcerting to think that the orthopedic community is making so little progress toward achieving the principal ideal articulated in our country’s fundamental declaration of moral values: that all people are created equal and that they have inalienable rights – in our case, that everyone, Black, brown, as well as White, has the right to the same high level of medical care.
Unfortunately, as study after study has shown, minorities do not enjoy the right to equitable care. Instead, they are subject to disparities in treatment and outcomes that speak to the prejudices that are built into the health care system and are present – sometimes consciously, but most often subconsciously – in the minds of physicians. One important contributing element to these disparities is the paucity of minority practitioners. Studies have also shown that Black patients, for example, respond better to Black physicians, who so often share a psychological and cultural sympathy unavailable to most White physicians. It’s for that reason that being identified as “the whitest specialty” is so immensely troubling.
In researching her STAT article, Ms. McFarling spoke with American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons leaders, practicing surgeons, residents, and med students about the dearth of minority and female orthopedic surgeons. What she heard was perplexity and frustration about why better progress hasn’t been made toward correcting the gross underrepresentation of everyone other than White men. The AAOS, she noted, was one of the first specialties to recognize the lack of diversity and over the years has put in great effort to address the problem, creating task forces, committees, and diversity awards and sponsoring conferences and discussions. Yet progress has been glacial, at best.
From her respondents, Ms. McFarling heard an array of reasons for this. Black, Hispanic, and Native American persons are underrepresented in medical schools, so the pool of potential applicants for orthopedic residencies is shallow to begin with. STEM studies are notoriously inadequate in poorer primary and secondary schools, in which so many minority students are educated. The MCAT and USMLE Step 1 test, which play a role in acceptance to residencies, have been shown to be biased. The specialty has few Black or brown role models and, consequently, few advocates and a lack of mentorship. Overt bias may be fairly rare (though microaggressions are still a common and ongoing problem), but most minority and female orthopedic surgeons feel strongly that implicit or subconscious bias is entrenched and works against acceptance to residencies, success in residencies, and advancement in the field.
One of this article’s authors (AW) saw all these factors at work as a resident, then as an admissions committee member at both Yale and Harvard. But the fact is that other medical specialties face exactly these problems and barriers, and yet have been substantially more successful in overcoming them.
What seems to be distinctive about orthopedics is that the mindset which perpetuated (and still perpetuates) In this regard, Kristy Weber, MD, the first female president of the AAOS, told Ms. McFarling that the critical first step to bringing in more women or people of color is changing the culture. There seems to be a consensus about that.
So, what does that mean, given that the AAOS has made serious efforts in that regard that have clearly been less than effective?
The answer, as we see it, is first – to not give in to frustration. The time frames involved in changing customary states of mind are typically elongated, and the deeper the habituation, the longer transformation takes. Deep changes always mean a long, hard slog. For transformations of this sort to take place, the requirements are a general agreement on the value of the transformation, exposure to the destructive consequences of the customary modus operandi, and persuasion for why change needs to happen.
In orthopedics, the first requirement has been met. The AAOS espouses diversity and inclusion as a high-level value. In terms of the second two requirements – exposure and persuasion – orthopedic surgeons have been witness to events, campaigns, conferences, et cetera. But these have not been enough, which means that efforts need to be focused, enlarged, sustained, determined, and innovative.
Does the orthopedic surgery community have the ability to do that?
The answer is: Yes, it does.
Currently the orthopedic surgeon community boasts a number of organizations, groups, and individuals pushing for change, in addition to the AAOS’s Diversity Advisory Board. The predominantly African American J. Robert Gladden Orthopaedic Society, the Ruth Jackson Orthopaedic Society of female orthopedic physicians, and the Association of Latino Orthopaedic Surgeons are all energetic advocates, as is Nth Dimensions, the Perry Initiative, and various ad hoc and individual endeavors.
These are all strong proponents for their own groups in their own way. But history has shown in so many cases that concerted rather than individual action empowers advocacy, and what orthopedic surgery needs in its current situation of gross underrepresentation of minorities and women is an enhanced campaign to raise awareness and redouble persuasion.
One of many examples of the power of collective action is the Association of Minority Health Professions Schools founded by Dr. Louis Sullivan in 1977.* Dr. Sullivan (later secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services) was at that time the founding dean of Morehouse School of Medicine. Morehouse had been launched on a shoestring and needed funding urgently. Other Black health schools, such as Meharry Medical College and Tuskegee College of Veterinary Medicine, were in even more pressing financial need. The coalition of schools that Dr. Sullivan organized became a powerful force in Congress and the National Institutes of Health, magnitudes more effective in raising funds from government and other sources than the best individual efforts of the separate institutions.
Dr. Sullivan’s association is only one of a multitude of historical examples of the effectiveness of unified action. AAOS currently has no single officer charged with bringing together the efforts of the change assets that already exist. It could, perhaps should, have someone in that position. AAOS could invest that same office with a mandate to survey the other medical specialties and bring to bear the most effective diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices in their arsenals.
Finally, despite the attention AAOS has brought to DEI needs, a look at the organization’s strategic goals, its core values, and its “key enablers” finds not a single mention of diversity or inclusion. Given the country’s current focus on the need for equality, given the poor performance of the orthopedic surgery specialty in terms of inclusion, the obvious question is: Should there not be an official declaration positing diversity as a primary AAOS desideratum?
There is recent precedent for this in the American College of Physicians/American Board of Internal Medicine’s Physician Charter on Professionalism, which includes “social justice” as a primary goal of medical practice. This highlights and reinforces the humanitarian strivings of the profession. In light of the paralysis illuminated by Ms. McFarling’s STAT article, a clear, concise declaration by the AAOS of the value and need for DEI as a central component of the organization’s values should be high on the AAOS order of business. A commitment in that form would serve as a powerful catalyst for bringing orthopedic surgery into step with its sister specialties, as well as affirming the core egalitarian principle that underlies all of medical care.
Dr. White is the Ellen and Melvin Gordon Distinguished Professor of Medical Education and Professor of Orthopedic Surgery at Harvard Medical School, Boston. Dr. Chanoff is a founding board member of the Augustus A. White III Institute for Healthcare Equity. Neither Dr. White nor Dr. Chanoff reported any conflicts of interest. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Correction, 2/1/22: An earlier version of this article omitted the title of "Dr." before Dr. Louis Sullivan's name.
We’re dying to tell you about fatigability
Are you tired? Or are you death tired?
When we’re feeling that burnout monster creep in we sometimes say that we’re being worked to death or that we’re dead tired, but what if that feeling could predict when it’s your actual time to go?
In a recent study published in the Journals of Gerontology: Series A, epidemiologists from the University of Pittsburgh were able to associate a level of “physical fatigability” with mortality.
The researchers administered the Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale to almost 3,000 participants aged ≥ 60 years, who ranked from 0 to 5 on how tired they thought they would be after doing activities like light housework or a leisurely 30-minute walk. After accounting for factors such as preexisting conditions and mental health, the researchers found that people who scored 25 or more points were 2.3 times more likely to die in the next 2.7 years, compared with those who scored under 25.
So what does that tell us about the importance of being continuously active? It’s pretty important.
“Previous research indicates that getting more physical activity can reduce a person’s fatigability. Our study is the first to link more severe physical fatigability to an earlier death,” lead author Nancy W. Glynn, PhD, said in a separate statement. The best way to keep physically active, she suggested, is to set manageable goals and a routine.
A nice walk around the neighborhood during golden hour or a little bit of yoga before breakfast could be a great way to keep the body moving, because you know what they say: Use it or lose it.
This work is NFT protected: Do not screenshot
If you’ve been following the nonmedical news, you’ve likely heard the term “NFT” explode in the past few months. Standing for nonfungible token, NFTs are, at least theoretically, a proof of ownership for digital creations that prevents anyone other than the buyer from reselling the artwork. Sounds like a great idea: It protects artists and buyers alike.
Much like its cousin cryptocurrency, however, the NFT world is rife with speculation, scams, misunderstanding, and drawings of bored monkeys. It’s the Wild West out there in the digital art universe: One poor unfortunate accidentally sold a $300k NFT image for $3,000, a group of investors spent $3 million buying an NFT for a rare version of Dune believing it gave them the copyright (it did not), and an Indonesian engineering student’s 5-year series of expressionless selfies is now worth a million dollars.
This is a column detailing weird medical news, however, so with our setup complete (though our understanding of NFTs is very much not), we move to France and meet our hero (?), Emmanuel Masmejean, an orthopedic surgeon who apparently wasn’t making enough money in his lucrative medical career.
In a move of apocalyptic madness, he threw ethics out the window, delved into his archive, and found an x-ray of a young woman with a bullet lodged in her arm. The woman was a survivor of the Bataclan mass shooting and bombing in 2015, and don’t you worry, our intrepid entrepreneur made sure to identify her as such when he tried selling the x-ray as an NFT on an online art website for $2,776. Yes, this is very much a violation of doctor-patient confidentiality, and no, that’s not a lot of money to risk your medical career on.
Naturally, the woman was horrified and shocked to learn that the image was being sold, her lawyer told the Guardian. When the doctor called her, he merely attempted to justify his action, rather than apologizing or showing any remorse. Dr. Masmejean is now facing legal action and a disciplinary charge for his attempted entry into the NFT world for publishing the image without permission, and the NFT has been removed from the website. Should have stuck with the bored monkeys.
Avatars could be the future
Zoom, FaceTime, and Skype are great when people can’t be together in the same room, state, or country. Not the same as being somewhere in person, but a pretty good replacement during a global pandemic. But what if you had a robot that could be present for you?
Seven-year-old Joshua Martinangeli of Berlin has a severe lung disease and needs to wear a tube in his neck, so he cannot attend school. A robot avatar, donated to Joshua through a private initiative, sits in his seat in the classroom and is able to interact with the students and teacher, according to Reuters. A light on the avatar blinks when Joshua wants to speak and the children can talk with him too. Joshua and his classmates agree that it’s not the same as him really being there to talk and learn, but it’s a great way to keep him included.
“We are the only district in Berlin that has bought four avatars for its schools. The impetus was COVID-19, but I think this will be the future well beyond the pandemic,” Torsten Kuehne, district education councilor, told Reuters.
So where do we get an avatar to go out and run errands? Can we send it to the office instead of Zooming the next meeting? Or maybe our avatar could go to the gym for us. But how do we get the results to show up on our bodies? C’mon science, figure this out.
Futility, thy name is Kiribati
Before we get to the rest of our regularly scheduled hilarity, a brief geography lesson is in order: Kiribati is an island nation – actually 32 atolls and one coral island – in the central Pacific Ocean. Those atolls are spread out across 1.4 million square miles around the intersection of the equator and the International Date Line, so Kiribati is the only country in the world located in all four hemispheres.
Now, back to the news.
Kiribati closed its borders early in the COVID-19 pandemic and recorded only two cases in almost 2 years. Things were going so well that the authorities recently decided to reopen the country to international travelers. Silly authorities.
The first plane was set to arrive on Jan. 14 from Fiji. This being the age of COVID, plans were made and precautions were taken. All 54 passengers quarantined for 2 weeks before the flight and underwent regular testing, the Guardian noted, and “they were only allowed on the flight after returning negative tests.”
You guessed it. Two-thirds of those 54 people tested positive for COVID-19 after landing in Kiribati.
All of the passengers were quarantined, but since then a security guard at the quarantine center has tested positive, as has someone who was not involved in the quarantine. According to NPR, the government said that “there is now an assumption that COVID-19 is now spreading in the community on South Tarawa and Betio.”
Moral of the story? You can’t beat COVID, so never try.
[EDITOR: Is that really the message we want to send to our readers?]
If you can’t beat them, join them.
[EDITOR: Nope. Try again.]
Resistance is futile?
[EDITOR: Sigh. Close enough.]
Are you tired? Or are you death tired?
When we’re feeling that burnout monster creep in we sometimes say that we’re being worked to death or that we’re dead tired, but what if that feeling could predict when it’s your actual time to go?
In a recent study published in the Journals of Gerontology: Series A, epidemiologists from the University of Pittsburgh were able to associate a level of “physical fatigability” with mortality.
The researchers administered the Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale to almost 3,000 participants aged ≥ 60 years, who ranked from 0 to 5 on how tired they thought they would be after doing activities like light housework or a leisurely 30-minute walk. After accounting for factors such as preexisting conditions and mental health, the researchers found that people who scored 25 or more points were 2.3 times more likely to die in the next 2.7 years, compared with those who scored under 25.
So what does that tell us about the importance of being continuously active? It’s pretty important.
“Previous research indicates that getting more physical activity can reduce a person’s fatigability. Our study is the first to link more severe physical fatigability to an earlier death,” lead author Nancy W. Glynn, PhD, said in a separate statement. The best way to keep physically active, she suggested, is to set manageable goals and a routine.
A nice walk around the neighborhood during golden hour or a little bit of yoga before breakfast could be a great way to keep the body moving, because you know what they say: Use it or lose it.
This work is NFT protected: Do not screenshot
If you’ve been following the nonmedical news, you’ve likely heard the term “NFT” explode in the past few months. Standing for nonfungible token, NFTs are, at least theoretically, a proof of ownership for digital creations that prevents anyone other than the buyer from reselling the artwork. Sounds like a great idea: It protects artists and buyers alike.
Much like its cousin cryptocurrency, however, the NFT world is rife with speculation, scams, misunderstanding, and drawings of bored monkeys. It’s the Wild West out there in the digital art universe: One poor unfortunate accidentally sold a $300k NFT image for $3,000, a group of investors spent $3 million buying an NFT for a rare version of Dune believing it gave them the copyright (it did not), and an Indonesian engineering student’s 5-year series of expressionless selfies is now worth a million dollars.
This is a column detailing weird medical news, however, so with our setup complete (though our understanding of NFTs is very much not), we move to France and meet our hero (?), Emmanuel Masmejean, an orthopedic surgeon who apparently wasn’t making enough money in his lucrative medical career.
In a move of apocalyptic madness, he threw ethics out the window, delved into his archive, and found an x-ray of a young woman with a bullet lodged in her arm. The woman was a survivor of the Bataclan mass shooting and bombing in 2015, and don’t you worry, our intrepid entrepreneur made sure to identify her as such when he tried selling the x-ray as an NFT on an online art website for $2,776. Yes, this is very much a violation of doctor-patient confidentiality, and no, that’s not a lot of money to risk your medical career on.
Naturally, the woman was horrified and shocked to learn that the image was being sold, her lawyer told the Guardian. When the doctor called her, he merely attempted to justify his action, rather than apologizing or showing any remorse. Dr. Masmejean is now facing legal action and a disciplinary charge for his attempted entry into the NFT world for publishing the image without permission, and the NFT has been removed from the website. Should have stuck with the bored monkeys.
Avatars could be the future
Zoom, FaceTime, and Skype are great when people can’t be together in the same room, state, or country. Not the same as being somewhere in person, but a pretty good replacement during a global pandemic. But what if you had a robot that could be present for you?
Seven-year-old Joshua Martinangeli of Berlin has a severe lung disease and needs to wear a tube in his neck, so he cannot attend school. A robot avatar, donated to Joshua through a private initiative, sits in his seat in the classroom and is able to interact with the students and teacher, according to Reuters. A light on the avatar blinks when Joshua wants to speak and the children can talk with him too. Joshua and his classmates agree that it’s not the same as him really being there to talk and learn, but it’s a great way to keep him included.
“We are the only district in Berlin that has bought four avatars for its schools. The impetus was COVID-19, but I think this will be the future well beyond the pandemic,” Torsten Kuehne, district education councilor, told Reuters.
So where do we get an avatar to go out and run errands? Can we send it to the office instead of Zooming the next meeting? Or maybe our avatar could go to the gym for us. But how do we get the results to show up on our bodies? C’mon science, figure this out.
Futility, thy name is Kiribati
Before we get to the rest of our regularly scheduled hilarity, a brief geography lesson is in order: Kiribati is an island nation – actually 32 atolls and one coral island – in the central Pacific Ocean. Those atolls are spread out across 1.4 million square miles around the intersection of the equator and the International Date Line, so Kiribati is the only country in the world located in all four hemispheres.
Now, back to the news.
Kiribati closed its borders early in the COVID-19 pandemic and recorded only two cases in almost 2 years. Things were going so well that the authorities recently decided to reopen the country to international travelers. Silly authorities.
The first plane was set to arrive on Jan. 14 from Fiji. This being the age of COVID, plans were made and precautions were taken. All 54 passengers quarantined for 2 weeks before the flight and underwent regular testing, the Guardian noted, and “they were only allowed on the flight after returning negative tests.”
You guessed it. Two-thirds of those 54 people tested positive for COVID-19 after landing in Kiribati.
All of the passengers were quarantined, but since then a security guard at the quarantine center has tested positive, as has someone who was not involved in the quarantine. According to NPR, the government said that “there is now an assumption that COVID-19 is now spreading in the community on South Tarawa and Betio.”
Moral of the story? You can’t beat COVID, so never try.
[EDITOR: Is that really the message we want to send to our readers?]
If you can’t beat them, join them.
[EDITOR: Nope. Try again.]
Resistance is futile?
[EDITOR: Sigh. Close enough.]
Are you tired? Or are you death tired?
When we’re feeling that burnout monster creep in we sometimes say that we’re being worked to death or that we’re dead tired, but what if that feeling could predict when it’s your actual time to go?
In a recent study published in the Journals of Gerontology: Series A, epidemiologists from the University of Pittsburgh were able to associate a level of “physical fatigability” with mortality.
The researchers administered the Pittsburgh Fatigability Scale to almost 3,000 participants aged ≥ 60 years, who ranked from 0 to 5 on how tired they thought they would be after doing activities like light housework or a leisurely 30-minute walk. After accounting for factors such as preexisting conditions and mental health, the researchers found that people who scored 25 or more points were 2.3 times more likely to die in the next 2.7 years, compared with those who scored under 25.
So what does that tell us about the importance of being continuously active? It’s pretty important.
“Previous research indicates that getting more physical activity can reduce a person’s fatigability. Our study is the first to link more severe physical fatigability to an earlier death,” lead author Nancy W. Glynn, PhD, said in a separate statement. The best way to keep physically active, she suggested, is to set manageable goals and a routine.
A nice walk around the neighborhood during golden hour or a little bit of yoga before breakfast could be a great way to keep the body moving, because you know what they say: Use it or lose it.
This work is NFT protected: Do not screenshot
If you’ve been following the nonmedical news, you’ve likely heard the term “NFT” explode in the past few months. Standing for nonfungible token, NFTs are, at least theoretically, a proof of ownership for digital creations that prevents anyone other than the buyer from reselling the artwork. Sounds like a great idea: It protects artists and buyers alike.
Much like its cousin cryptocurrency, however, the NFT world is rife with speculation, scams, misunderstanding, and drawings of bored monkeys. It’s the Wild West out there in the digital art universe: One poor unfortunate accidentally sold a $300k NFT image for $3,000, a group of investors spent $3 million buying an NFT for a rare version of Dune believing it gave them the copyright (it did not), and an Indonesian engineering student’s 5-year series of expressionless selfies is now worth a million dollars.
This is a column detailing weird medical news, however, so with our setup complete (though our understanding of NFTs is very much not), we move to France and meet our hero (?), Emmanuel Masmejean, an orthopedic surgeon who apparently wasn’t making enough money in his lucrative medical career.
In a move of apocalyptic madness, he threw ethics out the window, delved into his archive, and found an x-ray of a young woman with a bullet lodged in her arm. The woman was a survivor of the Bataclan mass shooting and bombing in 2015, and don’t you worry, our intrepid entrepreneur made sure to identify her as such when he tried selling the x-ray as an NFT on an online art website for $2,776. Yes, this is very much a violation of doctor-patient confidentiality, and no, that’s not a lot of money to risk your medical career on.
Naturally, the woman was horrified and shocked to learn that the image was being sold, her lawyer told the Guardian. When the doctor called her, he merely attempted to justify his action, rather than apologizing or showing any remorse. Dr. Masmejean is now facing legal action and a disciplinary charge for his attempted entry into the NFT world for publishing the image without permission, and the NFT has been removed from the website. Should have stuck with the bored monkeys.
Avatars could be the future
Zoom, FaceTime, and Skype are great when people can’t be together in the same room, state, or country. Not the same as being somewhere in person, but a pretty good replacement during a global pandemic. But what if you had a robot that could be present for you?
Seven-year-old Joshua Martinangeli of Berlin has a severe lung disease and needs to wear a tube in his neck, so he cannot attend school. A robot avatar, donated to Joshua through a private initiative, sits in his seat in the classroom and is able to interact with the students and teacher, according to Reuters. A light on the avatar blinks when Joshua wants to speak and the children can talk with him too. Joshua and his classmates agree that it’s not the same as him really being there to talk and learn, but it’s a great way to keep him included.
“We are the only district in Berlin that has bought four avatars for its schools. The impetus was COVID-19, but I think this will be the future well beyond the pandemic,” Torsten Kuehne, district education councilor, told Reuters.
So where do we get an avatar to go out and run errands? Can we send it to the office instead of Zooming the next meeting? Or maybe our avatar could go to the gym for us. But how do we get the results to show up on our bodies? C’mon science, figure this out.
Futility, thy name is Kiribati
Before we get to the rest of our regularly scheduled hilarity, a brief geography lesson is in order: Kiribati is an island nation – actually 32 atolls and one coral island – in the central Pacific Ocean. Those atolls are spread out across 1.4 million square miles around the intersection of the equator and the International Date Line, so Kiribati is the only country in the world located in all four hemispheres.
Now, back to the news.
Kiribati closed its borders early in the COVID-19 pandemic and recorded only two cases in almost 2 years. Things were going so well that the authorities recently decided to reopen the country to international travelers. Silly authorities.
The first plane was set to arrive on Jan. 14 from Fiji. This being the age of COVID, plans were made and precautions were taken. All 54 passengers quarantined for 2 weeks before the flight and underwent regular testing, the Guardian noted, and “they were only allowed on the flight after returning negative tests.”
You guessed it. Two-thirds of those 54 people tested positive for COVID-19 after landing in Kiribati.
All of the passengers were quarantined, but since then a security guard at the quarantine center has tested positive, as has someone who was not involved in the quarantine. According to NPR, the government said that “there is now an assumption that COVID-19 is now spreading in the community on South Tarawa and Betio.”
Moral of the story? You can’t beat COVID, so never try.
[EDITOR: Is that really the message we want to send to our readers?]
If you can’t beat them, join them.
[EDITOR: Nope. Try again.]
Resistance is futile?
[EDITOR: Sigh. Close enough.]
35% of employers to proceed with vaccine mandate, poll shows
despite a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that blocked the Biden administration’s vaccine-or-test rule for big businesses.
But the poll by Gartner Inc. showed no consensus among employers. About 4% of polled executives said they’re dropping their vaccine mandate, 29% are in a wait-and-see position, and 12% are less likely to impose a mandate now, Bloomberg reported.
Executives were divided on how a vaccine mandate would affect absenteeism and employee morale. Almost 40% of polled employers said they thought a mandate would attract workers, but about 25% said it would do the opposite, Bloomberg said.
“What is more attractive -- to have a mandate or not?” Brian Kropp, PhD, Gartner’s chief of human resources research, said in an interview with Bloomberg. “Most are not exactly sure what to do.”
Big companies have reacted differently since the court’s ruling.
Starbucks announced it was dropping its vaccine-or-test rule for the company’s approximately 228,000 employees. General Electric dropped its mandate after the ruling, but Honeywell International Inc. announced it was staying with its vaccination policy, Bloomberg said.
The Supreme Court ruled Jan. 13 against the Biden administration’s mandate for businesses. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration had proposed that every company with more than 100 employees would be required to ensure workers were either vaccinated or tested weekly for COVID-19.
State governments and business groups immediately appealed, and the court ruled 6-3 against the mandate. The Biden administration officially dropped its rule on Wednesday.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
despite a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that blocked the Biden administration’s vaccine-or-test rule for big businesses.
But the poll by Gartner Inc. showed no consensus among employers. About 4% of polled executives said they’re dropping their vaccine mandate, 29% are in a wait-and-see position, and 12% are less likely to impose a mandate now, Bloomberg reported.
Executives were divided on how a vaccine mandate would affect absenteeism and employee morale. Almost 40% of polled employers said they thought a mandate would attract workers, but about 25% said it would do the opposite, Bloomberg said.
“What is more attractive -- to have a mandate or not?” Brian Kropp, PhD, Gartner’s chief of human resources research, said in an interview with Bloomberg. “Most are not exactly sure what to do.”
Big companies have reacted differently since the court’s ruling.
Starbucks announced it was dropping its vaccine-or-test rule for the company’s approximately 228,000 employees. General Electric dropped its mandate after the ruling, but Honeywell International Inc. announced it was staying with its vaccination policy, Bloomberg said.
The Supreme Court ruled Jan. 13 against the Biden administration’s mandate for businesses. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration had proposed that every company with more than 100 employees would be required to ensure workers were either vaccinated or tested weekly for COVID-19.
State governments and business groups immediately appealed, and the court ruled 6-3 against the mandate. The Biden administration officially dropped its rule on Wednesday.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
despite a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that blocked the Biden administration’s vaccine-or-test rule for big businesses.
But the poll by Gartner Inc. showed no consensus among employers. About 4% of polled executives said they’re dropping their vaccine mandate, 29% are in a wait-and-see position, and 12% are less likely to impose a mandate now, Bloomberg reported.
Executives were divided on how a vaccine mandate would affect absenteeism and employee morale. Almost 40% of polled employers said they thought a mandate would attract workers, but about 25% said it would do the opposite, Bloomberg said.
“What is more attractive -- to have a mandate or not?” Brian Kropp, PhD, Gartner’s chief of human resources research, said in an interview with Bloomberg. “Most are not exactly sure what to do.”
Big companies have reacted differently since the court’s ruling.
Starbucks announced it was dropping its vaccine-or-test rule for the company’s approximately 228,000 employees. General Electric dropped its mandate after the ruling, but Honeywell International Inc. announced it was staying with its vaccination policy, Bloomberg said.
The Supreme Court ruled Jan. 13 against the Biden administration’s mandate for businesses. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration had proposed that every company with more than 100 employees would be required to ensure workers were either vaccinated or tested weekly for COVID-19.
State governments and business groups immediately appealed, and the court ruled 6-3 against the mandate. The Biden administration officially dropped its rule on Wednesday.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Omicron survives longer on plastic, skin than other COVID variants
, one possible explanation for why Omicron has spread so rapidly around the world.
In a lab experiment, samples of different variants were applied to pieces of plastic and human skin collected from autopsies, researchers from Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine wrote in bioRxiv. A variant “survived” until it could no longer be detected on the surface.
“This study showed that the Omicron variant also has the highest environmental stability among VOCs (variants of concern), which suggests that this high stability might also be one of the factors that have allowed the Omicron variant to replace the Delta variant and spread rapidly,” the researchers wrote.
On plastic, the Omicron variant samples survived an average of 193.5 hours, a little more than 8 days. By comparison, the other survival times on plastic were 56 hours for the original COVID strain, 191.3 hours for Alpha, 156.6 hours for Beta, 59.3 hours for Gamma, and 114 hours for Delta.
On skin samples, the Omicron samples survived an average of 21.1 hours. The other variants had these average survival times on skin: 8.6 hours for the original version, 19.6 hours for Alpha, 19.1 hours for Beta, 11 hours for Gamma, and 16.8 hours for Delta.
The study found that the variants had more resistance to ethanol than the original strain of COVID. That said, all COVID samples were inactivated after being exposed to alcohol-based hand sanitizers for 15 seconds.
“Therefore, it is highly recommended that current infection control (hand hygiene) practices use disinfectants ... as proposed by the World Health Organization,” the researchers said.
The study has not been peer-reviewed.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
, one possible explanation for why Omicron has spread so rapidly around the world.
In a lab experiment, samples of different variants were applied to pieces of plastic and human skin collected from autopsies, researchers from Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine wrote in bioRxiv. A variant “survived” until it could no longer be detected on the surface.
“This study showed that the Omicron variant also has the highest environmental stability among VOCs (variants of concern), which suggests that this high stability might also be one of the factors that have allowed the Omicron variant to replace the Delta variant and spread rapidly,” the researchers wrote.
On plastic, the Omicron variant samples survived an average of 193.5 hours, a little more than 8 days. By comparison, the other survival times on plastic were 56 hours for the original COVID strain, 191.3 hours for Alpha, 156.6 hours for Beta, 59.3 hours for Gamma, and 114 hours for Delta.
On skin samples, the Omicron samples survived an average of 21.1 hours. The other variants had these average survival times on skin: 8.6 hours for the original version, 19.6 hours for Alpha, 19.1 hours for Beta, 11 hours for Gamma, and 16.8 hours for Delta.
The study found that the variants had more resistance to ethanol than the original strain of COVID. That said, all COVID samples were inactivated after being exposed to alcohol-based hand sanitizers for 15 seconds.
“Therefore, it is highly recommended that current infection control (hand hygiene) practices use disinfectants ... as proposed by the World Health Organization,” the researchers said.
The study has not been peer-reviewed.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
, one possible explanation for why Omicron has spread so rapidly around the world.
In a lab experiment, samples of different variants were applied to pieces of plastic and human skin collected from autopsies, researchers from Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine wrote in bioRxiv. A variant “survived” until it could no longer be detected on the surface.
“This study showed that the Omicron variant also has the highest environmental stability among VOCs (variants of concern), which suggests that this high stability might also be one of the factors that have allowed the Omicron variant to replace the Delta variant and spread rapidly,” the researchers wrote.
On plastic, the Omicron variant samples survived an average of 193.5 hours, a little more than 8 days. By comparison, the other survival times on plastic were 56 hours for the original COVID strain, 191.3 hours for Alpha, 156.6 hours for Beta, 59.3 hours for Gamma, and 114 hours for Delta.
On skin samples, the Omicron samples survived an average of 21.1 hours. The other variants had these average survival times on skin: 8.6 hours for the original version, 19.6 hours for Alpha, 19.1 hours for Beta, 11 hours for Gamma, and 16.8 hours for Delta.
The study found that the variants had more resistance to ethanol than the original strain of COVID. That said, all COVID samples were inactivated after being exposed to alcohol-based hand sanitizers for 15 seconds.
“Therefore, it is highly recommended that current infection control (hand hygiene) practices use disinfectants ... as proposed by the World Health Organization,” the researchers said.
The study has not been peer-reviewed.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The doctor didn’t show up, but the hospital ED still charged $1,012
Dhaval Bhatt had been warned about hospital emergency departments.
“People always told me to avoid the ER in America unless you are really dying,” said Dr. Bhatt, an immigrant from India who got a PhD in pharmacology in the United States and is now a research scientist at Washington University, St. Louis.
But when Dr. Bhatt’s 2-year-old son burned his hand on the kitchen stove on a Wednesday morning in April, the family’s pediatrician directed them the next day to the local children’s hospital.
Dr. Bhatt was traveling. So, his wife, Mansi Bhatt, took their son to the hospital and was sent to the ED. A nurse practitioner took the toddler’s vitals and looked at the wound. She said a surgeon would inspect it more closely.
When the surgeon didn’t appear after more than an hour, Dr. Bhatt’s wife took her son home. The hospital told her to make a follow-up appointment with a doctor, which turned out to be unnecessary because the burn healed quickly.
Then the bill came.
The patient: Martand Bhatt, a toddler covered by a UnitedHealthcare insurance plan provided by the employer of his father, Dhaval Bhatt.
Medical service: An ED visit for a burn sustained when Martand touched an electric stove.
Total bill: $1,012. UnitedHealthcare’s negotiated rate was $858.92, all of which the Bhatts were responsible for because their plan had a $3,000 deductible.
Service provider: SSM Health Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital, one of 23 hospitals owned by SSM Health, a Catholic, nonprofit health system with more than $8 billion in annual revenue.
What gives: Many patients don’t understand that they can rack up huge bills almost as soon as they walk through the doors of an ED.
Unlike a restaurant or a mechanic who won’t charge if someone gets tired of waiting for a table or an inspection of a rattling engine,
Martand Bhatt received almost no medical service. A nurse practitioner looked over the toddler, listened to his heart and stomach, and looked in his nose, mouth and ears, according to provider notes prepared by the hospital and shared with KHN by Dr. Bhatt.
The nurse didn’t change the dressing on the wound or order any testing.
“My objection to this is that there was no care provided,” Dr. Bhatt wrote to Bill of the Month.
“My wife did not drive for 45 minutes to get to an ER and wait for an additional 1½ hours for someone to tell me that our child’s vitals – weight, height, temperature and blood pressure – were okay,” Dr. Bhatt continued. “We already knew that. ... It is absolutely ridiculous and unethical.”
When the Bhatts left the ED, Martand was “alert, active and well appearing,” according to the notes.
The nurse’s assessment of Martand cost $192, which was discounted by UnitedHealthcare to a negotiated rate of $38.92. The bulk of the Bhatts’ bill – $820 – was something called a facility fee.
Hospital officials defend these fees as necessary to keep the ED open 24 hours a day as a community asset.
SSM Health spokesperson Stephanie Zoller Mueller declined to discuss the details of Martand’s medical condition even though the Bhatts gave their permission for the hospital to do so.
In an email, Ms. Zoller Mueller said the charges were “appropriate” based on the “acuity of condition, discharge instructions, vital sign monitoring, traumatic wound care, [and] numerous assessments.”
She added: “A patient does not have to receive additional treatment – procedure, labs, x-rays, etc. – to validate an ED-level charge.”
But some patient advocates say these facility fees are applied much too widely and should be limited to patients who actually receive medical care.
“It’s just not appropriate for someone to be charged if they’re not provided treatment,” said Adam Fox, deputy director of the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative. “Patients aren’t availing themselves of a facility if they don’t get care.”
At the very least, hospitals could communicate more clearly to patients about the fees they may be charged for coming to an ED, said Maureen Hensley-Quinn, senior program director at the National Academy for State Health Policy.
“People should know that when they walk in to receive care, there is this fee that they will be assessed,” Ms. Hensley-Quinn said.
Hospitals could also post at the entrance to the ED standard fees for different levels of emergency care.
Dr. Bhatt’s fee still could have been lower if the hospital had classified his son’s injury as minor. But, again, the hospital billing process worked against the family and in favor of the hospital’s bottom line.
Emergency visits are usually classified for billing on a scale from 1 to 5. Level 1 is minor and routine; level 5 requires complex care for life-threatening conditions. And hospitals are increasingly using the highest-severity codes to classify emergency visits, research shows.
“There are financial incentives for billing at a higher severity,” said Aditi Sen, who directs policy and research at the nonprofit Health Care Cost Institute, which has studied ED coding.
Despite the lack of severity of Martand’s wound and the absence of medical care, his visit was classified as level 3, a moderate-severity problem.
Resolution: Incensed that he’d been charged so much, Dr. Bhatt made numerous attempts to get the hospital to reduce the charges. He also appealed to UnitedHealthcare to review the charges.
His efforts failed. In August, Dr. Bhatt received a letter from an SSM Health “patient advocate” informing him that the hospital would not adjust the bill and instructing him to contact patient billing to arrange for payment.
While Dr. Bhatt was trying to reach the patient advocate by phone, his bill was sent to Medicredit, a collection agency, which began sending him notices and calling him.
After KHN contacted SSM Health, Dr. Bhatt received a call from someone who worked on “patient financial experience” issues at the hospital.
The hospital agreed to forgive the $820 facility fee. Dr. Bhatt agreed to pay the remaining $38.92, the professional fee for the ED nurse’s work. Dr. Bhatt also received a notice from Medicredit that it would take no further action against him.
The takeaway: The Bhatts did what most parents would do when a pediatrician advises them to take their child to the hospital.
But EDs are among the most expensive places to get care in the U.S. health system.
If you have a relatively low-level issue, think twice before even registering at the front desk, the act that initiates the billing process. If your doctor doesn’t have same-day appointments or after-hours service, think about urgent care, which is often much cheaper if the center isn’t attached to a hospital.
And remember that if you go to a hospital ED with a relatively minor issue, chances are that you’ll have to wait, as the Bhatts did. Patients with more serious problems will be seen first.
Once you’re taken past the front desk, you will almost certainly be hit with a substantial facility fee even if you don’t receive care.
Appealing that fee to the hospital can occasionally be successful, but there are no guarantees. And, as Dr. Bhatt learned, don’t expect the health insurer to offer much help. Most insurers won’t challenge how a medical visit is coded except on extremely expensive medical claims that will cost them money.
In this case, Dr. Bhatt was on the hook for the whole fee because he had a high-deductible plan, so the insurer had little incentive to take up his cause.
For now, patients’ best hope, many advocates believe, is to publicize the high prices that hospitals charge for their services, inside and outside the ED.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
Dhaval Bhatt had been warned about hospital emergency departments.
“People always told me to avoid the ER in America unless you are really dying,” said Dr. Bhatt, an immigrant from India who got a PhD in pharmacology in the United States and is now a research scientist at Washington University, St. Louis.
But when Dr. Bhatt’s 2-year-old son burned his hand on the kitchen stove on a Wednesday morning in April, the family’s pediatrician directed them the next day to the local children’s hospital.
Dr. Bhatt was traveling. So, his wife, Mansi Bhatt, took their son to the hospital and was sent to the ED. A nurse practitioner took the toddler’s vitals and looked at the wound. She said a surgeon would inspect it more closely.
When the surgeon didn’t appear after more than an hour, Dr. Bhatt’s wife took her son home. The hospital told her to make a follow-up appointment with a doctor, which turned out to be unnecessary because the burn healed quickly.
Then the bill came.
The patient: Martand Bhatt, a toddler covered by a UnitedHealthcare insurance plan provided by the employer of his father, Dhaval Bhatt.
Medical service: An ED visit for a burn sustained when Martand touched an electric stove.
Total bill: $1,012. UnitedHealthcare’s negotiated rate was $858.92, all of which the Bhatts were responsible for because their plan had a $3,000 deductible.
Service provider: SSM Health Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital, one of 23 hospitals owned by SSM Health, a Catholic, nonprofit health system with more than $8 billion in annual revenue.
What gives: Many patients don’t understand that they can rack up huge bills almost as soon as they walk through the doors of an ED.
Unlike a restaurant or a mechanic who won’t charge if someone gets tired of waiting for a table or an inspection of a rattling engine,
Martand Bhatt received almost no medical service. A nurse practitioner looked over the toddler, listened to his heart and stomach, and looked in his nose, mouth and ears, according to provider notes prepared by the hospital and shared with KHN by Dr. Bhatt.
The nurse didn’t change the dressing on the wound or order any testing.
“My objection to this is that there was no care provided,” Dr. Bhatt wrote to Bill of the Month.
“My wife did not drive for 45 minutes to get to an ER and wait for an additional 1½ hours for someone to tell me that our child’s vitals – weight, height, temperature and blood pressure – were okay,” Dr. Bhatt continued. “We already knew that. ... It is absolutely ridiculous and unethical.”
When the Bhatts left the ED, Martand was “alert, active and well appearing,” according to the notes.
The nurse’s assessment of Martand cost $192, which was discounted by UnitedHealthcare to a negotiated rate of $38.92. The bulk of the Bhatts’ bill – $820 – was something called a facility fee.
Hospital officials defend these fees as necessary to keep the ED open 24 hours a day as a community asset.
SSM Health spokesperson Stephanie Zoller Mueller declined to discuss the details of Martand’s medical condition even though the Bhatts gave their permission for the hospital to do so.
In an email, Ms. Zoller Mueller said the charges were “appropriate” based on the “acuity of condition, discharge instructions, vital sign monitoring, traumatic wound care, [and] numerous assessments.”
She added: “A patient does not have to receive additional treatment – procedure, labs, x-rays, etc. – to validate an ED-level charge.”
But some patient advocates say these facility fees are applied much too widely and should be limited to patients who actually receive medical care.
“It’s just not appropriate for someone to be charged if they’re not provided treatment,” said Adam Fox, deputy director of the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative. “Patients aren’t availing themselves of a facility if they don’t get care.”
At the very least, hospitals could communicate more clearly to patients about the fees they may be charged for coming to an ED, said Maureen Hensley-Quinn, senior program director at the National Academy for State Health Policy.
“People should know that when they walk in to receive care, there is this fee that they will be assessed,” Ms. Hensley-Quinn said.
Hospitals could also post at the entrance to the ED standard fees for different levels of emergency care.
Dr. Bhatt’s fee still could have been lower if the hospital had classified his son’s injury as minor. But, again, the hospital billing process worked against the family and in favor of the hospital’s bottom line.
Emergency visits are usually classified for billing on a scale from 1 to 5. Level 1 is minor and routine; level 5 requires complex care for life-threatening conditions. And hospitals are increasingly using the highest-severity codes to classify emergency visits, research shows.
“There are financial incentives for billing at a higher severity,” said Aditi Sen, who directs policy and research at the nonprofit Health Care Cost Institute, which has studied ED coding.
Despite the lack of severity of Martand’s wound and the absence of medical care, his visit was classified as level 3, a moderate-severity problem.
Resolution: Incensed that he’d been charged so much, Dr. Bhatt made numerous attempts to get the hospital to reduce the charges. He also appealed to UnitedHealthcare to review the charges.
His efforts failed. In August, Dr. Bhatt received a letter from an SSM Health “patient advocate” informing him that the hospital would not adjust the bill and instructing him to contact patient billing to arrange for payment.
While Dr. Bhatt was trying to reach the patient advocate by phone, his bill was sent to Medicredit, a collection agency, which began sending him notices and calling him.
After KHN contacted SSM Health, Dr. Bhatt received a call from someone who worked on “patient financial experience” issues at the hospital.
The hospital agreed to forgive the $820 facility fee. Dr. Bhatt agreed to pay the remaining $38.92, the professional fee for the ED nurse’s work. Dr. Bhatt also received a notice from Medicredit that it would take no further action against him.
The takeaway: The Bhatts did what most parents would do when a pediatrician advises them to take their child to the hospital.
But EDs are among the most expensive places to get care in the U.S. health system.
If you have a relatively low-level issue, think twice before even registering at the front desk, the act that initiates the billing process. If your doctor doesn’t have same-day appointments or after-hours service, think about urgent care, which is often much cheaper if the center isn’t attached to a hospital.
And remember that if you go to a hospital ED with a relatively minor issue, chances are that you’ll have to wait, as the Bhatts did. Patients with more serious problems will be seen first.
Once you’re taken past the front desk, you will almost certainly be hit with a substantial facility fee even if you don’t receive care.
Appealing that fee to the hospital can occasionally be successful, but there are no guarantees. And, as Dr. Bhatt learned, don’t expect the health insurer to offer much help. Most insurers won’t challenge how a medical visit is coded except on extremely expensive medical claims that will cost them money.
In this case, Dr. Bhatt was on the hook for the whole fee because he had a high-deductible plan, so the insurer had little incentive to take up his cause.
For now, patients’ best hope, many advocates believe, is to publicize the high prices that hospitals charge for their services, inside and outside the ED.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
Dhaval Bhatt had been warned about hospital emergency departments.
“People always told me to avoid the ER in America unless you are really dying,” said Dr. Bhatt, an immigrant from India who got a PhD in pharmacology in the United States and is now a research scientist at Washington University, St. Louis.
But when Dr. Bhatt’s 2-year-old son burned his hand on the kitchen stove on a Wednesday morning in April, the family’s pediatrician directed them the next day to the local children’s hospital.
Dr. Bhatt was traveling. So, his wife, Mansi Bhatt, took their son to the hospital and was sent to the ED. A nurse practitioner took the toddler’s vitals and looked at the wound. She said a surgeon would inspect it more closely.
When the surgeon didn’t appear after more than an hour, Dr. Bhatt’s wife took her son home. The hospital told her to make a follow-up appointment with a doctor, which turned out to be unnecessary because the burn healed quickly.
Then the bill came.
The patient: Martand Bhatt, a toddler covered by a UnitedHealthcare insurance plan provided by the employer of his father, Dhaval Bhatt.
Medical service: An ED visit for a burn sustained when Martand touched an electric stove.
Total bill: $1,012. UnitedHealthcare’s negotiated rate was $858.92, all of which the Bhatts were responsible for because their plan had a $3,000 deductible.
Service provider: SSM Health Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital, one of 23 hospitals owned by SSM Health, a Catholic, nonprofit health system with more than $8 billion in annual revenue.
What gives: Many patients don’t understand that they can rack up huge bills almost as soon as they walk through the doors of an ED.
Unlike a restaurant or a mechanic who won’t charge if someone gets tired of waiting for a table or an inspection of a rattling engine,
Martand Bhatt received almost no medical service. A nurse practitioner looked over the toddler, listened to his heart and stomach, and looked in his nose, mouth and ears, according to provider notes prepared by the hospital and shared with KHN by Dr. Bhatt.
The nurse didn’t change the dressing on the wound or order any testing.
“My objection to this is that there was no care provided,” Dr. Bhatt wrote to Bill of the Month.
“My wife did not drive for 45 minutes to get to an ER and wait for an additional 1½ hours for someone to tell me that our child’s vitals – weight, height, temperature and blood pressure – were okay,” Dr. Bhatt continued. “We already knew that. ... It is absolutely ridiculous and unethical.”
When the Bhatts left the ED, Martand was “alert, active and well appearing,” according to the notes.
The nurse’s assessment of Martand cost $192, which was discounted by UnitedHealthcare to a negotiated rate of $38.92. The bulk of the Bhatts’ bill – $820 – was something called a facility fee.
Hospital officials defend these fees as necessary to keep the ED open 24 hours a day as a community asset.
SSM Health spokesperson Stephanie Zoller Mueller declined to discuss the details of Martand’s medical condition even though the Bhatts gave their permission for the hospital to do so.
In an email, Ms. Zoller Mueller said the charges were “appropriate” based on the “acuity of condition, discharge instructions, vital sign monitoring, traumatic wound care, [and] numerous assessments.”
She added: “A patient does not have to receive additional treatment – procedure, labs, x-rays, etc. – to validate an ED-level charge.”
But some patient advocates say these facility fees are applied much too widely and should be limited to patients who actually receive medical care.
“It’s just not appropriate for someone to be charged if they’re not provided treatment,” said Adam Fox, deputy director of the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative. “Patients aren’t availing themselves of a facility if they don’t get care.”
At the very least, hospitals could communicate more clearly to patients about the fees they may be charged for coming to an ED, said Maureen Hensley-Quinn, senior program director at the National Academy for State Health Policy.
“People should know that when they walk in to receive care, there is this fee that they will be assessed,” Ms. Hensley-Quinn said.
Hospitals could also post at the entrance to the ED standard fees for different levels of emergency care.
Dr. Bhatt’s fee still could have been lower if the hospital had classified his son’s injury as minor. But, again, the hospital billing process worked against the family and in favor of the hospital’s bottom line.
Emergency visits are usually classified for billing on a scale from 1 to 5. Level 1 is minor and routine; level 5 requires complex care for life-threatening conditions. And hospitals are increasingly using the highest-severity codes to classify emergency visits, research shows.
“There are financial incentives for billing at a higher severity,” said Aditi Sen, who directs policy and research at the nonprofit Health Care Cost Institute, which has studied ED coding.
Despite the lack of severity of Martand’s wound and the absence of medical care, his visit was classified as level 3, a moderate-severity problem.
Resolution: Incensed that he’d been charged so much, Dr. Bhatt made numerous attempts to get the hospital to reduce the charges. He also appealed to UnitedHealthcare to review the charges.
His efforts failed. In August, Dr. Bhatt received a letter from an SSM Health “patient advocate” informing him that the hospital would not adjust the bill and instructing him to contact patient billing to arrange for payment.
While Dr. Bhatt was trying to reach the patient advocate by phone, his bill was sent to Medicredit, a collection agency, which began sending him notices and calling him.
After KHN contacted SSM Health, Dr. Bhatt received a call from someone who worked on “patient financial experience” issues at the hospital.
The hospital agreed to forgive the $820 facility fee. Dr. Bhatt agreed to pay the remaining $38.92, the professional fee for the ED nurse’s work. Dr. Bhatt also received a notice from Medicredit that it would take no further action against him.
The takeaway: The Bhatts did what most parents would do when a pediatrician advises them to take their child to the hospital.
But EDs are among the most expensive places to get care in the U.S. health system.
If you have a relatively low-level issue, think twice before even registering at the front desk, the act that initiates the billing process. If your doctor doesn’t have same-day appointments or after-hours service, think about urgent care, which is often much cheaper if the center isn’t attached to a hospital.
And remember that if you go to a hospital ED with a relatively minor issue, chances are that you’ll have to wait, as the Bhatts did. Patients with more serious problems will be seen first.
Once you’re taken past the front desk, you will almost certainly be hit with a substantial facility fee even if you don’t receive care.
Appealing that fee to the hospital can occasionally be successful, but there are no guarantees. And, as Dr. Bhatt learned, don’t expect the health insurer to offer much help. Most insurers won’t challenge how a medical visit is coded except on extremely expensive medical claims that will cost them money.
In this case, Dr. Bhatt was on the hook for the whole fee because he had a high-deductible plan, so the insurer had little incentive to take up his cause.
For now, patients’ best hope, many advocates believe, is to publicize the high prices that hospitals charge for their services, inside and outside the ED.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
Should we always offer CPR?
Some details have been changed to protect the patient’s identity.
The first thing I noticed about Mr. Barry as I entered the intensive care unit was his left foot: Half of it was black, shriveled, and gangrenous, jutting out from under the white blanket. The soft rays of the morning sun illuminated his gaunt, unshaven, hollow cheeks. Sedated on propofol, with a green endotracheal tube sticking out of his chapped lips, he looked frail. His nurse, Becky, had just cleaned him after he passed tarry, maroon-colored stool. As she turned him over, I saw that the skin over his tailbone was broken. He had a large decubitus ulcer, the edges of which were now dried and black. The Foley bag, hanging next to his bed, was empty; there had been no urine for several hours now.
No one knew much about Mr. Barry. I don’t mean his current medical status – I mean what he did in life, who he loved, whether he had kids, what he valued. All we knew was that he was 83 years old and lived alone. No prior records in our system. No advanced directives. No information on any family. One of his neighbors called 911 after he was not seen for at least 10 days. Emergency medical services found Mr. Barry in bed, nearly lifeless. In the emergency room, he was noted to be in shock, with a dangerously low blood pressure. He was dry as a bone with markedly elevated sodium levels. His laboratory makers for kidney and liver function were deranged. He was admitted to the medical ICU with a diagnosis of hypovolemic shock and/or septic shock with multiorgan dysfunction. With 48 hours of supportive management with intravenous fluids and antibiotics, he did not improve. Blood cultures were positive for gram-positive cocci. The doses for medications used to maintain the blood pressure increased steadily. He also developed gastrointestinal bleeding.
Futile vs. potentially inappropriate
I was called for a cardiology consult because he had transient ST elevation in inferolateral leads on the monitor. Given his clinical scenario, the likelihood of type 1 myocardial infarction from plaque rupture was low; the ST elevations were probably related to vasospasm from increasing pressor requirement. Diagnostic cardiac catheterization showed clean coronary arteries. Continuous renal replacement therapy was soon started. Given Mr Barry’s multiorgan dysfunction and extremely poor prognosis, I recommended making all efforts to find his family or surrogate decision-maker to discuss goals of care or having a two-physician sign-off to place a DNR order.
Despite all efforts, we could not trace the family. We physicians vary individually on how we define value as related to life. We also vary on the degree of uncertainty about prognostication that we are comfortable with. This is one of the reasons the term “futility” is controversial and there is a push to use “potentially inappropriate” instead. The primary team had a different threshold for placing a DNR order and did not do it. That night, after I left the hospital, Mr Barry had a PEA (pulseless electrical activity) arrest and was resuscitated after 10 minutes of CPR. The next day, I noticed his bruised chest. He was on multiple medications to support his blood pressure.
My patient and a Hemingway protagonist
Whether by coincidence or irony, I started reading Ernest Hemingway’s short story “The Snows of Kilimanjaro” the same day that I met Mr. Barry. He reminded me of the story’s protagonist, Harry, lying on the cot with a gangrenous leg, waiting to die. Harry could sense death approaching. He reminisced about his past. All he wanted was to drink his “whiskey-soda.” “Darling, don’t drink that. We have to do everything we can,” his wife said. “You do it. I am tired,” Harry said, and continued to drink his whiskey-soda.
Mr. Barry looked tired. Tired of life? I can’t say with certainty. However, if I had to guess, the medical team’s heroics meant nothing to him. Unfortunately, he was not awake like Harry and could not do what he wished. I wondered what snippets of his life flashed before him as he lay on his bed at home for days. Did he want to have a whiskey-soda before dying? But we are not letting him die. Not easily anyway. We have to do everything we can: medications, coronary angiogram, dialysis, multiple rounds of CPR. Why?
In this country, we need permission to forgo CPR. If there are no advanced directives or next of kin available to discuss end-of-life care, performing CPR is the default status for all hospitalized patients, irrespective of the underlying severity of the illness. A unilateral DNR order written by a physician in good conscience (in a medically futile situation), but to which the patient has not consented, is generally invalid in most U.S. states. If health directives are not available, CPR will be administered on the presumption that the patient would want us to “do everything we can.” The medicolegal consequences and fear of not administering CPR is more profound than being found wrong and defying a patient’s wishes against CPR.
In patients with outside-hospital cardiac arrest, especially if related to ventricular fibrillation, early bystander CPR improves the survival rate. Hence, it makes sense for first responders and paramedics to administer CPR as the default option, focusing on the technique, rather than thinking about its utility based on the patient’s underlying comorbidities.
In the inpatient setting, however, physicians have enough information to comprehensively evaluate the patient. In a cohort of 5,690 critically ill ICU patients, obtained from a U.S. registry, the rate of survival to discharge after inpatient cardiac arrest is very low at 12.5%. Chronic health conditions, malignancy, end-stage renal disease, multiorgan dysfunction, need for vasopressor support, prior CPR, initial rhythm of asystole, or PEA advanced age were all associated with a less than 10% survival rate after CPR.
Dying is a process. Administering CPR to a dying patient is of little to no value. For Mr. Barry, it resulted in a bruised chest and broken ribs. James R. Jude, MD, one of the pioneers of closed chest compression, or modern-day CPR, wrote in 1965 that “resuscitation of the dying patient with irreparable damage to lungs, heart, kidneys, brain or any other vital system of the body has no medical, ethical, or moral justification. The techniques described in this monograph were designed to resuscitate the victim of acute insult, whether be it from drowning, electrical shock, untoward effect of drugs, anesthetic accident, heart block, acute myocardial infarction, or surgery.”
Yet, doctors continue to provide futile treatments at end of life for a variety of reasons: concerns about medico-legal risks, discomfort or inexperience with death and dying, uncertainty in prognostication, family requests, and organizational barriers such as lack of palliative services that can help lead end-of-life care discussions. Despite knowing that CPR has little benefit in critically ill patients with terminal illness and multiorgan dysfunction, we often ask the patient and their surrogate decision-makers: “If your heart stops, do you want us to restore your heart by pressing on the chest and giving electric shocks?” The very act of asking the question implies that CPR may be beneficial. We often do not go over the risks or offer an opinion on whether CPR should be performed. We take a neutral stance.
Anoxic brain injury, pain from broken ribs, and low likelihood of survival to discharge with acceptable neurologic recovery are rarely discussed in detail. Laypeople may overestimate the chances of survival after CPR and they may not comprehend that it does not reverse the dying process in patients with a terminal illness. When you ask about CPR, most families hear: “Do you want your loved one to live?” and the answer is nearly always “Yes.” We then administer CPR, thinking that we are respecting the patient’s autonomy in the medical decision-making process. However, in end-of-life care, elderly patients or surrogates may not fully understand the complexities involved or the outcomes of CPR. So, are we truly respecting their autonomy?
When to offer CPR?
In 2011, Billings and Krakauer, palliative care specialists from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, suggested that we focus on understanding our patient’s values and goals of care, and then decide whether to offer CPR, rather than taking a neutral stance. With this approach, we continue to respect the patient’s autonomy and also affirm our responsibility in providing care consistent with medical reality. We need to have the humility to accept that death is inevitable.
It has been 10 years since a group of physicians from Columbia University Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, MGH, and Boston Children’s Hospital proposed changes to how we determine resuscitation status. Instead of assuming that CPR is always wanted, they suggested three distinct approaches: consider CPR when the benefits versus risks are uncertain, and the patient is not end stage; recommend against CPR when there is a low likelihood of benefit and high likelihood of harm (e.g., patients with anoxic brain injury, advanced incurable cancer, or end-stage multiorgan dysfunction); and do not offer CPR to patients who will die imminently and have no chance of surviving CPR (e.g., patients with multiorgan dysfunction, increasing pressor requirements, and those who are actively dying without a single immediately reversible cause). I agree with their proposal.
Mr. Barry was actively dying. Unfortunately, we had neither his advanced directives nor access to family members or surrogates to discuss values and goals of care. Given the futility of administering CPR again, and based on our humanitarian principles, a moral and ethical responsibility to ensure a peaceful dying process, I and another ICU attending placed the DNR order. He passed away, peacefully, within a few hours.
That evening, as I was sitting on my porch reading the last page of “The Snows of Kilimanjaro,” my phone pinged. It was an email asking me to complete the final attestation for the death certificate. I imagined that Mr. Barry knew where he was going. He probably had his own special place – something beautiful and majestic, great and tall, dazzlingly white in the hot sun, like the snow-capped mountain of Kilimanjaro that Harry saw at the time of his death.
Dr. Mallidi is a general cardiologist at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, UCSF. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Some details have been changed to protect the patient’s identity.
The first thing I noticed about Mr. Barry as I entered the intensive care unit was his left foot: Half of it was black, shriveled, and gangrenous, jutting out from under the white blanket. The soft rays of the morning sun illuminated his gaunt, unshaven, hollow cheeks. Sedated on propofol, with a green endotracheal tube sticking out of his chapped lips, he looked frail. His nurse, Becky, had just cleaned him after he passed tarry, maroon-colored stool. As she turned him over, I saw that the skin over his tailbone was broken. He had a large decubitus ulcer, the edges of which were now dried and black. The Foley bag, hanging next to his bed, was empty; there had been no urine for several hours now.
No one knew much about Mr. Barry. I don’t mean his current medical status – I mean what he did in life, who he loved, whether he had kids, what he valued. All we knew was that he was 83 years old and lived alone. No prior records in our system. No advanced directives. No information on any family. One of his neighbors called 911 after he was not seen for at least 10 days. Emergency medical services found Mr. Barry in bed, nearly lifeless. In the emergency room, he was noted to be in shock, with a dangerously low blood pressure. He was dry as a bone with markedly elevated sodium levels. His laboratory makers for kidney and liver function were deranged. He was admitted to the medical ICU with a diagnosis of hypovolemic shock and/or septic shock with multiorgan dysfunction. With 48 hours of supportive management with intravenous fluids and antibiotics, he did not improve. Blood cultures were positive for gram-positive cocci. The doses for medications used to maintain the blood pressure increased steadily. He also developed gastrointestinal bleeding.
Futile vs. potentially inappropriate
I was called for a cardiology consult because he had transient ST elevation in inferolateral leads on the monitor. Given his clinical scenario, the likelihood of type 1 myocardial infarction from plaque rupture was low; the ST elevations were probably related to vasospasm from increasing pressor requirement. Diagnostic cardiac catheterization showed clean coronary arteries. Continuous renal replacement therapy was soon started. Given Mr Barry’s multiorgan dysfunction and extremely poor prognosis, I recommended making all efforts to find his family or surrogate decision-maker to discuss goals of care or having a two-physician sign-off to place a DNR order.
Despite all efforts, we could not trace the family. We physicians vary individually on how we define value as related to life. We also vary on the degree of uncertainty about prognostication that we are comfortable with. This is one of the reasons the term “futility” is controversial and there is a push to use “potentially inappropriate” instead. The primary team had a different threshold for placing a DNR order and did not do it. That night, after I left the hospital, Mr Barry had a PEA (pulseless electrical activity) arrest and was resuscitated after 10 minutes of CPR. The next day, I noticed his bruised chest. He was on multiple medications to support his blood pressure.
My patient and a Hemingway protagonist
Whether by coincidence or irony, I started reading Ernest Hemingway’s short story “The Snows of Kilimanjaro” the same day that I met Mr. Barry. He reminded me of the story’s protagonist, Harry, lying on the cot with a gangrenous leg, waiting to die. Harry could sense death approaching. He reminisced about his past. All he wanted was to drink his “whiskey-soda.” “Darling, don’t drink that. We have to do everything we can,” his wife said. “You do it. I am tired,” Harry said, and continued to drink his whiskey-soda.
Mr. Barry looked tired. Tired of life? I can’t say with certainty. However, if I had to guess, the medical team’s heroics meant nothing to him. Unfortunately, he was not awake like Harry and could not do what he wished. I wondered what snippets of his life flashed before him as he lay on his bed at home for days. Did he want to have a whiskey-soda before dying? But we are not letting him die. Not easily anyway. We have to do everything we can: medications, coronary angiogram, dialysis, multiple rounds of CPR. Why?
In this country, we need permission to forgo CPR. If there are no advanced directives or next of kin available to discuss end-of-life care, performing CPR is the default status for all hospitalized patients, irrespective of the underlying severity of the illness. A unilateral DNR order written by a physician in good conscience (in a medically futile situation), but to which the patient has not consented, is generally invalid in most U.S. states. If health directives are not available, CPR will be administered on the presumption that the patient would want us to “do everything we can.” The medicolegal consequences and fear of not administering CPR is more profound than being found wrong and defying a patient’s wishes against CPR.
In patients with outside-hospital cardiac arrest, especially if related to ventricular fibrillation, early bystander CPR improves the survival rate. Hence, it makes sense for first responders and paramedics to administer CPR as the default option, focusing on the technique, rather than thinking about its utility based on the patient’s underlying comorbidities.
In the inpatient setting, however, physicians have enough information to comprehensively evaluate the patient. In a cohort of 5,690 critically ill ICU patients, obtained from a U.S. registry, the rate of survival to discharge after inpatient cardiac arrest is very low at 12.5%. Chronic health conditions, malignancy, end-stage renal disease, multiorgan dysfunction, need for vasopressor support, prior CPR, initial rhythm of asystole, or PEA advanced age were all associated with a less than 10% survival rate after CPR.
Dying is a process. Administering CPR to a dying patient is of little to no value. For Mr. Barry, it resulted in a bruised chest and broken ribs. James R. Jude, MD, one of the pioneers of closed chest compression, or modern-day CPR, wrote in 1965 that “resuscitation of the dying patient with irreparable damage to lungs, heart, kidneys, brain or any other vital system of the body has no medical, ethical, or moral justification. The techniques described in this monograph were designed to resuscitate the victim of acute insult, whether be it from drowning, electrical shock, untoward effect of drugs, anesthetic accident, heart block, acute myocardial infarction, or surgery.”
Yet, doctors continue to provide futile treatments at end of life for a variety of reasons: concerns about medico-legal risks, discomfort or inexperience with death and dying, uncertainty in prognostication, family requests, and organizational barriers such as lack of palliative services that can help lead end-of-life care discussions. Despite knowing that CPR has little benefit in critically ill patients with terminal illness and multiorgan dysfunction, we often ask the patient and their surrogate decision-makers: “If your heart stops, do you want us to restore your heart by pressing on the chest and giving electric shocks?” The very act of asking the question implies that CPR may be beneficial. We often do not go over the risks or offer an opinion on whether CPR should be performed. We take a neutral stance.
Anoxic brain injury, pain from broken ribs, and low likelihood of survival to discharge with acceptable neurologic recovery are rarely discussed in detail. Laypeople may overestimate the chances of survival after CPR and they may not comprehend that it does not reverse the dying process in patients with a terminal illness. When you ask about CPR, most families hear: “Do you want your loved one to live?” and the answer is nearly always “Yes.” We then administer CPR, thinking that we are respecting the patient’s autonomy in the medical decision-making process. However, in end-of-life care, elderly patients or surrogates may not fully understand the complexities involved or the outcomes of CPR. So, are we truly respecting their autonomy?
When to offer CPR?
In 2011, Billings and Krakauer, palliative care specialists from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, suggested that we focus on understanding our patient’s values and goals of care, and then decide whether to offer CPR, rather than taking a neutral stance. With this approach, we continue to respect the patient’s autonomy and also affirm our responsibility in providing care consistent with medical reality. We need to have the humility to accept that death is inevitable.
It has been 10 years since a group of physicians from Columbia University Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, MGH, and Boston Children’s Hospital proposed changes to how we determine resuscitation status. Instead of assuming that CPR is always wanted, they suggested three distinct approaches: consider CPR when the benefits versus risks are uncertain, and the patient is not end stage; recommend against CPR when there is a low likelihood of benefit and high likelihood of harm (e.g., patients with anoxic brain injury, advanced incurable cancer, or end-stage multiorgan dysfunction); and do not offer CPR to patients who will die imminently and have no chance of surviving CPR (e.g., patients with multiorgan dysfunction, increasing pressor requirements, and those who are actively dying without a single immediately reversible cause). I agree with their proposal.
Mr. Barry was actively dying. Unfortunately, we had neither his advanced directives nor access to family members or surrogates to discuss values and goals of care. Given the futility of administering CPR again, and based on our humanitarian principles, a moral and ethical responsibility to ensure a peaceful dying process, I and another ICU attending placed the DNR order. He passed away, peacefully, within a few hours.
That evening, as I was sitting on my porch reading the last page of “The Snows of Kilimanjaro,” my phone pinged. It was an email asking me to complete the final attestation for the death certificate. I imagined that Mr. Barry knew where he was going. He probably had his own special place – something beautiful and majestic, great and tall, dazzlingly white in the hot sun, like the snow-capped mountain of Kilimanjaro that Harry saw at the time of his death.
Dr. Mallidi is a general cardiologist at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, UCSF. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Some details have been changed to protect the patient’s identity.
The first thing I noticed about Mr. Barry as I entered the intensive care unit was his left foot: Half of it was black, shriveled, and gangrenous, jutting out from under the white blanket. The soft rays of the morning sun illuminated his gaunt, unshaven, hollow cheeks. Sedated on propofol, with a green endotracheal tube sticking out of his chapped lips, he looked frail. His nurse, Becky, had just cleaned him after he passed tarry, maroon-colored stool. As she turned him over, I saw that the skin over his tailbone was broken. He had a large decubitus ulcer, the edges of which were now dried and black. The Foley bag, hanging next to his bed, was empty; there had been no urine for several hours now.
No one knew much about Mr. Barry. I don’t mean his current medical status – I mean what he did in life, who he loved, whether he had kids, what he valued. All we knew was that he was 83 years old and lived alone. No prior records in our system. No advanced directives. No information on any family. One of his neighbors called 911 after he was not seen for at least 10 days. Emergency medical services found Mr. Barry in bed, nearly lifeless. In the emergency room, he was noted to be in shock, with a dangerously low blood pressure. He was dry as a bone with markedly elevated sodium levels. His laboratory makers for kidney and liver function were deranged. He was admitted to the medical ICU with a diagnosis of hypovolemic shock and/or septic shock with multiorgan dysfunction. With 48 hours of supportive management with intravenous fluids and antibiotics, he did not improve. Blood cultures were positive for gram-positive cocci. The doses for medications used to maintain the blood pressure increased steadily. He also developed gastrointestinal bleeding.
Futile vs. potentially inappropriate
I was called for a cardiology consult because he had transient ST elevation in inferolateral leads on the monitor. Given his clinical scenario, the likelihood of type 1 myocardial infarction from plaque rupture was low; the ST elevations were probably related to vasospasm from increasing pressor requirement. Diagnostic cardiac catheterization showed clean coronary arteries. Continuous renal replacement therapy was soon started. Given Mr Barry’s multiorgan dysfunction and extremely poor prognosis, I recommended making all efforts to find his family or surrogate decision-maker to discuss goals of care or having a two-physician sign-off to place a DNR order.
Despite all efforts, we could not trace the family. We physicians vary individually on how we define value as related to life. We also vary on the degree of uncertainty about prognostication that we are comfortable with. This is one of the reasons the term “futility” is controversial and there is a push to use “potentially inappropriate” instead. The primary team had a different threshold for placing a DNR order and did not do it. That night, after I left the hospital, Mr Barry had a PEA (pulseless electrical activity) arrest and was resuscitated after 10 minutes of CPR. The next day, I noticed his bruised chest. He was on multiple medications to support his blood pressure.
My patient and a Hemingway protagonist
Whether by coincidence or irony, I started reading Ernest Hemingway’s short story “The Snows of Kilimanjaro” the same day that I met Mr. Barry. He reminded me of the story’s protagonist, Harry, lying on the cot with a gangrenous leg, waiting to die. Harry could sense death approaching. He reminisced about his past. All he wanted was to drink his “whiskey-soda.” “Darling, don’t drink that. We have to do everything we can,” his wife said. “You do it. I am tired,” Harry said, and continued to drink his whiskey-soda.
Mr. Barry looked tired. Tired of life? I can’t say with certainty. However, if I had to guess, the medical team’s heroics meant nothing to him. Unfortunately, he was not awake like Harry and could not do what he wished. I wondered what snippets of his life flashed before him as he lay on his bed at home for days. Did he want to have a whiskey-soda before dying? But we are not letting him die. Not easily anyway. We have to do everything we can: medications, coronary angiogram, dialysis, multiple rounds of CPR. Why?
In this country, we need permission to forgo CPR. If there are no advanced directives or next of kin available to discuss end-of-life care, performing CPR is the default status for all hospitalized patients, irrespective of the underlying severity of the illness. A unilateral DNR order written by a physician in good conscience (in a medically futile situation), but to which the patient has not consented, is generally invalid in most U.S. states. If health directives are not available, CPR will be administered on the presumption that the patient would want us to “do everything we can.” The medicolegal consequences and fear of not administering CPR is more profound than being found wrong and defying a patient’s wishes against CPR.
In patients with outside-hospital cardiac arrest, especially if related to ventricular fibrillation, early bystander CPR improves the survival rate. Hence, it makes sense for first responders and paramedics to administer CPR as the default option, focusing on the technique, rather than thinking about its utility based on the patient’s underlying comorbidities.
In the inpatient setting, however, physicians have enough information to comprehensively evaluate the patient. In a cohort of 5,690 critically ill ICU patients, obtained from a U.S. registry, the rate of survival to discharge after inpatient cardiac arrest is very low at 12.5%. Chronic health conditions, malignancy, end-stage renal disease, multiorgan dysfunction, need for vasopressor support, prior CPR, initial rhythm of asystole, or PEA advanced age were all associated with a less than 10% survival rate after CPR.
Dying is a process. Administering CPR to a dying patient is of little to no value. For Mr. Barry, it resulted in a bruised chest and broken ribs. James R. Jude, MD, one of the pioneers of closed chest compression, or modern-day CPR, wrote in 1965 that “resuscitation of the dying patient with irreparable damage to lungs, heart, kidneys, brain or any other vital system of the body has no medical, ethical, or moral justification. The techniques described in this monograph were designed to resuscitate the victim of acute insult, whether be it from drowning, electrical shock, untoward effect of drugs, anesthetic accident, heart block, acute myocardial infarction, or surgery.”
Yet, doctors continue to provide futile treatments at end of life for a variety of reasons: concerns about medico-legal risks, discomfort or inexperience with death and dying, uncertainty in prognostication, family requests, and organizational barriers such as lack of palliative services that can help lead end-of-life care discussions. Despite knowing that CPR has little benefit in critically ill patients with terminal illness and multiorgan dysfunction, we often ask the patient and their surrogate decision-makers: “If your heart stops, do you want us to restore your heart by pressing on the chest and giving electric shocks?” The very act of asking the question implies that CPR may be beneficial. We often do not go over the risks or offer an opinion on whether CPR should be performed. We take a neutral stance.
Anoxic brain injury, pain from broken ribs, and low likelihood of survival to discharge with acceptable neurologic recovery are rarely discussed in detail. Laypeople may overestimate the chances of survival after CPR and they may not comprehend that it does not reverse the dying process in patients with a terminal illness. When you ask about CPR, most families hear: “Do you want your loved one to live?” and the answer is nearly always “Yes.” We then administer CPR, thinking that we are respecting the patient’s autonomy in the medical decision-making process. However, in end-of-life care, elderly patients or surrogates may not fully understand the complexities involved or the outcomes of CPR. So, are we truly respecting their autonomy?
When to offer CPR?
In 2011, Billings and Krakauer, palliative care specialists from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, suggested that we focus on understanding our patient’s values and goals of care, and then decide whether to offer CPR, rather than taking a neutral stance. With this approach, we continue to respect the patient’s autonomy and also affirm our responsibility in providing care consistent with medical reality. We need to have the humility to accept that death is inevitable.
It has been 10 years since a group of physicians from Columbia University Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, MGH, and Boston Children’s Hospital proposed changes to how we determine resuscitation status. Instead of assuming that CPR is always wanted, they suggested three distinct approaches: consider CPR when the benefits versus risks are uncertain, and the patient is not end stage; recommend against CPR when there is a low likelihood of benefit and high likelihood of harm (e.g., patients with anoxic brain injury, advanced incurable cancer, or end-stage multiorgan dysfunction); and do not offer CPR to patients who will die imminently and have no chance of surviving CPR (e.g., patients with multiorgan dysfunction, increasing pressor requirements, and those who are actively dying without a single immediately reversible cause). I agree with their proposal.
Mr. Barry was actively dying. Unfortunately, we had neither his advanced directives nor access to family members or surrogates to discuss values and goals of care. Given the futility of administering CPR again, and based on our humanitarian principles, a moral and ethical responsibility to ensure a peaceful dying process, I and another ICU attending placed the DNR order. He passed away, peacefully, within a few hours.
That evening, as I was sitting on my porch reading the last page of “The Snows of Kilimanjaro,” my phone pinged. It was an email asking me to complete the final attestation for the death certificate. I imagined that Mr. Barry knew where he was going. He probably had his own special place – something beautiful and majestic, great and tall, dazzlingly white in the hot sun, like the snow-capped mountain of Kilimanjaro that Harry saw at the time of his death.
Dr. Mallidi is a general cardiologist at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, UCSF. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Optimizing ‘optimal’ in ovarian cancer cytoreduction
The goal of advanced ovarian cancer surgery is to remove all gross disease, or all visible and palpable disease implants. This became the established standard when improved survival was consistently observed among patients who had undergone complete surgical resection. Traditionally, definitions of no gross residual disease have been left in the hands, and eyes, of the surgeon. However, new technology has emerged which affords surgeons the ability to visualize ovarian cancer deposits that are imperceptible to the naked eye. But will this improve upon the poor cure rates for advanced ovarian cancer?
Many are familiar with the traditional definitions of “optimal” (less than 1 cm–sized deposits at any one location) and “suboptimal” (greater than 1 cm–sized deposits remaining) when referring to surgical cytoreduction of ovarian cancer. This nomenclature was introduced to define, categorize, and prognosticate patient groups after surgery. In recent years we have moved away from these descriptive definitions of ovarian cancer resection, borrowing from surgical oncology measures of surgical outcomes where “R0” defines surgical resection with negative margins, “R1” includes resection with positive microscopic margins (negative for tumor intraoperatively, but positive on microscopic pathology), and “R2” refers to macroscopic residual disease remaining.1 
In ovarian cancer, surgeons have adopted the expression R0 to include patients in whom there is no gross visible or palpable residual disease, a special, favorable subgrouping of the previous “optimal” group. R1 is applied to patients with macroscopic, residual disease that fits within the traditional “optimal” cytoreduction classification (<1 cm in any one location). Obviously, these are significant variations to the traditional surgical oncology definitions, but not without supporting data. For example, patients with no gross residual disease (now defined as “R0”) have been observed to have improved survival, compared with patients who are “optimally” debulked but with R1 (<1 cm) residual disease.2 Therefore, this new goal of complete surgical resection has replaced the previous standard of “optimal” cytoreduction in which small macroscopic residual disease was acceptable.
Whether or not a surgery is completed with no gross residual disease is a subjective assessment made by the surgeon, and in practice, highly inaccurate. When a posttrial ad hoc analysis of 1,873 patients with advanced ovarian cancer who had been enrolled in a Gynecologic Oncology Group cooperative trial correlated surgeons’ assessments of “optimal” cytoreduction with objective postoperative radiographic findings (performed, on average, less than 1 month postoperatively) they found that postoperative CT scans identified lesions >1 cm in 40% of cases that had been characterized by surgeons as an “optimal” cytoreduction.3 Most commonly, discrepant lesions were identified in the upper abdominal quadrants and retroperitoneal aortic nodal regions. Therefore, surgeons’ subjective assessment of cytoreduction is prone to error, and given how important the completeness of cytoreduction is for clinical outcomes, there is interest in discovering methods to improve upon surgeons’ ability to discriminate volume of disease.
Pafolacianine (Cytalux, On Target Laboratories) is a novel drug that binds a fluorescent molecule to folic acid targeting the folate alpha receptors which are overexpressed on nonmucinous epithelial ovarian cancer cells compared with adjacent nonmalignant tissues.4 The drug is intravenously infused preoperatively and then visualized with companion near-infrared imaging devices during surgery to visualize its fluorescent signal where it is bound to ovarian cancer implants. In a phase 2 study of 178 patients with confirmed or suspected ovarian cancer, pafolacianine was able to detect implants of ovarian cancer in 26.9% of cases where the surgeon’s visual inspection was negative.5 Of note, the false-positive rate of this drug was not trivial, at 20%. Based on this efficacy data, the drug has been granted FDA approved for use in ovarian cancer surgery to augment the surgeon’s visualization of cancer. However, important questions remain unanswered by these preliminary data.
Will removal of additional microscopic ovarian cancer implants, only seen by pafolacianine, improve the survival of patients with ovarian cancer, and what effect will the addition of this extra surgery have on their surgical morbidity and risk? The use of pafolacianine to augment ovarian cancer debulking surgeries pivots on the premise that ovarian cancer outcomes are determined by surgical “effort” more than the biology of the disease. Otherwise said: The more we surgically remove, the more we cure. But this seems an old-fashioned notion, increasingly challenged by data. It has been shown that, when ovarian cancer debulking surgeries are necessarily more radical because of extensive disease distribution, prognosis is worse, compared with those patients with less extensive disease distribution.6 The effect of surgical effort contributes less than that of predetermined patterns of disease presentation. Additionally, genomic traits are different in tumors that are objectively determined to be not amenable to optimal cytoreduction, compared with resectable tumors.7 These data suggest that it is the disease, more than the surgeon, that most influences outcomes.
Additionally, the question of whether surgical removal of microscopic disease improves ovarian cancer survival has already been addressed with negative findings. The LION trial randomized 647 women with advanced ovarian cancer to primary cytoreductive surgery either with or without routine lymphadenectomy of clinically negative nodes.8 This study found no survival benefit to resecting clinically negative, microscopically positive nodes. In light of these data, it is difficult to imagine that there would be different results with the resection of microscopic peritoneal disease implants identified by pafolacianine.
While pafolacianine promises to move us closer to a true “R0” (negative margins) resection of ovarian cancer, is this even a feasible goal in a disease that is widely metastatic, particularly in the peritoneal cavity? What do “negative margins” mean in the peritoneal cavity? The sensitivity of pafolacianine in detecting microscopic disease is obviously not so high that it can guarantee patients a complete resection of a disseminated disease, and we still do not know what absolute benefit is derived from moving a little bit further on the continuum of surgical resection.
Perhaps augmentation of debulking is not the only, or best, use of pafolacianine for ovarian cancer surgery. Perhaps it might serve a role in diagnostics or staging of the disease rather than for a therapeutic purpose. In the meantime, we await ongoing clinical trials in this space to better inform clinicians what benefits, or harms, they might expect from the addition of this new drug as we continue to define the “optimal” surgical procedure for advanced ovarian cancer.
Dr. Emma Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Hermanek P, Wittekind C. Semin Surg Oncol 1994;10:12-20.
2. Elattar A et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011 Aug 10;2011(8):CD007565.
3. Eskander RN et al. Gynecol Oncol 2018;149:525-30.
4. Randall LM et al. Gynecol Oncol 2019;155:63-8.
5. Food and Drug Administration. FDA approves pafolacianine for identifying malignant ovarian cancer lesions. 2021 Dec 1.
6. Horowitz NS et al. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:937-43.
7. Lee S et al. Cell Rep. 2020;31:107502.
8. Harter P et al. N Engl J Med 2019;380:822-32.
The goal of advanced ovarian cancer surgery is to remove all gross disease, or all visible and palpable disease implants. This became the established standard when improved survival was consistently observed among patients who had undergone complete surgical resection. Traditionally, definitions of no gross residual disease have been left in the hands, and eyes, of the surgeon. However, new technology has emerged which affords surgeons the ability to visualize ovarian cancer deposits that are imperceptible to the naked eye. But will this improve upon the poor cure rates for advanced ovarian cancer?
Many are familiar with the traditional definitions of “optimal” (less than 1 cm–sized deposits at any one location) and “suboptimal” (greater than 1 cm–sized deposits remaining) when referring to surgical cytoreduction of ovarian cancer. This nomenclature was introduced to define, categorize, and prognosticate patient groups after surgery. In recent years we have moved away from these descriptive definitions of ovarian cancer resection, borrowing from surgical oncology measures of surgical outcomes where “R0” defines surgical resection with negative margins, “R1” includes resection with positive microscopic margins (negative for tumor intraoperatively, but positive on microscopic pathology), and “R2” refers to macroscopic residual disease remaining.1
In ovarian cancer, surgeons have adopted the expression R0 to include patients in whom there is no gross visible or palpable residual disease, a special, favorable subgrouping of the previous “optimal” group. R1 is applied to patients with macroscopic, residual disease that fits within the traditional “optimal” cytoreduction classification (<1 cm in any one location). Obviously, these are significant variations to the traditional surgical oncology definitions, but not without supporting data. For example, patients with no gross residual disease (now defined as “R0”) have been observed to have improved survival, compared with patients who are “optimally” debulked but with R1 (<1 cm) residual disease.2 Therefore, this new goal of complete surgical resection has replaced the previous standard of “optimal” cytoreduction in which small macroscopic residual disease was acceptable.
Whether or not a surgery is completed with no gross residual disease is a subjective assessment made by the surgeon, and in practice, highly inaccurate. When a posttrial ad hoc analysis of 1,873 patients with advanced ovarian cancer who had been enrolled in a Gynecologic Oncology Group cooperative trial correlated surgeons’ assessments of “optimal” cytoreduction with objective postoperative radiographic findings (performed, on average, less than 1 month postoperatively) they found that postoperative CT scans identified lesions >1 cm in 40% of cases that had been characterized by surgeons as an “optimal” cytoreduction.3 Most commonly, discrepant lesions were identified in the upper abdominal quadrants and retroperitoneal aortic nodal regions. Therefore, surgeons’ subjective assessment of cytoreduction is prone to error, and given how important the completeness of cytoreduction is for clinical outcomes, there is interest in discovering methods to improve upon surgeons’ ability to discriminate volume of disease.
Pafolacianine (Cytalux, On Target Laboratories) is a novel drug that binds a fluorescent molecule to folic acid targeting the folate alpha receptors which are overexpressed on nonmucinous epithelial ovarian cancer cells compared with adjacent nonmalignant tissues.4 The drug is intravenously infused preoperatively and then visualized with companion near-infrared imaging devices during surgery to visualize its fluorescent signal where it is bound to ovarian cancer implants. In a phase 2 study of 178 patients with confirmed or suspected ovarian cancer, pafolacianine was able to detect implants of ovarian cancer in 26.9% of cases where the surgeon’s visual inspection was negative.5 Of note, the false-positive rate of this drug was not trivial, at 20%. Based on this efficacy data, the drug has been granted FDA approved for use in ovarian cancer surgery to augment the surgeon’s visualization of cancer. However, important questions remain unanswered by these preliminary data.
Will removal of additional microscopic ovarian cancer implants, only seen by pafolacianine, improve the survival of patients with ovarian cancer, and what effect will the addition of this extra surgery have on their surgical morbidity and risk? The use of pafolacianine to augment ovarian cancer debulking surgeries pivots on the premise that ovarian cancer outcomes are determined by surgical “effort” more than the biology of the disease. Otherwise said: The more we surgically remove, the more we cure. But this seems an old-fashioned notion, increasingly challenged by data. It has been shown that, when ovarian cancer debulking surgeries are necessarily more radical because of extensive disease distribution, prognosis is worse, compared with those patients with less extensive disease distribution.6 The effect of surgical effort contributes less than that of predetermined patterns of disease presentation. Additionally, genomic traits are different in tumors that are objectively determined to be not amenable to optimal cytoreduction, compared with resectable tumors.7 These data suggest that it is the disease, more than the surgeon, that most influences outcomes.
Additionally, the question of whether surgical removal of microscopic disease improves ovarian cancer survival has already been addressed with negative findings. The LION trial randomized 647 women with advanced ovarian cancer to primary cytoreductive surgery either with or without routine lymphadenectomy of clinically negative nodes.8 This study found no survival benefit to resecting clinically negative, microscopically positive nodes. In light of these data, it is difficult to imagine that there would be different results with the resection of microscopic peritoneal disease implants identified by pafolacianine.
While pafolacianine promises to move us closer to a true “R0” (negative margins) resection of ovarian cancer, is this even a feasible goal in a disease that is widely metastatic, particularly in the peritoneal cavity? What do “negative margins” mean in the peritoneal cavity? The sensitivity of pafolacianine in detecting microscopic disease is obviously not so high that it can guarantee patients a complete resection of a disseminated disease, and we still do not know what absolute benefit is derived from moving a little bit further on the continuum of surgical resection.
Perhaps augmentation of debulking is not the only, or best, use of pafolacianine for ovarian cancer surgery. Perhaps it might serve a role in diagnostics or staging of the disease rather than for a therapeutic purpose. In the meantime, we await ongoing clinical trials in this space to better inform clinicians what benefits, or harms, they might expect from the addition of this new drug as we continue to define the “optimal” surgical procedure for advanced ovarian cancer.
Dr. Emma Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Hermanek P, Wittekind C. Semin Surg Oncol 1994;10:12-20.
2. Elattar A et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011 Aug 10;2011(8):CD007565.
3. Eskander RN et al. Gynecol Oncol 2018;149:525-30.
4. Randall LM et al. Gynecol Oncol 2019;155:63-8.
5. Food and Drug Administration. FDA approves pafolacianine for identifying malignant ovarian cancer lesions. 2021 Dec 1.
6. Horowitz NS et al. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:937-43.
7. Lee S et al. Cell Rep. 2020;31:107502.
8. Harter P et al. N Engl J Med 2019;380:822-32.
The goal of advanced ovarian cancer surgery is to remove all gross disease, or all visible and palpable disease implants. This became the established standard when improved survival was consistently observed among patients who had undergone complete surgical resection. Traditionally, definitions of no gross residual disease have been left in the hands, and eyes, of the surgeon. However, new technology has emerged which affords surgeons the ability to visualize ovarian cancer deposits that are imperceptible to the naked eye. But will this improve upon the poor cure rates for advanced ovarian cancer?
Many are familiar with the traditional definitions of “optimal” (less than 1 cm–sized deposits at any one location) and “suboptimal” (greater than 1 cm–sized deposits remaining) when referring to surgical cytoreduction of ovarian cancer. This nomenclature was introduced to define, categorize, and prognosticate patient groups after surgery. In recent years we have moved away from these descriptive definitions of ovarian cancer resection, borrowing from surgical oncology measures of surgical outcomes where “R0” defines surgical resection with negative margins, “R1” includes resection with positive microscopic margins (negative for tumor intraoperatively, but positive on microscopic pathology), and “R2” refers to macroscopic residual disease remaining.1
In ovarian cancer, surgeons have adopted the expression R0 to include patients in whom there is no gross visible or palpable residual disease, a special, favorable subgrouping of the previous “optimal” group. R1 is applied to patients with macroscopic, residual disease that fits within the traditional “optimal” cytoreduction classification (<1 cm in any one location). Obviously, these are significant variations to the traditional surgical oncology definitions, but not without supporting data. For example, patients with no gross residual disease (now defined as “R0”) have been observed to have improved survival, compared with patients who are “optimally” debulked but with R1 (<1 cm) residual disease.2 Therefore, this new goal of complete surgical resection has replaced the previous standard of “optimal” cytoreduction in which small macroscopic residual disease was acceptable.
Whether or not a surgery is completed with no gross residual disease is a subjective assessment made by the surgeon, and in practice, highly inaccurate. When a posttrial ad hoc analysis of 1,873 patients with advanced ovarian cancer who had been enrolled in a Gynecologic Oncology Group cooperative trial correlated surgeons’ assessments of “optimal” cytoreduction with objective postoperative radiographic findings (performed, on average, less than 1 month postoperatively) they found that postoperative CT scans identified lesions >1 cm in 40% of cases that had been characterized by surgeons as an “optimal” cytoreduction.3 Most commonly, discrepant lesions were identified in the upper abdominal quadrants and retroperitoneal aortic nodal regions. Therefore, surgeons’ subjective assessment of cytoreduction is prone to error, and given how important the completeness of cytoreduction is for clinical outcomes, there is interest in discovering methods to improve upon surgeons’ ability to discriminate volume of disease.
Pafolacianine (Cytalux, On Target Laboratories) is a novel drug that binds a fluorescent molecule to folic acid targeting the folate alpha receptors which are overexpressed on nonmucinous epithelial ovarian cancer cells compared with adjacent nonmalignant tissues.4 The drug is intravenously infused preoperatively and then visualized with companion near-infrared imaging devices during surgery to visualize its fluorescent signal where it is bound to ovarian cancer implants. In a phase 2 study of 178 patients with confirmed or suspected ovarian cancer, pafolacianine was able to detect implants of ovarian cancer in 26.9% of cases where the surgeon’s visual inspection was negative.5 Of note, the false-positive rate of this drug was not trivial, at 20%. Based on this efficacy data, the drug has been granted FDA approved for use in ovarian cancer surgery to augment the surgeon’s visualization of cancer. However, important questions remain unanswered by these preliminary data.
Will removal of additional microscopic ovarian cancer implants, only seen by pafolacianine, improve the survival of patients with ovarian cancer, and what effect will the addition of this extra surgery have on their surgical morbidity and risk? The use of pafolacianine to augment ovarian cancer debulking surgeries pivots on the premise that ovarian cancer outcomes are determined by surgical “effort” more than the biology of the disease. Otherwise said: The more we surgically remove, the more we cure. But this seems an old-fashioned notion, increasingly challenged by data. It has been shown that, when ovarian cancer debulking surgeries are necessarily more radical because of extensive disease distribution, prognosis is worse, compared with those patients with less extensive disease distribution.6 The effect of surgical effort contributes less than that of predetermined patterns of disease presentation. Additionally, genomic traits are different in tumors that are objectively determined to be not amenable to optimal cytoreduction, compared with resectable tumors.7 These data suggest that it is the disease, more than the surgeon, that most influences outcomes.
Additionally, the question of whether surgical removal of microscopic disease improves ovarian cancer survival has already been addressed with negative findings. The LION trial randomized 647 women with advanced ovarian cancer to primary cytoreductive surgery either with or without routine lymphadenectomy of clinically negative nodes.8 This study found no survival benefit to resecting clinically negative, microscopically positive nodes. In light of these data, it is difficult to imagine that there would be different results with the resection of microscopic peritoneal disease implants identified by pafolacianine.
While pafolacianine promises to move us closer to a true “R0” (negative margins) resection of ovarian cancer, is this even a feasible goal in a disease that is widely metastatic, particularly in the peritoneal cavity? What do “negative margins” mean in the peritoneal cavity? The sensitivity of pafolacianine in detecting microscopic disease is obviously not so high that it can guarantee patients a complete resection of a disseminated disease, and we still do not know what absolute benefit is derived from moving a little bit further on the continuum of surgical resection.
Perhaps augmentation of debulking is not the only, or best, use of pafolacianine for ovarian cancer surgery. Perhaps it might serve a role in diagnostics or staging of the disease rather than for a therapeutic purpose. In the meantime, we await ongoing clinical trials in this space to better inform clinicians what benefits, or harms, they might expect from the addition of this new drug as we continue to define the “optimal” surgical procedure for advanced ovarian cancer.
Dr. Emma Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Hermanek P, Wittekind C. Semin Surg Oncol 1994;10:12-20.
2. Elattar A et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011 Aug 10;2011(8):CD007565.
3. Eskander RN et al. Gynecol Oncol 2018;149:525-30.
4. Randall LM et al. Gynecol Oncol 2019;155:63-8.
5. Food and Drug Administration. FDA approves pafolacianine for identifying malignant ovarian cancer lesions. 2021 Dec 1.
6. Horowitz NS et al. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:937-43.
7. Lee S et al. Cell Rep. 2020;31:107502.
8. Harter P et al. N Engl J Med 2019;380:822-32.
Can immunotherapy replace surgery for stomach cancer?
GERCOR NEONIPIGA was a phase 2 study with no comparator group and only 32 patients, but even so, after a 6-cycle course of nivolumab and ipilimumab, there was no sign of tumor in 17 of the 29 patients (59%) who had surgery specimens evaluable by pathology.
Indeed, two patients refused surgery after their preop endoscopic biopsies came back clear with no tumor cells. Surgery was called off in a third patient who developed metastases beforehand.
After a median of 12 months follow-up, there’s was no recurrence or progression in 30 patients (94%). The remaining two included the metastatic patient and one who died 3 days after surgery from cardiovascular complications.
If the findings pan out with additional research, the approach could be a boon for people who respond. “Avoiding surgery is a dream for these patients,” said lead investigator Thierry Andre, MD, a medical oncology professor at Sorbonne University, Paris, when he presented the findings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.
The trial “raises the question whether surgery can be delayed or avoided in some patients with localized” disease. Given the findings, “it seems possible not for all but probably for half, maybe more.” As in the two subjects who opted out of surgery, preop endoscopic biopsies could be used to identify complete responders with active surveillance afterwards, he said.
The study included 16 patients with gastric cancer and 16 with esophagogastric adenocarcinoma. They were mismatch repair deficient, which Dr. Andre said predicts response to immunotherapy.
At baseline, 22 had stage T3 disease and four had stage T2 disease, and stage was not evaluable by echo-endoscopy in 6. Nodal status was unknown, but the patients had no metastases at baseline.
They underwent six nivolumab 240-mg infusions and two ipilimumab 1–mg/kg infusions over 12 weeks, followed by R0 resections a median of 5 weeks after the last nivolumab injection.
Surgical specimens from 17 patients (59%) showed a complete pathological response to neoadjuvant immunotherapy (Becker tumor regression grade (TRG) 1a, ypT0N0). TRG was 1b – less than 10% residual tumor in tumor bed in four patients. TRG was 2 in two patients with 10%-50% of residual tumor remaining, and six had a TRG of 3 with more than half of the tumor remaining after immunotherapy.
Based on tumor response, 25 patients had nine additional nivolumab infusions after surgery with 480 mg infused monthly.
Dr. Andre explained that people want to avoid surgery because of the substantial morbidity that was shown in the study, plus 54% of patients had complications, including anastomotic leaks, pancreatitis, pneumonia, and other problems.
There were no new safety signals with neoadjuvant therapy; 25% of patients had grade 3 or 4 events.
The study was conducted in 10 centers in France. About three-quarters of the subjects were men and the median age was 65 years.
Bristol Meyers Squibb supplied the nivolumab and ipilimumab and partially funded the work. Many of the investigators had ties to the company, including Dr. Andre, who is a consultant for BMS and reported payments from the company.
GERCOR NEONIPIGA was a phase 2 study with no comparator group and only 32 patients, but even so, after a 6-cycle course of nivolumab and ipilimumab, there was no sign of tumor in 17 of the 29 patients (59%) who had surgery specimens evaluable by pathology.
Indeed, two patients refused surgery after their preop endoscopic biopsies came back clear with no tumor cells. Surgery was called off in a third patient who developed metastases beforehand.
After a median of 12 months follow-up, there’s was no recurrence or progression in 30 patients (94%). The remaining two included the metastatic patient and one who died 3 days after surgery from cardiovascular complications.
If the findings pan out with additional research, the approach could be a boon for people who respond. “Avoiding surgery is a dream for these patients,” said lead investigator Thierry Andre, MD, a medical oncology professor at Sorbonne University, Paris, when he presented the findings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.
The trial “raises the question whether surgery can be delayed or avoided in some patients with localized” disease. Given the findings, “it seems possible not for all but probably for half, maybe more.” As in the two subjects who opted out of surgery, preop endoscopic biopsies could be used to identify complete responders with active surveillance afterwards, he said.
The study included 16 patients with gastric cancer and 16 with esophagogastric adenocarcinoma. They were mismatch repair deficient, which Dr. Andre said predicts response to immunotherapy.
At baseline, 22 had stage T3 disease and four had stage T2 disease, and stage was not evaluable by echo-endoscopy in 6. Nodal status was unknown, but the patients had no metastases at baseline.
They underwent six nivolumab 240-mg infusions and two ipilimumab 1–mg/kg infusions over 12 weeks, followed by R0 resections a median of 5 weeks after the last nivolumab injection.
Surgical specimens from 17 patients (59%) showed a complete pathological response to neoadjuvant immunotherapy (Becker tumor regression grade (TRG) 1a, ypT0N0). TRG was 1b – less than 10% residual tumor in tumor bed in four patients. TRG was 2 in two patients with 10%-50% of residual tumor remaining, and six had a TRG of 3 with more than half of the tumor remaining after immunotherapy.
Based on tumor response, 25 patients had nine additional nivolumab infusions after surgery with 480 mg infused monthly.
Dr. Andre explained that people want to avoid surgery because of the substantial morbidity that was shown in the study, plus 54% of patients had complications, including anastomotic leaks, pancreatitis, pneumonia, and other problems.
There were no new safety signals with neoadjuvant therapy; 25% of patients had grade 3 or 4 events.
The study was conducted in 10 centers in France. About three-quarters of the subjects were men and the median age was 65 years.
Bristol Meyers Squibb supplied the nivolumab and ipilimumab and partially funded the work. Many of the investigators had ties to the company, including Dr. Andre, who is a consultant for BMS and reported payments from the company.
GERCOR NEONIPIGA was a phase 2 study with no comparator group and only 32 patients, but even so, after a 6-cycle course of nivolumab and ipilimumab, there was no sign of tumor in 17 of the 29 patients (59%) who had surgery specimens evaluable by pathology.
Indeed, two patients refused surgery after their preop endoscopic biopsies came back clear with no tumor cells. Surgery was called off in a third patient who developed metastases beforehand.
After a median of 12 months follow-up, there’s was no recurrence or progression in 30 patients (94%). The remaining two included the metastatic patient and one who died 3 days after surgery from cardiovascular complications.
If the findings pan out with additional research, the approach could be a boon for people who respond. “Avoiding surgery is a dream for these patients,” said lead investigator Thierry Andre, MD, a medical oncology professor at Sorbonne University, Paris, when he presented the findings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium.
The trial “raises the question whether surgery can be delayed or avoided in some patients with localized” disease. Given the findings, “it seems possible not for all but probably for half, maybe more.” As in the two subjects who opted out of surgery, preop endoscopic biopsies could be used to identify complete responders with active surveillance afterwards, he said.
The study included 16 patients with gastric cancer and 16 with esophagogastric adenocarcinoma. They were mismatch repair deficient, which Dr. Andre said predicts response to immunotherapy.
At baseline, 22 had stage T3 disease and four had stage T2 disease, and stage was not evaluable by echo-endoscopy in 6. Nodal status was unknown, but the patients had no metastases at baseline.
They underwent six nivolumab 240-mg infusions and two ipilimumab 1–mg/kg infusions over 12 weeks, followed by R0 resections a median of 5 weeks after the last nivolumab injection.
Surgical specimens from 17 patients (59%) showed a complete pathological response to neoadjuvant immunotherapy (Becker tumor regression grade (TRG) 1a, ypT0N0). TRG was 1b – less than 10% residual tumor in tumor bed in four patients. TRG was 2 in two patients with 10%-50% of residual tumor remaining, and six had a TRG of 3 with more than half of the tumor remaining after immunotherapy.
Based on tumor response, 25 patients had nine additional nivolumab infusions after surgery with 480 mg infused monthly.
Dr. Andre explained that people want to avoid surgery because of the substantial morbidity that was shown in the study, plus 54% of patients had complications, including anastomotic leaks, pancreatitis, pneumonia, and other problems.
There were no new safety signals with neoadjuvant therapy; 25% of patients had grade 3 or 4 events.
The study was conducted in 10 centers in France. About three-quarters of the subjects were men and the median age was 65 years.
Bristol Meyers Squibb supplied the nivolumab and ipilimumab and partially funded the work. Many of the investigators had ties to the company, including Dr. Andre, who is a consultant for BMS and reported payments from the company.
FROM GI CANCERS SYMPOSIUM 2022
Watch, but don’t worry yet, about new Omicron subvariant
In the meantime, it’s worth watching BA.2, the World Health Organization said. The subvariant has been identified across at least 40 countries, including three cases reported in Houston and several in Washington state.
BA.2 accounts for only a small minority of reported cases so far, including 5% in India, 4% of those in the United Kingdom, and 2% each of cases in Sweden and Singapore.
The one exception is Denmark, a country with robust genetic sequencing abilities, where estimates range from 50% to 81% of cases.
The news throws a little more uncertainty into an already uncertain situation, including how close the world might be to a less life-altering infectious disease.
For example, the world is at an ideal point for a new variant to emerge, WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD, said during a Jan. 24 meeting of the WHO executive board. He also said it’s too early to call an “end game” to the pandemic.
Similarly, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, said on Jan. 19 that it remained “an open question” whether the Omicron variant could hasten endemic COVID-19, a situation where the virus still circulates but is much less disruptive to everyday life.
No Pi for you
This could be the first time a coronavirus subvariant rises to the level of a household name, or – if previous variants of the moment have shown us – it could recede from the spotlight.
For example, a lot of focus on the potential of the Mu variant to wreak havoc fizzled out a few weeks after the WHO listed it as a variant of interest on Aug. 30.
Subvariants can feature mutations and other small differences but are not distinct enough from an existing strain to be called a variant on their own and be named after the next letter in the Greek alphabet. That’s why BA.2 is not called the “Pi variant.”
Predicting what’s next for the coronavirus has puzzled many experts throughout the pandemic. That is why many public health officials wait for the WHO to officially designate a strain as a variant of interest or variant of concern before taking action.
At the moment with BA.2, it seems close monitoring is warranted.
Because it’s too early to call, expert predictions about BA.2 vary widely, from worry to cautious optimism.
For example, early data indicates that BA.2 could be more worrisome than original Omicron, Eric Feigl-Ding, ScD, an epidemiologist and health economist, said on Twitter.
Information from Denmark seems to show BA.2 either has “much faster transmission or it evades immunity even more,” he said.
The same day, Jan. 23, Dr. Feigl-Ding tweeted that other data shows the subvariant can spread twice as fast as Omicron, which was already much more contagious than previous versions of the virus.
At the same time, other experts appear less concerned. Robert Garry, PhD, a virologist at Tulane University, New Orleans, told the Washington Post that there is no reason to think BA.2 will be any worse than the original Omicron strain.
So which expert predictions will come closer to BA.2’s potential? For now, it’s just a watch-and-see situation.
For updated information, the website outbreak.info tracks BA.2’s average daily and cumulative prevalence in the United States and in other locations.
Also, if and when WHO experts decide to elevate BA.2 to a variant of interest or a variant of concern, it will be noted on its coronavirus variant tracking website.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
In the meantime, it’s worth watching BA.2, the World Health Organization said. The subvariant has been identified across at least 40 countries, including three cases reported in Houston and several in Washington state.
BA.2 accounts for only a small minority of reported cases so far, including 5% in India, 4% of those in the United Kingdom, and 2% each of cases in Sweden and Singapore.
The one exception is Denmark, a country with robust genetic sequencing abilities, where estimates range from 50% to 81% of cases.
The news throws a little more uncertainty into an already uncertain situation, including how close the world might be to a less life-altering infectious disease.
For example, the world is at an ideal point for a new variant to emerge, WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD, said during a Jan. 24 meeting of the WHO executive board. He also said it’s too early to call an “end game” to the pandemic.
Similarly, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, said on Jan. 19 that it remained “an open question” whether the Omicron variant could hasten endemic COVID-19, a situation where the virus still circulates but is much less disruptive to everyday life.
No Pi for you
This could be the first time a coronavirus subvariant rises to the level of a household name, or – if previous variants of the moment have shown us – it could recede from the spotlight.
For example, a lot of focus on the potential of the Mu variant to wreak havoc fizzled out a few weeks after the WHO listed it as a variant of interest on Aug. 30.
Subvariants can feature mutations and other small differences but are not distinct enough from an existing strain to be called a variant on their own and be named after the next letter in the Greek alphabet. That’s why BA.2 is not called the “Pi variant.”
Predicting what’s next for the coronavirus has puzzled many experts throughout the pandemic. That is why many public health officials wait for the WHO to officially designate a strain as a variant of interest or variant of concern before taking action.
At the moment with BA.2, it seems close monitoring is warranted.
Because it’s too early to call, expert predictions about BA.2 vary widely, from worry to cautious optimism.
For example, early data indicates that BA.2 could be more worrisome than original Omicron, Eric Feigl-Ding, ScD, an epidemiologist and health economist, said on Twitter.
Information from Denmark seems to show BA.2 either has “much faster transmission or it evades immunity even more,” he said.
The same day, Jan. 23, Dr. Feigl-Ding tweeted that other data shows the subvariant can spread twice as fast as Omicron, which was already much more contagious than previous versions of the virus.
At the same time, other experts appear less concerned. Robert Garry, PhD, a virologist at Tulane University, New Orleans, told the Washington Post that there is no reason to think BA.2 will be any worse than the original Omicron strain.
So which expert predictions will come closer to BA.2’s potential? For now, it’s just a watch-and-see situation.
For updated information, the website outbreak.info tracks BA.2’s average daily and cumulative prevalence in the United States and in other locations.
Also, if and when WHO experts decide to elevate BA.2 to a variant of interest or a variant of concern, it will be noted on its coronavirus variant tracking website.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
In the meantime, it’s worth watching BA.2, the World Health Organization said. The subvariant has been identified across at least 40 countries, including three cases reported in Houston and several in Washington state.
BA.2 accounts for only a small minority of reported cases so far, including 5% in India, 4% of those in the United Kingdom, and 2% each of cases in Sweden and Singapore.
The one exception is Denmark, a country with robust genetic sequencing abilities, where estimates range from 50% to 81% of cases.
The news throws a little more uncertainty into an already uncertain situation, including how close the world might be to a less life-altering infectious disease.
For example, the world is at an ideal point for a new variant to emerge, WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD, said during a Jan. 24 meeting of the WHO executive board. He also said it’s too early to call an “end game” to the pandemic.
Similarly, Anthony S. Fauci, MD, said on Jan. 19 that it remained “an open question” whether the Omicron variant could hasten endemic COVID-19, a situation where the virus still circulates but is much less disruptive to everyday life.
No Pi for you
This could be the first time a coronavirus subvariant rises to the level of a household name, or – if previous variants of the moment have shown us – it could recede from the spotlight.
For example, a lot of focus on the potential of the Mu variant to wreak havoc fizzled out a few weeks after the WHO listed it as a variant of interest on Aug. 30.
Subvariants can feature mutations and other small differences but are not distinct enough from an existing strain to be called a variant on their own and be named after the next letter in the Greek alphabet. That’s why BA.2 is not called the “Pi variant.”
Predicting what’s next for the coronavirus has puzzled many experts throughout the pandemic. That is why many public health officials wait for the WHO to officially designate a strain as a variant of interest or variant of concern before taking action.
At the moment with BA.2, it seems close monitoring is warranted.
Because it’s too early to call, expert predictions about BA.2 vary widely, from worry to cautious optimism.
For example, early data indicates that BA.2 could be more worrisome than original Omicron, Eric Feigl-Ding, ScD, an epidemiologist and health economist, said on Twitter.
Information from Denmark seems to show BA.2 either has “much faster transmission or it evades immunity even more,” he said.
The same day, Jan. 23, Dr. Feigl-Ding tweeted that other data shows the subvariant can spread twice as fast as Omicron, which was already much more contagious than previous versions of the virus.
At the same time, other experts appear less concerned. Robert Garry, PhD, a virologist at Tulane University, New Orleans, told the Washington Post that there is no reason to think BA.2 will be any worse than the original Omicron strain.
So which expert predictions will come closer to BA.2’s potential? For now, it’s just a watch-and-see situation.
For updated information, the website outbreak.info tracks BA.2’s average daily and cumulative prevalence in the United States and in other locations.
Also, if and when WHO experts decide to elevate BA.2 to a variant of interest or a variant of concern, it will be noted on its coronavirus variant tracking website.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.