Medical malpractice (more formally, professional liability, but we will use the term malpractice) has been of concern to ObGyns for many years, and for good reasons. This specialty has some of the highest incidents of malpractice claims, some of the largest verdicts, and some of the highest malpractice insurance rates. We look more closely at ObGyn malpractice issues in a 3-part “What’s the Verdict” series over the next few months.

In part 1, we discuss the background on malpractice and reasons why malpractice rates have been so high—including large verdicts and lawsuit-prone physicians. In the second part we will look at recent experience and developments in malpractice exposure—who is sued and why. Finally, in the third part we will consider suggestions for reducing the likelihood of a malpractice lawsuit, with a special focus on recent research regarding apologies.

Two reports of recent trials involving ObGyn care illustrate the risk of “the big verdict.”^1,2 (Note that the following vignettes are drawn from actual cases but are outlines of those cases and not complete descriptions of the claims. Because the information does not come from formal court records, the facts may be inaccurate and are incomplete; they should be viewed as illustrations only.)

CASE 1 Delayed delivery, $19M verdict

At 39 weeks’ gestation, a woman was admitted to the hospital in spontaneous labor. Artificial rupture of membranes with clear amniotic fluid was noted. Active contractions occurred for 11 hours. Oxytocin was then initiated, and 17 minutes later, profound fetal bradycardia was detected. There was recurrent evidence of fetal distress with meconium. After a nursing staff change a second nurse restarted oxytocin for a prolonged period. The physician allowed labor to continue despite fetal distress, and performed a cesarean delivery (CD) 4.5 hours later. Five hours postdelivery the neonate was noted to have a pneumothorax, lung damage, and respiratory failure. The infant died at 18 days of age.

The jury felt that there was negligence—failure to timely diagnose fetal distress and failure to timely perform CD, all of which resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. The jury awarded in excess of $19 million.¹

CASE 2 An undiagnosed tumor, $20M verdict

A patient underwent bilateral mastectomy. Following surgery, she reported pain and swelling at the surgical site for 2 years, and the defendant physician “dismissed” her complaint, refusing to evaluate it as the provider felt it was related to scar tissue. Three years after the mastectomies, the patient underwent surgical exploration and removal of 3 ribs and sternum secondary to a desmoid tumor. Surgical mesh and chest reconstruction was required, necessitating long-term opioids and sleeping medications that “will slow her wits, dull her senses and limit activities of daily living.” Of note, discrepancies were found in the medical records maintained by the defendant. (There was, for example, no report in the record of the plaintiff’s pain until late in the process.) The plaintiff based her claim on the fact that her pain and lump were neither evaluated nor discovered until it was too late.

The jury awarded $20 million. The verdict was reduced to $2 million by the court based on state statutory limits on malpractice damages.^2,3

Continue to: Medical malpractice: Evolution of a standard of care...

Medical malpractice: Evolution of a standard of care

Medical malpractice is not a modern invention. Some historians trace malpractice to the Code of Hammurabi (2030 BC), through Roman law,⁴ into English common law.⁵ It was sufficiently established by 1765 that the classic legal treatise of the century referred to medical malpractice.^6,7 Although medical malpractice existed for a long time, actual malpractice cases were relatively rare before the last half of the 20th century.⁸

Defensive medicine born out of necessity. The number of malpractice cases increased substantially—described as a “geometric increase”—after 1960, with a 300% rise between 1965 and 1970.^7,9 This “malpractice maelstrom of the 70s”⁷ resulted in dramatic increases in malpractice insurance costs and invited the practice of defensive medicine—medically unnecessary or unjustified tests and services.¹⁰Although there is controversy about what is defensive medicine and what is reasonably cautious medicine, the practice may account for 3% of total health care spending.¹¹ Mello and others have estimated that there may be a $55 billion annual cost related to the medical malpractice system.¹²

Several malpractice crises and waves of malpractice or tort reform ensued,¹³ beginning in the 1970s and extending into the 2000s.¹¹ Malpractice law is primarily a matter of state law, so reform essentially has been at the state level—as we will see in the second part in this series.

Defining a standard of care

Medical malpractice is the application of standard legal principles to medical practice. Those principles generally are torts (intentional torts and negligence), and sometimes contracts.¹⁴ Eventually, medical malpractice came to focus primarily on negligence. The legal purposes of imposing negligence liability are compensation (to repay the plaintiff the costs of the harm caused by the defendant) and deterrence (to discourage careless conduct that can harm others.)

Negligence is essentially carelessness that falls below the acceptable standard of care. Negligence may arise, for example, from¹⁵:

• doing something (giving a drug to a patient with a known allergy to it)
• not doing something (failing to test for a possible tumor, as in the second case above)
• not giving appropriate informed consent
• failing to conduct an adequate examination
• abandoning a patient
• failing to refer a patient to a specialist (or conduct a consultation).

(In recent years, law reforms directed specifically at medical malpractice have somewhat separated medical malpractice from other tort law.)

In malpractice cases, the core question is whether the provider did (or did not) do something that a reasonably careful physician would have done. It is axiomatic that not all bad outcomes are negligent. Indeed, not all mistakes are negligent—only the mistakes that were unreasonable given all of the circumstances. In the first case above, for example, given all of the facts that preceded it, the delay of the physician for 4.5 hours after the fetal distress started was, as seen by the jury, not just a mistake but an unreasonable mistake. Hence, it was negligent. In the second case, the failure to investigate the pain and swelling in the surgical site for 2 years (or failure to refer the patient to another physician) was seen by the jury as an unreasonable mistake—one that would not have been made by a reasonably careful practitioner.

Continue to: The big verdict...

The big verdict

Everyone—every professional providing service, every manufacturer, every driver—eventually will make an unreasonable mistake (ie, commit negligence). If that negligence results in harming someone else, our standard legal response is that the negligent person should be financially responsible for the harm to the other. So, a driver who fails to stop at a red light and hits another car is responsible for those damages. But the damages may vary—perhaps a banged-up fender, or, in another instance, with the same negligence, perhaps terrible personal injuries that will disable the other driver for life. Thus, the damages can vary for the same level of carelessness. The “big verdict” may therefore fall on someone who was not especially careless.

Big verdicts often involve long-term care. The opening case vignettes illustrate a concern of medical malpractice generally—especially for ObGyn practice—the very high verdict. Very high verdicts generally reflect catastrophic damages that will continue for a long time. Bixenstine and colleagues found, for example, that catastrophic payouts often involved “patient age less than 1 year, quadriplegia, brain damage, or lifelong care.”¹⁶ In the case of serious injuries during delivery, for example, the harm to the child may last a lifetime and require years and years of intensive medical services.

Million-dollar-plus payouts are on the rise. The percentage of paid claims (through settlement or trial) that are above $1 million is increasing. These million-dollar cases represent 36% of the total dollars paid in ObGyn malpractice claims, even though they represent only 8% of the number of claims paid.¹⁶ The increase in the big verdict cases (above $1 million) suggests that ObGyn practition­ers should consider their malpractice policy limits—a million dollars may not be enough.

In big verdict cases, the great harm to the plaintiff is often combined with facts that produce extraordinary sympathy for the plaintiff. Sometimes there is decidedly unsympathetic conduct by the defendant as well. In the second case, for example, the problems with the medical record may have suggested to the jury that the doctor was either trying to hide something or did not care enough about the patient even to note a serious complaint. In a case we reviewed in an earlier “What’s the Verdict” column, a physician left the room for several minutes during a critical time—to take a call from a stockbroker.^16-18

The big verdict does not necessarily suggest that the defendant was especially or grossly negligent.¹⁶ It was a bad injury that occurred, for instance. On the other hand, the physician with several malpractice judgments may suggest that this is a problem physician.

Physicians facing multiple lawsuits are the exceptions

A number of studies have demonstrated that only a small proportion of physicians are responsible for a disproportionate number of paid medical malpractice claims. (“Paid claims” are those in which the plaintiff receives money from the doctor’s insurance. “Filed claims” are all malpractice lawsuits filed. Many claims are filed, but few are paid.)

ObGyn has high number of paid claims and high risk of claim payment recurrence. Studdert and colleagues found that the probability of future paid malpractice climbed with each past paid claim.¹⁹ They also found that 1% of physicians accounted for 32% of all paid claims. The number of paid claims varied by specialty—obstetrics and gynecology accounted for the second largest number of paid claims (13%). The risk of recurrence (more than one paid claim) was highest among 4 surgical specialties and ObGyns (about double the recurrence rate in these specialties compared with internal medicine).¹⁹

A minority of physicians responsible for lion share of paid claims. Black and colleagues followed up the Studdert study. Although there were some differences in what they found, the results were very similar.²⁰ For example, they found that having even a single prior paid claim strongly predicted future claims over the next 5 years. They also found that some “outlier” physicians with multiple paid claims “are responsible for a significant share of paid claims.” They specifically found that, even for physicians in high-risk specialties in high-risk states, “bad luck is highly unlikely to explain” multiple claims within 5 years.

Continue to: Both of the studies just mentioned relied on...

Both of the studies just mentioned relied on the National Practitioner Data Bank for information about paid claims. This source has some limitations in capturing claims or payments made by hospitals or other institutions for the actions of its agent-physicians. Some of these limitations were resolved in another recent study that looked at Indiana state insurance and licensing discipline records (over a 41-year period).²¹ Not surprisingly, this study found that claims paid increase with more severe licensure discipline. On the other hand, although, the “frequent fliers” in terms of malpractice claims made and paid could be identified as a “small number of repeat defendants,” these physicians were not routinely disciplined by the state medical board. This was only a single state study, of course, but it also found that a few physicians accounted for a significant number of the claims. The state board was not taking licensing action against this small group, however.

Should the few bad apples be picked from the orchard?

Collectively, these studies are fairly overwhelming in demonstrating that there are some physicians who are “prone” to malpractice claims (for whom all physicians in the specialty are probably paying higher malpractice rates), but who do not attract the attention of licensing agencies for careful examination. In addition to its self-interest in eliminating physicians prone to malpractice claims and payments, the obligation of professions to protect the public interest suggests that state boards should be more aggressive in pursuing those physicians practicing risky medicine.

This medical malpractice series will continue next month with a look at how to reduce malpractice exposure.

Medical malpractice (more formally, professional liability, but we will use the term malpractice) has been of concern to ObGyns for many years, and for good reasons. This specialty has some of the highest incidents of malpractice claims, some of the largest verdicts, and some of the highest malpractice insurance rates. We look more closely at ObGyn malpractice issues in a 3-part “What’s the Verdict” series over the next few months.

In part 1, we discuss the background on malpractice and reasons why malpractice rates have been so high—including large verdicts and lawsuit-prone physicians. In the second part we will look at recent experience and developments in malpractice exposure—who is sued and why. Finally, in the third part we will consider suggestions for reducing the likelihood of a malpractice lawsuit, with a special focus on recent research regarding apologies.

Two reports of recent trials involving ObGyn care illustrate the risk of “the big verdict.”^1,2 (Note that the following vignettes are drawn from actual cases but are outlines of those cases and not complete descriptions of the claims. Because the information does not come from formal court records, the facts may be inaccurate and are incomplete; they should be viewed as illustrations only.)

CASE 1 Delayed delivery, $19M verdict

At 39 weeks’ gestation, a woman was admitted to the hospital in spontaneous labor. Artificial rupture of membranes with clear amniotic fluid was noted. Active contractions occurred for 11 hours. Oxytocin was then initiated, and 17 minutes later, profound fetal bradycardia was detected. There was recurrent evidence of fetal distress with meconium. After a nursing staff change a second nurse restarted oxytocin for a prolonged period. The physician allowed labor to continue despite fetal distress, and performed a cesarean delivery (CD) 4.5 hours later. Five hours postdelivery the neonate was noted to have a pneumothorax, lung damage, and respiratory failure. The infant died at 18 days of age.

The jury felt that there was negligence—failure to timely diagnose fetal distress and failure to timely perform CD, all of which resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. The jury awarded in excess of $19 million.¹

CASE 2 An undiagnosed tumor, $20M verdict

A patient underwent bilateral mastectomy. Following surgery, she reported pain and swelling at the surgical site for 2 years, and the defendant physician “dismissed” her complaint, refusing to evaluate it as the provider felt it was related to scar tissue. Three years after the mastectomies, the patient underwent surgical exploration and removal of 3 ribs and sternum secondary to a desmoid tumor. Surgical mesh and chest reconstruction was required, necessitating long-term opioids and sleeping medications that “will slow her wits, dull her senses and limit activities of daily living.” Of note, discrepancies were found in the medical records maintained by the defendant. (There was, for example, no report in the record of the plaintiff’s pain until late in the process.) The plaintiff based her claim on the fact that her pain and lump were neither evaluated nor discovered until it was too late.

The jury awarded $20 million. The verdict was reduced to $2 million by the court based on state statutory limits on malpractice damages.^2,3

Continue to: Medical malpractice: Evolution of a standard of care...

Medical malpractice: Evolution of a standard of care

Medical malpractice is not a modern invention. Some historians trace malpractice to the Code of Hammurabi (2030 BC), through Roman law,⁴ into English common law.⁵ It was sufficiently established by 1765 that the classic legal treatise of the century referred to medical malpractice.^6,7 Although medical malpractice existed for a long time, actual malpractice cases were relatively rare before the last half of the 20th century.⁸

Defensive medicine born out of necessity. The number of malpractice cases increased substantially—described as a “geometric increase”—after 1960, with a 300% rise between 1965 and 1970.^7,9 This “malpractice maelstrom of the 70s”⁷ resulted in dramatic increases in malpractice insurance costs and invited the practice of defensive medicine—medically unnecessary or unjustified tests and services.¹⁰Although there is controversy about what is defensive medicine and what is reasonably cautious medicine, the practice may account for 3% of total health care spending.¹¹ Mello and others have estimated that there may be a $55 billion annual cost related to the medical malpractice system.¹²

Several malpractice crises and waves of malpractice or tort reform ensued,¹³ beginning in the 1970s and extending into the 2000s.¹¹ Malpractice law is primarily a matter of state law, so reform essentially has been at the state level—as we will see in the second part in this series.

Defining a standard of care

Medical malpractice is the application of standard legal principles to medical practice. Those principles generally are torts (intentional torts and negligence), and sometimes contracts.¹⁴ Eventually, medical malpractice came to focus primarily on negligence. The legal purposes of imposing negligence liability are compensation (to repay the plaintiff the costs of the harm caused by the defendant) and deterrence (to discourage careless conduct that can harm others.)

Negligence is essentially carelessness that falls below the acceptable standard of care. Negligence may arise, for example, from¹⁵:

• doing something (giving a drug to a patient with a known allergy to it)
• not doing something (failing to test for a possible tumor, as in the second case above)
• not giving appropriate informed consent
• failing to conduct an adequate examination
• abandoning a patient
• failing to refer a patient to a specialist (or conduct a consultation).

(In recent years, law reforms directed specifically at medical malpractice have somewhat separated medical malpractice from other tort law.)

In malpractice cases, the core question is whether the provider did (or did not) do something that a reasonably careful physician would have done. It is axiomatic that not all bad outcomes are negligent. Indeed, not all mistakes are negligent—only the mistakes that were unreasonable given all of the circumstances. In the first case above, for example, given all of the facts that preceded it, the delay of the physician for 4.5 hours after the fetal distress started was, as seen by the jury, not just a mistake but an unreasonable mistake. Hence, it was negligent. In the second case, the failure to investigate the pain and swelling in the surgical site for 2 years (or failure to refer the patient to another physician) was seen by the jury as an unreasonable mistake—one that would not have been made by a reasonably careful practitioner.

Continue to: The big verdict...

The big verdict

Everyone—every professional providing service, every manufacturer, every driver—eventually will make an unreasonable mistake (ie, commit negligence). If that negligence results in harming someone else, our standard legal response is that the negligent person should be financially responsible for the harm to the other. So, a driver who fails to stop at a red light and hits another car is responsible for those damages. But the damages may vary—perhaps a banged-up fender, or, in another instance, with the same negligence, perhaps terrible personal injuries that will disable the other driver for life. Thus, the damages can vary for the same level of carelessness. The “big verdict” may therefore fall on someone who was not especially careless.

Big verdicts often involve long-term care. The opening case vignettes illustrate a concern of medical malpractice generally—especially for ObGyn practice—the very high verdict. Very high verdicts generally reflect catastrophic damages that will continue for a long time. Bixenstine and colleagues found, for example, that catastrophic payouts often involved “patient age less than 1 year, quadriplegia, brain damage, or lifelong care.”¹⁶ In the case of serious injuries during delivery, for example, the harm to the child may last a lifetime and require years and years of intensive medical services.

Million-dollar-plus payouts are on the rise. The percentage of paid claims (through settlement or trial) that are above $1 million is increasing. These million-dollar cases represent 36% of the total dollars paid in ObGyn malpractice claims, even though they represent only 8% of the number of claims paid.¹⁶ The increase in the big verdict cases (above $1 million) suggests that ObGyn practition­ers should consider their malpractice policy limits—a million dollars may not be enough.

In big verdict cases, the great harm to the plaintiff is often combined with facts that produce extraordinary sympathy for the plaintiff. Sometimes there is decidedly unsympathetic conduct by the defendant as well. In the second case, for example, the problems with the medical record may have suggested to the jury that the doctor was either trying to hide something or did not care enough about the patient even to note a serious complaint. In a case we reviewed in an earlier “What’s the Verdict” column, a physician left the room for several minutes during a critical time—to take a call from a stockbroker.^16-18

The big verdict does not necessarily suggest that the defendant was especially or grossly negligent.¹⁶ It was a bad injury that occurred, for instance. On the other hand, the physician with several malpractice judgments may suggest that this is a problem physician.

Physicians facing multiple lawsuits are the exceptions

A number of studies have demonstrated that only a small proportion of physicians are responsible for a disproportionate number of paid medical malpractice claims. (“Paid claims” are those in which the plaintiff receives money from the doctor’s insurance. “Filed claims” are all malpractice lawsuits filed. Many claims are filed, but few are paid.)

ObGyn has high number of paid claims and high risk of claim payment recurrence. Studdert and colleagues found that the probability of future paid malpractice climbed with each past paid claim.¹⁹ They also found that 1% of physicians accounted for 32% of all paid claims. The number of paid claims varied by specialty—obstetrics and gynecology accounted for the second largest number of paid claims (13%). The risk of recurrence (more than one paid claim) was highest among 4 surgical specialties and ObGyns (about double the recurrence rate in these specialties compared with internal medicine).¹⁹

A minority of physicians responsible for lion share of paid claims. Black and colleagues followed up the Studdert study. Although there were some differences in what they found, the results were very similar.²⁰ For example, they found that having even a single prior paid claim strongly predicted future claims over the next 5 years. They also found that some “outlier” physicians with multiple paid claims “are responsible for a significant share of paid claims.” They specifically found that, even for physicians in high-risk specialties in high-risk states, “bad luck is highly unlikely to explain” multiple claims within 5 years.

Continue to: Both of the studies just mentioned relied on...

Both of the studies just mentioned relied on the National Practitioner Data Bank for information about paid claims. This source has some limitations in capturing claims or payments made by hospitals or other institutions for the actions of its agent-physicians. Some of these limitations were resolved in another recent study that looked at Indiana state insurance and licensing discipline records (over a 41-year period).²¹ Not surprisingly, this study found that claims paid increase with more severe licensure discipline. On the other hand, although, the “frequent fliers” in terms of malpractice claims made and paid could be identified as a “small number of repeat defendants,” these physicians were not routinely disciplined by the state medical board. This was only a single state study, of course, but it also found that a few physicians accounted for a significant number of the claims. The state board was not taking licensing action against this small group, however.

Should the few bad apples be picked from the orchard?

Collectively, these studies are fairly overwhelming in demonstrating that there are some physicians who are “prone” to malpractice claims (for whom all physicians in the specialty are probably paying higher malpractice rates), but who do not attract the attention of licensing agencies for careful examination. In addition to its self-interest in eliminating physicians prone to malpractice claims and payments, the obligation of professions to protect the public interest suggests that state boards should be more aggressive in pursuing those physicians practicing risky medicine.

This medical malpractice series will continue next month with a look at how to reduce malpractice exposure.

Medical malpractice (more formally, professional liability, but we will use the term malpractice) has been of concern to ObGyns for many years, and for good reasons. This specialty has some of the highest incidents of malpractice claims, some of the largest verdicts, and some of the highest malpractice insurance rates. We look more closely at ObGyn malpractice issues in a 3-part “What’s the Verdict” series over the next few months.

In part 1, we discuss the background on malpractice and reasons why malpractice rates have been so high—including large verdicts and lawsuit-prone physicians. In the second part we will look at recent experience and developments in malpractice exposure—who is sued and why. Finally, in the third part we will consider suggestions for reducing the likelihood of a malpractice lawsuit, with a special focus on recent research regarding apologies.

Two reports of recent trials involving ObGyn care illustrate the risk of “the big verdict.”^1,2 (Note that the following vignettes are drawn from actual cases but are outlines of those cases and not complete descriptions of the claims. Because the information does not come from formal court records, the facts may be inaccurate and are incomplete; they should be viewed as illustrations only.)

CASE 1 Delayed delivery, $19M verdict

At 39 weeks’ gestation, a woman was admitted to the hospital in spontaneous labor. Artificial rupture of membranes with clear amniotic fluid was noted. Active contractions occurred for 11 hours. Oxytocin was then initiated, and 17 minutes later, profound fetal bradycardia was detected. There was recurrent evidence of fetal distress with meconium. After a nursing staff change a second nurse restarted oxytocin for a prolonged period. The physician allowed labor to continue despite fetal distress, and performed a cesarean delivery (CD) 4.5 hours later. Five hours postdelivery the neonate was noted to have a pneumothorax, lung damage, and respiratory failure. The infant died at 18 days of age.

The jury felt that there was negligence—failure to timely diagnose fetal distress and failure to timely perform CD, all of which resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. The jury awarded in excess of $19 million.¹

CASE 2 An undiagnosed tumor, $20M verdict

A patient underwent bilateral mastectomy. Following surgery, she reported pain and swelling at the surgical site for 2 years, and the defendant physician “dismissed” her complaint, refusing to evaluate it as the provider felt it was related to scar tissue. Three years after the mastectomies, the patient underwent surgical exploration and removal of 3 ribs and sternum secondary to a desmoid tumor. Surgical mesh and chest reconstruction was required, necessitating long-term opioids and sleeping medications that “will slow her wits, dull her senses and limit activities of daily living.” Of note, discrepancies were found in the medical records maintained by the defendant. (There was, for example, no report in the record of the plaintiff’s pain until late in the process.) The plaintiff based her claim on the fact that her pain and lump were neither evaluated nor discovered until it was too late.

The jury awarded $20 million. The verdict was reduced to $2 million by the court based on state statutory limits on malpractice damages.^2,3

Continue to: Medical malpractice: Evolution of a standard of care...

Medical malpractice: Evolution of a standard of care

Medical malpractice is not a modern invention. Some historians trace malpractice to the Code of Hammurabi (2030 BC), through Roman law,⁴ into English common law.⁵ It was sufficiently established by 1765 that the classic legal treatise of the century referred to medical malpractice.^6,7 Although medical malpractice existed for a long time, actual malpractice cases were relatively rare before the last half of the 20th century.⁸

Defensive medicine born out of necessity. The number of malpractice cases increased substantially—described as a “geometric increase”—after 1960, with a 300% rise between 1965 and 1970.^7,9 This “malpractice maelstrom of the 70s”⁷ resulted in dramatic increases in malpractice insurance costs and invited the practice of defensive medicine—medically unnecessary or unjustified tests and services.¹⁰Although there is controversy about what is defensive medicine and what is reasonably cautious medicine, the practice may account for 3% of total health care spending.¹¹ Mello and others have estimated that there may be a $55 billion annual cost related to the medical malpractice system.¹²

Several malpractice crises and waves of malpractice or tort reform ensued,¹³ beginning in the 1970s and extending into the 2000s.¹¹ Malpractice law is primarily a matter of state law, so reform essentially has been at the state level—as we will see in the second part in this series.

Defining a standard of care

Medical malpractice is the application of standard legal principles to medical practice. Those principles generally are torts (intentional torts and negligence), and sometimes contracts.¹⁴ Eventually, medical malpractice came to focus primarily on negligence. The legal purposes of imposing negligence liability are compensation (to repay the plaintiff the costs of the harm caused by the defendant) and deterrence (to discourage careless conduct that can harm others.)

Negligence is essentially carelessness that falls below the acceptable standard of care. Negligence may arise, for example, from¹⁵:

• doing something (giving a drug to a patient with a known allergy to it)
• not doing something (failing to test for a possible tumor, as in the second case above)
• not giving appropriate informed consent
• failing to conduct an adequate examination
• abandoning a patient
• failing to refer a patient to a specialist (or conduct a consultation).

(In recent years, law reforms directed specifically at medical malpractice have somewhat separated medical malpractice from other tort law.)

In malpractice cases, the core question is whether the provider did (or did not) do something that a reasonably careful physician would have done. It is axiomatic that not all bad outcomes are negligent. Indeed, not all mistakes are negligent—only the mistakes that were unreasonable given all of the circumstances. In the first case above, for example, given all of the facts that preceded it, the delay of the physician for 4.5 hours after the fetal distress started was, as seen by the jury, not just a mistake but an unreasonable mistake. Hence, it was negligent. In the second case, the failure to investigate the pain and swelling in the surgical site for 2 years (or failure to refer the patient to another physician) was seen by the jury as an unreasonable mistake—one that would not have been made by a reasonably careful practitioner.

Continue to: The big verdict...

The big verdict

Everyone—every professional providing service, every manufacturer, every driver—eventually will make an unreasonable mistake (ie, commit negligence). If that negligence results in harming someone else, our standard legal response is that the negligent person should be financially responsible for the harm to the other. So, a driver who fails to stop at a red light and hits another car is responsible for those damages. But the damages may vary—perhaps a banged-up fender, or, in another instance, with the same negligence, perhaps terrible personal injuries that will disable the other driver for life. Thus, the damages can vary for the same level of carelessness. The “big verdict” may therefore fall on someone who was not especially careless.

Big verdicts often involve long-term care. The opening case vignettes illustrate a concern of medical malpractice generally—especially for ObGyn practice—the very high verdict. Very high verdicts generally reflect catastrophic damages that will continue for a long time. Bixenstine and colleagues found, for example, that catastrophic payouts often involved “patient age less than 1 year, quadriplegia, brain damage, or lifelong care.”¹⁶ In the case of serious injuries during delivery, for example, the harm to the child may last a lifetime and require years and years of intensive medical services.

Million-dollar-plus payouts are on the rise. The percentage of paid claims (through settlement or trial) that are above $1 million is increasing. These million-dollar cases represent 36% of the total dollars paid in ObGyn malpractice claims, even though they represent only 8% of the number of claims paid.¹⁶ The increase in the big verdict cases (above $1 million) suggests that ObGyn practition­ers should consider their malpractice policy limits—a million dollars may not be enough.

In big verdict cases, the great harm to the plaintiff is often combined with facts that produce extraordinary sympathy for the plaintiff. Sometimes there is decidedly unsympathetic conduct by the defendant as well. In the second case, for example, the problems with the medical record may have suggested to the jury that the doctor was either trying to hide something or did not care enough about the patient even to note a serious complaint. In a case we reviewed in an earlier “What’s the Verdict” column, a physician left the room for several minutes during a critical time—to take a call from a stockbroker.^16-18

The big verdict does not necessarily suggest that the defendant was especially or grossly negligent.¹⁶ It was a bad injury that occurred, for instance. On the other hand, the physician with several malpractice judgments may suggest that this is a problem physician.

Physicians facing multiple lawsuits are the exceptions

A number of studies have demonstrated that only a small proportion of physicians are responsible for a disproportionate number of paid medical malpractice claims. (“Paid claims” are those in which the plaintiff receives money from the doctor’s insurance. “Filed claims” are all malpractice lawsuits filed. Many claims are filed, but few are paid.)

ObGyn has high number of paid claims and high risk of claim payment recurrence. Studdert and colleagues found that the probability of future paid malpractice climbed with each past paid claim.¹⁹ They also found that 1% of physicians accounted for 32% of all paid claims. The number of paid claims varied by specialty—obstetrics and gynecology accounted for the second largest number of paid claims (13%). The risk of recurrence (more than one paid claim) was highest among 4 surgical specialties and ObGyns (about double the recurrence rate in these specialties compared with internal medicine).¹⁹

A minority of physicians responsible for lion share of paid claims. Black and colleagues followed up the Studdert study. Although there were some differences in what they found, the results were very similar.²⁰ For example, they found that having even a single prior paid claim strongly predicted future claims over the next 5 years. They also found that some “outlier” physicians with multiple paid claims “are responsible for a significant share of paid claims.” They specifically found that, even for physicians in high-risk specialties in high-risk states, “bad luck is highly unlikely to explain” multiple claims within 5 years.

Continue to: Both of the studies just mentioned relied on...

Both of the studies just mentioned relied on the National Practitioner Data Bank for information about paid claims. This source has some limitations in capturing claims or payments made by hospitals or other institutions for the actions of its agent-physicians. Some of these limitations were resolved in another recent study that looked at Indiana state insurance and licensing discipline records (over a 41-year period).²¹ Not surprisingly, this study found that claims paid increase with more severe licensure discipline. On the other hand, although, the “frequent fliers” in terms of malpractice claims made and paid could be identified as a “small number of repeat defendants,” these physicians were not routinely disciplined by the state medical board. This was only a single state study, of course, but it also found that a few physicians accounted for a significant number of the claims. The state board was not taking licensing action against this small group, however.

Should the few bad apples be picked from the orchard?

Collectively, these studies are fairly overwhelming in demonstrating that there are some physicians who are “prone” to malpractice claims (for whom all physicians in the specialty are probably paying higher malpractice rates), but who do not attract the attention of licensing agencies for careful examination. In addition to its self-interest in eliminating physicians prone to malpractice claims and payments, the obligation of professions to protect the public interest suggests that state boards should be more aggressive in pursuing those physicians practicing risky medicine.

This medical malpractice series will continue next month with a look at how to reduce malpractice exposure.

In the fall of 2016, Hyma Polimera, MD, a hospitalist at Penn State Health in Hershey, Pa., approached the bedside of a patient with dementia and several other chronic conditions, and introduced herself to him and his family.

The patient’s daughter, who had power of attorney, took one look at Dr. Polimera and told her, “I’d like to see an American doctor.” Dr. Polimera is originally from India, but moved to Europe in 2005 and did her residency in Pennsylvania. She stayed calm and confident – she understood that she had done nothing wrong – but didn’t really know what to do next. All of the other hospitalists on the ward at the time were nonwhite and were also rejected by the patient’s daughter.

“I was wondering what was going to happen and who would provide care to this patient?” she said.

Dr. Polimera is far from alone. Nonwhite physicians, nurses, and other health care providers say they increasingly encounter patients who demand that only “white” health professionals take care of them. The number of these reassignment requests has ticked upward in the last few years, they say, coinciding with the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign and the subsequent election of Donald Trump.

The requests often come at medical centers with no policy in place for how to deal with them. And the unpleasant encounters find providers unprepared for how to respond, not knowing whether or how to resolve the situation with patients and their families. Clinicians sometimes wonder whether they are allowed to care for a patient even if they are willing to do so, and how to go about reassigning a patient to another clinician if that is the choice that the family makes.

To many hospitalists working in the field, it seems obvious that such situations are encouraged by a political environment in which discriminatory beliefs – once considered shameful to express publicly – are now deemed acceptable, even in health care encounters. Indeed, the health care encounter is perhaps the only time some patients will find themselves in intimate interactions with people of other ethnicities.
 

Responding to discrimination

A workshop at the 2019 Society of Hospital Medicine Annual Conference offered hospitalists an opportunity to discuss encounters with patients who expressed discriminatory attitudes. One physician, of South Asian descent, said that she had encountered no reassignment requests rooted in racial intolerance over more than a decade of work, but has encountered several in the last year or two.

Sabrina Chaklos, MD, a hospitalist at Burlington, Mass.–based Lahey Hospital & Medical Center and clinical assistant professor at Tufts University, said she has had a similar experience.

“It was blatantly bad behavior for 2018,” she said. Dr. Chaklos said she and other clinicians of color have been told, “I want an American doctor,” and that some patients see her darker complexion and conclude, “You must not be an American.”

Given the charged political environment since 2016, some medical facilities have been adapting how they respond to these comments and requests.

“The policy of the organization prior to 2016 was to give patients a new doctor,” Dr. Chaklos said. “Within the past year or so, they’re finally allowing people to say, ‘Look, you cannot just pick and choose your doctor,’ based on arbitrary reasons that are discriminatory in nature.”

Emily Whitgob, MD, MEd, a developmental-behavioral pediatrician at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, Calif., said that, several years ago, a scenario unfolded that led her to study the issue. An intern she was overseeing told her that the father of a pediatric patient had scrutinized the intern’s name tag and said, “Is that a Jewish last name? I don’t want a Jewish doctor.”

“I didn’t know what to do,” Dr. Whitgob said. Later, she brought up the situation at a meeting of 30 staff members. It led to an outpouring of sharing about similar incidents that other clinicians had experienced but had never talked about with colleagues.

“Half the room, by the end, was in tears talking about their experiences,” Dr. Whitgob said.

Since then, she has led research into how physicians typically handle such situations, performing semistructured interviews to survey pediatricians about their experiences with patients who discriminate on racial and ethnic grounds.

One important step, she said, is assessing the acuity of the illness involved to help determine whether the transfer of a patient from one provider to another should even be considered. In a dire situation, or when the physician involved is the foremost expert on a given condition, it might not be realistic.

Dr. Whitgob said some clinicians advocated cultivating a kind of alliance with the parents of pediatric patients, informing them that they’re part of a team that interacts with many types of providers, and redirecting them to focus on their child’s care.

“This takes time, and in a busy setting, that might not happen,” she acknowledged.

Physicians surveyed also said they try to depersonalize the uncomfortable encounter, remembering that discrimination is often motivated by a patient’s fears and a lack of control.

An important consideration, researchers found, was ensuring a safe learning environment for trainees, telling patients they would trust the physician with the care of their own children, escalating a complaint to hospital administration when appropriate, and empowering trainees to choose the next step in a situation.

Dr. Whitgob said that handling a reassignment request based on discriminatory sentiments is not as easy as “calling out ‘Code Bigotry.’ ”

“It’s not that simple,” Dr. Whitgob said. “There’s not going to be a one-size-fits-all or even a one-size-fits-most solution. Each case is an individual case.”
 

Taking action

Penn State Health is based in Hershey, Pa., a city that tends to vote Democratic in local and national elections but is encircled by Republican-leaning counties. Dr. Polimera’s encounter with her patient’s daughter led to changes in the way the health system handles encounters like hers.

When Dr. Polimera explained the situation to physician leadership, she was asked whether she was still comfortable taking care of the patient, and she said yes. The physician leaders informed the family that they could not change providers simply because of ethnicity. But that was just the first step.

Ultimately, the health system undertook a survey of all its health care providers, to determine whether others had similar experiences with patients or families, and had to deal with rude comments or were rejected as caregivers based on their race, gender, or religion.

“The feedback we received was massive and detailed,” Dr. Polimera said.

Brian McGillen, MD, section chief of hospital medicine and associate professor in the department of medicine at Penn State Health, said physician leaders took the survey results to the dean’s executive council, a who’s-who of medical leadership at the health system.

“I read aloud to the executive council what our folks were facing out on the floors,” Dr. McGillen said. “And I was halfway through my third story when the dean threw his hands up in the air and said, ‘We have to do something.’ ”

As a result, the health system’s policy on patient responsibility was changed to protect all health care providers from threats, violence, disrespectful communication, or harassment by patients, families, and other visitors. Before the change, the policy covered only discriminatory acts by patients themselves.

Penn State Health is now embarking on a training program for faculty, residents, and students that uses simulations of common hospital encounters. The health system also is engaging its patient relations staff to help mediate patient reassignment requests, and is trying to increase real-time debriefing of these events to further improve awareness and training.

Dr. McGillen noted that researchers at the University of North Texas, using data from the Anti-Defamation League, found that counties in which President Trump held campaign rallies – such as Dauphin County, Pa., where Hershey is located – had a 226% increase in hate crimes in the months after the rallies.

“This isn’t to say that every county and every person in these counties that voted for Mr. Trump is racist, but we surely know that his campaign unlocked an undercurrent of political incorrectness that has existed for ages,” he said. “We had to do something as an organization.”
 

Adapting to change

While some health systems are acting to limit the harm caused by discrimination, there is still much awareness to be raised and work to be done on this issue nationally. Some hospitalists at the 2019 SHM Annual Conference said they suspect that discriminatory incidents involving patients are still so underreported that the C-suite leaders at their hospitals do not recognize how serious a problem it is. Attendees at the HM19 workshop said discriminatory behavior by patients could affect hospitalist turnover and lead to burnout.

Multiple hospitalists at the workshop said that if a transfer of a patient is going to take place – if the patient requests a “white” doctor and there is not one available where the patient is admitted – they are unsure whether it is their responsibility to make the necessary phone calls. Some hospitalists say that if that job does fall to them, it interrupts work flow.

Susan Hakes, MHA, director of hospital administration at the Guthrie Clinic in Ithaca, N.Y., said that when a patient recently asked for a “white” doctor and there was not one available at the time of the request, the patient changed her mind when costs were considered.

“I was willing to have this patient transferred to another one of our hospitals that did have a white doctor, but it would have been at her expense since insurance wouldn’t cover the ambulance ride,” Ms. Hakes said. “She had second thoughts after learning that.”

Ms. Hakes said that the broader community in her region – which is predominantly white – needs to adapt to a changing health care scene.

“We’re recruiting international nurses now, due to the nursing shortage,” she said. “It will serve our community well to be receptive and welcome this additional resource.”

Kunal P. Bhagat, MD, chief of hospital medicine at Christiana Care Health System in Newark, Del., said that medical centers should set parameters for action when a patient discriminates, but that clinicians should not expect to fundamentally change a patient’s mindset.

In the fall of 2016, Hyma Polimera, MD, a hospitalist at Penn State Health in Hershey, Pa., approached the bedside of a patient with dementia and several other chronic conditions, and introduced herself to him and his family.

The patient’s daughter, who had power of attorney, took one look at Dr. Polimera and told her, “I’d like to see an American doctor.” Dr. Polimera is originally from India, but moved to Europe in 2005 and did her residency in Pennsylvania. She stayed calm and confident – she understood that she had done nothing wrong – but didn’t really know what to do next. All of the other hospitalists on the ward at the time were nonwhite and were also rejected by the patient’s daughter.

“I was wondering what was going to happen and who would provide care to this patient?” she said.

Dr. Polimera is far from alone. Nonwhite physicians, nurses, and other health care providers say they increasingly encounter patients who demand that only “white” health professionals take care of them. The number of these reassignment requests has ticked upward in the last few years, they say, coinciding with the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign and the subsequent election of Donald Trump.

The requests often come at medical centers with no policy in place for how to deal with them. And the unpleasant encounters find providers unprepared for how to respond, not knowing whether or how to resolve the situation with patients and their families. Clinicians sometimes wonder whether they are allowed to care for a patient even if they are willing to do so, and how to go about reassigning a patient to another clinician if that is the choice that the family makes.

To many hospitalists working in the field, it seems obvious that such situations are encouraged by a political environment in which discriminatory beliefs – once considered shameful to express publicly – are now deemed acceptable, even in health care encounters. Indeed, the health care encounter is perhaps the only time some patients will find themselves in intimate interactions with people of other ethnicities.
 

Responding to discrimination

A workshop at the 2019 Society of Hospital Medicine Annual Conference offered hospitalists an opportunity to discuss encounters with patients who expressed discriminatory attitudes. One physician, of South Asian descent, said that she had encountered no reassignment requests rooted in racial intolerance over more than a decade of work, but has encountered several in the last year or two.

Sabrina Chaklos, MD, a hospitalist at Burlington, Mass.–based Lahey Hospital & Medical Center and clinical assistant professor at Tufts University, said she has had a similar experience.

“It was blatantly bad behavior for 2018,” she said. Dr. Chaklos said she and other clinicians of color have been told, “I want an American doctor,” and that some patients see her darker complexion and conclude, “You must not be an American.”

Given the charged political environment since 2016, some medical facilities have been adapting how they respond to these comments and requests.

“The policy of the organization prior to 2016 was to give patients a new doctor,” Dr. Chaklos said. “Within the past year or so, they’re finally allowing people to say, ‘Look, you cannot just pick and choose your doctor,’ based on arbitrary reasons that are discriminatory in nature.”

Emily Whitgob, MD, MEd, a developmental-behavioral pediatrician at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, Calif., said that, several years ago, a scenario unfolded that led her to study the issue. An intern she was overseeing told her that the father of a pediatric patient had scrutinized the intern’s name tag and said, “Is that a Jewish last name? I don’t want a Jewish doctor.”

“I didn’t know what to do,” Dr. Whitgob said. Later, she brought up the situation at a meeting of 30 staff members. It led to an outpouring of sharing about similar incidents that other clinicians had experienced but had never talked about with colleagues.

“Half the room, by the end, was in tears talking about their experiences,” Dr. Whitgob said.

Since then, she has led research into how physicians typically handle such situations, performing semistructured interviews to survey pediatricians about their experiences with patients who discriminate on racial and ethnic grounds.

One important step, she said, is assessing the acuity of the illness involved to help determine whether the transfer of a patient from one provider to another should even be considered. In a dire situation, or when the physician involved is the foremost expert on a given condition, it might not be realistic.

Dr. Whitgob said some clinicians advocated cultivating a kind of alliance with the parents of pediatric patients, informing them that they’re part of a team that interacts with many types of providers, and redirecting them to focus on their child’s care.

“This takes time, and in a busy setting, that might not happen,” she acknowledged.

Physicians surveyed also said they try to depersonalize the uncomfortable encounter, remembering that discrimination is often motivated by a patient’s fears and a lack of control.

An important consideration, researchers found, was ensuring a safe learning environment for trainees, telling patients they would trust the physician with the care of their own children, escalating a complaint to hospital administration when appropriate, and empowering trainees to choose the next step in a situation.

Dr. Whitgob said that handling a reassignment request based on discriminatory sentiments is not as easy as “calling out ‘Code Bigotry.’ ”

“It’s not that simple,” Dr. Whitgob said. “There’s not going to be a one-size-fits-all or even a one-size-fits-most solution. Each case is an individual case.”
 

Taking action

Penn State Health is based in Hershey, Pa., a city that tends to vote Democratic in local and national elections but is encircled by Republican-leaning counties. Dr. Polimera’s encounter with her patient’s daughter led to changes in the way the health system handles encounters like hers.

When Dr. Polimera explained the situation to physician leadership, she was asked whether she was still comfortable taking care of the patient, and she said yes. The physician leaders informed the family that they could not change providers simply because of ethnicity. But that was just the first step.

Ultimately, the health system undertook a survey of all its health care providers, to determine whether others had similar experiences with patients or families, and had to deal with rude comments or were rejected as caregivers based on their race, gender, or religion.

“The feedback we received was massive and detailed,” Dr. Polimera said.

Brian McGillen, MD, section chief of hospital medicine and associate professor in the department of medicine at Penn State Health, said physician leaders took the survey results to the dean’s executive council, a who’s-who of medical leadership at the health system.

“I read aloud to the executive council what our folks were facing out on the floors,” Dr. McGillen said. “And I was halfway through my third story when the dean threw his hands up in the air and said, ‘We have to do something.’ ”

As a result, the health system’s policy on patient responsibility was changed to protect all health care providers from threats, violence, disrespectful communication, or harassment by patients, families, and other visitors. Before the change, the policy covered only discriminatory acts by patients themselves.

Penn State Health is now embarking on a training program for faculty, residents, and students that uses simulations of common hospital encounters. The health system also is engaging its patient relations staff to help mediate patient reassignment requests, and is trying to increase real-time debriefing of these events to further improve awareness and training.

Dr. McGillen noted that researchers at the University of North Texas, using data from the Anti-Defamation League, found that counties in which President Trump held campaign rallies – such as Dauphin County, Pa., where Hershey is located – had a 226% increase in hate crimes in the months after the rallies.

“This isn’t to say that every county and every person in these counties that voted for Mr. Trump is racist, but we surely know that his campaign unlocked an undercurrent of political incorrectness that has existed for ages,” he said. “We had to do something as an organization.”
 

Adapting to change

While some health systems are acting to limit the harm caused by discrimination, there is still much awareness to be raised and work to be done on this issue nationally. Some hospitalists at the 2019 SHM Annual Conference said they suspect that discriminatory incidents involving patients are still so underreported that the C-suite leaders at their hospitals do not recognize how serious a problem it is. Attendees at the HM19 workshop said discriminatory behavior by patients could affect hospitalist turnover and lead to burnout.

Multiple hospitalists at the workshop said that if a transfer of a patient is going to take place – if the patient requests a “white” doctor and there is not one available where the patient is admitted – they are unsure whether it is their responsibility to make the necessary phone calls. Some hospitalists say that if that job does fall to them, it interrupts work flow.

Susan Hakes, MHA, director of hospital administration at the Guthrie Clinic in Ithaca, N.Y., said that when a patient recently asked for a “white” doctor and there was not one available at the time of the request, the patient changed her mind when costs were considered.

“I was willing to have this patient transferred to another one of our hospitals that did have a white doctor, but it would have been at her expense since insurance wouldn’t cover the ambulance ride,” Ms. Hakes said. “She had second thoughts after learning that.”

Ms. Hakes said that the broader community in her region – which is predominantly white – needs to adapt to a changing health care scene.

“We’re recruiting international nurses now, due to the nursing shortage,” she said. “It will serve our community well to be receptive and welcome this additional resource.”

Kunal P. Bhagat, MD, chief of hospital medicine at Christiana Care Health System in Newark, Del., said that medical centers should set parameters for action when a patient discriminates, but that clinicians should not expect to fundamentally change a patient’s mindset.

In the fall of 2016, Hyma Polimera, MD, a hospitalist at Penn State Health in Hershey, Pa., approached the bedside of a patient with dementia and several other chronic conditions, and introduced herself to him and his family.

The patient’s daughter, who had power of attorney, took one look at Dr. Polimera and told her, “I’d like to see an American doctor.” Dr. Polimera is originally from India, but moved to Europe in 2005 and did her residency in Pennsylvania. She stayed calm and confident – she understood that she had done nothing wrong – but didn’t really know what to do next. All of the other hospitalists on the ward at the time were nonwhite and were also rejected by the patient’s daughter.

“I was wondering what was going to happen and who would provide care to this patient?” she said.

Dr. Polimera is far from alone. Nonwhite physicians, nurses, and other health care providers say they increasingly encounter patients who demand that only “white” health professionals take care of them. The number of these reassignment requests has ticked upward in the last few years, they say, coinciding with the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign and the subsequent election of Donald Trump.

The requests often come at medical centers with no policy in place for how to deal with them. And the unpleasant encounters find providers unprepared for how to respond, not knowing whether or how to resolve the situation with patients and their families. Clinicians sometimes wonder whether they are allowed to care for a patient even if they are willing to do so, and how to go about reassigning a patient to another clinician if that is the choice that the family makes.

To many hospitalists working in the field, it seems obvious that such situations are encouraged by a political environment in which discriminatory beliefs – once considered shameful to express publicly – are now deemed acceptable, even in health care encounters. Indeed, the health care encounter is perhaps the only time some patients will find themselves in intimate interactions with people of other ethnicities.
 

Responding to discrimination

A workshop at the 2019 Society of Hospital Medicine Annual Conference offered hospitalists an opportunity to discuss encounters with patients who expressed discriminatory attitudes. One physician, of South Asian descent, said that she had encountered no reassignment requests rooted in racial intolerance over more than a decade of work, but has encountered several in the last year or two.

Sabrina Chaklos, MD, a hospitalist at Burlington, Mass.–based Lahey Hospital & Medical Center and clinical assistant professor at Tufts University, said she has had a similar experience.

“It was blatantly bad behavior for 2018,” she said. Dr. Chaklos said she and other clinicians of color have been told, “I want an American doctor,” and that some patients see her darker complexion and conclude, “You must not be an American.”

Given the charged political environment since 2016, some medical facilities have been adapting how they respond to these comments and requests.

“The policy of the organization prior to 2016 was to give patients a new doctor,” Dr. Chaklos said. “Within the past year or so, they’re finally allowing people to say, ‘Look, you cannot just pick and choose your doctor,’ based on arbitrary reasons that are discriminatory in nature.”

Emily Whitgob, MD, MEd, a developmental-behavioral pediatrician at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, Calif., said that, several years ago, a scenario unfolded that led her to study the issue. An intern she was overseeing told her that the father of a pediatric patient had scrutinized the intern’s name tag and said, “Is that a Jewish last name? I don’t want a Jewish doctor.”

“I didn’t know what to do,” Dr. Whitgob said. Later, she brought up the situation at a meeting of 30 staff members. It led to an outpouring of sharing about similar incidents that other clinicians had experienced but had never talked about with colleagues.

“Half the room, by the end, was in tears talking about their experiences,” Dr. Whitgob said.

Since then, she has led research into how physicians typically handle such situations, performing semistructured interviews to survey pediatricians about their experiences with patients who discriminate on racial and ethnic grounds.

One important step, she said, is assessing the acuity of the illness involved to help determine whether the transfer of a patient from one provider to another should even be considered. In a dire situation, or when the physician involved is the foremost expert on a given condition, it might not be realistic.

Dr. Whitgob said some clinicians advocated cultivating a kind of alliance with the parents of pediatric patients, informing them that they’re part of a team that interacts with many types of providers, and redirecting them to focus on their child’s care.

“This takes time, and in a busy setting, that might not happen,” she acknowledged.

Physicians surveyed also said they try to depersonalize the uncomfortable encounter, remembering that discrimination is often motivated by a patient’s fears and a lack of control.

An important consideration, researchers found, was ensuring a safe learning environment for trainees, telling patients they would trust the physician with the care of their own children, escalating a complaint to hospital administration when appropriate, and empowering trainees to choose the next step in a situation.

Dr. Whitgob said that handling a reassignment request based on discriminatory sentiments is not as easy as “calling out ‘Code Bigotry.’ ”

“It’s not that simple,” Dr. Whitgob said. “There’s not going to be a one-size-fits-all or even a one-size-fits-most solution. Each case is an individual case.”
 

Taking action

Penn State Health is based in Hershey, Pa., a city that tends to vote Democratic in local and national elections but is encircled by Republican-leaning counties. Dr. Polimera’s encounter with her patient’s daughter led to changes in the way the health system handles encounters like hers.

When Dr. Polimera explained the situation to physician leadership, she was asked whether she was still comfortable taking care of the patient, and she said yes. The physician leaders informed the family that they could not change providers simply because of ethnicity. But that was just the first step.

Ultimately, the health system undertook a survey of all its health care providers, to determine whether others had similar experiences with patients or families, and had to deal with rude comments or were rejected as caregivers based on their race, gender, or religion.

“The feedback we received was massive and detailed,” Dr. Polimera said.

Brian McGillen, MD, section chief of hospital medicine and associate professor in the department of medicine at Penn State Health, said physician leaders took the survey results to the dean’s executive council, a who’s-who of medical leadership at the health system.

“I read aloud to the executive council what our folks were facing out on the floors,” Dr. McGillen said. “And I was halfway through my third story when the dean threw his hands up in the air and said, ‘We have to do something.’ ”

As a result, the health system’s policy on patient responsibility was changed to protect all health care providers from threats, violence, disrespectful communication, or harassment by patients, families, and other visitors. Before the change, the policy covered only discriminatory acts by patients themselves.

Penn State Health is now embarking on a training program for faculty, residents, and students that uses simulations of common hospital encounters. The health system also is engaging its patient relations staff to help mediate patient reassignment requests, and is trying to increase real-time debriefing of these events to further improve awareness and training.

Dr. McGillen noted that researchers at the University of North Texas, using data from the Anti-Defamation League, found that counties in which President Trump held campaign rallies – such as Dauphin County, Pa., where Hershey is located – had a 226% increase in hate crimes in the months after the rallies.

“This isn’t to say that every county and every person in these counties that voted for Mr. Trump is racist, but we surely know that his campaign unlocked an undercurrent of political incorrectness that has existed for ages,” he said. “We had to do something as an organization.”
 

Adapting to change

While some health systems are acting to limit the harm caused by discrimination, there is still much awareness to be raised and work to be done on this issue nationally. Some hospitalists at the 2019 SHM Annual Conference said they suspect that discriminatory incidents involving patients are still so underreported that the C-suite leaders at their hospitals do not recognize how serious a problem it is. Attendees at the HM19 workshop said discriminatory behavior by patients could affect hospitalist turnover and lead to burnout.

Multiple hospitalists at the workshop said that if a transfer of a patient is going to take place – if the patient requests a “white” doctor and there is not one available where the patient is admitted – they are unsure whether it is their responsibility to make the necessary phone calls. Some hospitalists say that if that job does fall to them, it interrupts work flow.

Susan Hakes, MHA, director of hospital administration at the Guthrie Clinic in Ithaca, N.Y., said that when a patient recently asked for a “white” doctor and there was not one available at the time of the request, the patient changed her mind when costs were considered.

“I was willing to have this patient transferred to another one of our hospitals that did have a white doctor, but it would have been at her expense since insurance wouldn’t cover the ambulance ride,” Ms. Hakes said. “She had second thoughts after learning that.”

Ms. Hakes said that the broader community in her region – which is predominantly white – needs to adapt to a changing health care scene.

“We’re recruiting international nurses now, due to the nursing shortage,” she said. “It will serve our community well to be receptive and welcome this additional resource.”

Kunal P. Bhagat, MD, chief of hospital medicine at Christiana Care Health System in Newark, Del., said that medical centers should set parameters for action when a patient discriminates, but that clinicians should not expect to fundamentally change a patient’s mindset.

A new study has reinforced the link between anorexia nervosa and reduced bone mineral density (BMD), especially in patients with lower body mass index.

“Our large study raises further concerns that [anorexia nervosa] has significant deleterious effects on BMD,” wrote Cassandra Workman, MD, of the Eating Recovery Center in Denver and coauthors. The study was published in Bone.

To determine the degree of low BMD in patients with certain severe eating disorders, the researchers reviewed the medical records of 336 patients with either anorexia nervosa–restricting subtype (AN-R) or anorexia nervosa–binge/purge subtype (AN-BP) who had been admitted to a treatment facility in Denver. Bone density was assessed using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, with osteopenia being diagnosed for an average BMD z score between –1.0 and –2.0 and osteoporosis being diagnosed for an average BMD z score of less than –2.0. The average age of the patients was 27 years (standard deviation, 9.12; range, 18-69), and 91% (n = 305) were women.

Across the sample, the average BMD z score was –1.67 (SD, 1.21), and 43.5% of the sample met the established criteria for low BMD.

Patients with AN-R had slightly lower z scores (–1.79; SD, 1.31), compared with patients with AN-BP (–1.54; SD, 1.08; P = .06), but the severity of osteoporosis was greater in patients with AN-R, compared with patients with AN-BP (chi-square, 7.40; P less than .01). Lower body mass index topped both anorexia nervosa subtype and duration of illness as a predictor of low BMD and probable osteoporosis (P less than .001).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the use of retrospective data from the patient charts, which did not allow for assessment of follow-up improvements or longer-term effects. In addition, they noted that extrapolation of their findings may be problematic because all the patients were from a single site and the data might be representative of “a more ill population than a true cross section of the eating disorder population.”

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Workman C et al. Bone. 2019 Nov 23. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2019.115161.

A new study has reinforced the link between anorexia nervosa and reduced bone mineral density (BMD), especially in patients with lower body mass index.

“Our large study raises further concerns that [anorexia nervosa] has significant deleterious effects on BMD,” wrote Cassandra Workman, MD, of the Eating Recovery Center in Denver and coauthors. The study was published in Bone.

To determine the degree of low BMD in patients with certain severe eating disorders, the researchers reviewed the medical records of 336 patients with either anorexia nervosa–restricting subtype (AN-R) or anorexia nervosa–binge/purge subtype (AN-BP) who had been admitted to a treatment facility in Denver. Bone density was assessed using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, with osteopenia being diagnosed for an average BMD z score between –1.0 and –2.0 and osteoporosis being diagnosed for an average BMD z score of less than –2.0. The average age of the patients was 27 years (standard deviation, 9.12; range, 18-69), and 91% (n = 305) were women.

Across the sample, the average BMD z score was –1.67 (SD, 1.21), and 43.5% of the sample met the established criteria for low BMD.

Patients with AN-R had slightly lower z scores (–1.79; SD, 1.31), compared with patients with AN-BP (–1.54; SD, 1.08; P = .06), but the severity of osteoporosis was greater in patients with AN-R, compared with patients with AN-BP (chi-square, 7.40; P less than .01). Lower body mass index topped both anorexia nervosa subtype and duration of illness as a predictor of low BMD and probable osteoporosis (P less than .001).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the use of retrospective data from the patient charts, which did not allow for assessment of follow-up improvements or longer-term effects. In addition, they noted that extrapolation of their findings may be problematic because all the patients were from a single site and the data might be representative of “a more ill population than a true cross section of the eating disorder population.”

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Workman C et al. Bone. 2019 Nov 23. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2019.115161.

A new study has reinforced the link between anorexia nervosa and reduced bone mineral density (BMD), especially in patients with lower body mass index.

“Our large study raises further concerns that [anorexia nervosa] has significant deleterious effects on BMD,” wrote Cassandra Workman, MD, of the Eating Recovery Center in Denver and coauthors. The study was published in Bone.

To determine the degree of low BMD in patients with certain severe eating disorders, the researchers reviewed the medical records of 336 patients with either anorexia nervosa–restricting subtype (AN-R) or anorexia nervosa–binge/purge subtype (AN-BP) who had been admitted to a treatment facility in Denver. Bone density was assessed using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, with osteopenia being diagnosed for an average BMD z score between –1.0 and –2.0 and osteoporosis being diagnosed for an average BMD z score of less than –2.0. The average age of the patients was 27 years (standard deviation, 9.12; range, 18-69), and 91% (n = 305) were women.

Across the sample, the average BMD z score was –1.67 (SD, 1.21), and 43.5% of the sample met the established criteria for low BMD.

Patients with AN-R had slightly lower z scores (–1.79; SD, 1.31), compared with patients with AN-BP (–1.54; SD, 1.08; P = .06), but the severity of osteoporosis was greater in patients with AN-R, compared with patients with AN-BP (chi-square, 7.40; P less than .01). Lower body mass index topped both anorexia nervosa subtype and duration of illness as a predictor of low BMD and probable osteoporosis (P less than .001).

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the use of retrospective data from the patient charts, which did not allow for assessment of follow-up improvements or longer-term effects. In addition, they noted that extrapolation of their findings may be problematic because all the patients were from a single site and the data might be representative of “a more ill population than a true cross section of the eating disorder population.”

The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Workman C et al. Bone. 2019 Nov 23. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2019.115161.

Propst K, Mellen C, O’Sullivan DM, et al. Timing of office-based pessary care: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Dec 5. Doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003580.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Vaginal pessaries are a common and effective approach for managing pelvic organ prolapse (POP) as well as stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Vaginal mucosal erosions, however, may complicate pessary use. The risk for erosions may be associated with the frequency of pessary change, which involves removing the pessary, washing it, and replacing it in the vagina. Existing data do not address the frequency of pessary change. Recently, however, investigators conducted a randomized noninferiority trial to evaluate the effect of pessary visit intervals on the development of vaginal epithelial abnormalities.

Details of the study

At a single US hospital, Propst and colleagues randomly assigned women who used pessaries for POP, SUI, or both to routine pessary care (offices visits every 12 weeks) or to extended interval pessary care (office visits every 24 weeks). The women used ring, incontinence dish, or Gelhorn pessaries, did not change their pessaries on their own, and had no vaginal mucosal abnormalities.

A total of 130 women were randomly assigned, 64 to the routine care group and 66 to the extended interval care group. The mean age was 79 years and 90% were white, 4.6% were black, and 4% were Hispanic. Approximately 74% of the women used vaginal estrogen.

The primary outcome was the rate of vaginal epithelial abnormalities, including epithelial breaks or erosions. The predetermined noninferiority margin was set at 7.5%.

Results. At the 48-week follow-up, the rate of epithelial erosion was 7.4% in the routine care group and 1.7% in the extended interval care group, thus meeting the prespecified criteria for noninferiority of extended interval pessary care.

Women in each care group reported a similar amount of bothersome vaginal discharge. This was reported on a 5-point scale, with higher numbers indicating greater degree of bother. The mean scores were 1.39 in the routine care group and 1.34 in the extended interval care group. No other pessary-related adverse events occurred in either care group.

Study strengths and limitations

This trial provides good evidence that the timing of office pessary care can be extended to 24 weeks without compromising outcomes. However, since nearly three-quarters of the study participants used vaginal estrogen, the results may not be applicable to pessary users who do not use vaginal estrogen.

Propst K, Mellen C, O’Sullivan DM, et al. Timing of office-based pessary care: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Dec 5. Doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003580.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Vaginal pessaries are a common and effective approach for managing pelvic organ prolapse (POP) as well as stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Vaginal mucosal erosions, however, may complicate pessary use. The risk for erosions may be associated with the frequency of pessary change, which involves removing the pessary, washing it, and replacing it in the vagina. Existing data do not address the frequency of pessary change. Recently, however, investigators conducted a randomized noninferiority trial to evaluate the effect of pessary visit intervals on the development of vaginal epithelial abnormalities.

Details of the study

At a single US hospital, Propst and colleagues randomly assigned women who used pessaries for POP, SUI, or both to routine pessary care (offices visits every 12 weeks) or to extended interval pessary care (office visits every 24 weeks). The women used ring, incontinence dish, or Gelhorn pessaries, did not change their pessaries on their own, and had no vaginal mucosal abnormalities.

A total of 130 women were randomly assigned, 64 to the routine care group and 66 to the extended interval care group. The mean age was 79 years and 90% were white, 4.6% were black, and 4% were Hispanic. Approximately 74% of the women used vaginal estrogen.

The primary outcome was the rate of vaginal epithelial abnormalities, including epithelial breaks or erosions. The predetermined noninferiority margin was set at 7.5%.

Results. At the 48-week follow-up, the rate of epithelial erosion was 7.4% in the routine care group and 1.7% in the extended interval care group, thus meeting the prespecified criteria for noninferiority of extended interval pessary care.

Women in each care group reported a similar amount of bothersome vaginal discharge. This was reported on a 5-point scale, with higher numbers indicating greater degree of bother. The mean scores were 1.39 in the routine care group and 1.34 in the extended interval care group. No other pessary-related adverse events occurred in either care group.

Study strengths and limitations

This trial provides good evidence that the timing of office pessary care can be extended to 24 weeks without compromising outcomes. However, since nearly three-quarters of the study participants used vaginal estrogen, the results may not be applicable to pessary users who do not use vaginal estrogen.

Propst K, Mellen C, O’Sullivan DM, et al. Timing of office-based pessary care: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Dec 5. Doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003580.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Vaginal pessaries are a common and effective approach for managing pelvic organ prolapse (POP) as well as stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Vaginal mucosal erosions, however, may complicate pessary use. The risk for erosions may be associated with the frequency of pessary change, which involves removing the pessary, washing it, and replacing it in the vagina. Existing data do not address the frequency of pessary change. Recently, however, investigators conducted a randomized noninferiority trial to evaluate the effect of pessary visit intervals on the development of vaginal epithelial abnormalities.

Details of the study

At a single US hospital, Propst and colleagues randomly assigned women who used pessaries for POP, SUI, or both to routine pessary care (offices visits every 12 weeks) or to extended interval pessary care (office visits every 24 weeks). The women used ring, incontinence dish, or Gelhorn pessaries, did not change their pessaries on their own, and had no vaginal mucosal abnormalities.

A total of 130 women were randomly assigned, 64 to the routine care group and 66 to the extended interval care group. The mean age was 79 years and 90% were white, 4.6% were black, and 4% were Hispanic. Approximately 74% of the women used vaginal estrogen.

The primary outcome was the rate of vaginal epithelial abnormalities, including epithelial breaks or erosions. The predetermined noninferiority margin was set at 7.5%.

Results. At the 48-week follow-up, the rate of epithelial erosion was 7.4% in the routine care group and 1.7% in the extended interval care group, thus meeting the prespecified criteria for noninferiority of extended interval pessary care.

Women in each care group reported a similar amount of bothersome vaginal discharge. This was reported on a 5-point scale, with higher numbers indicating greater degree of bother. The mean scores were 1.39 in the routine care group and 1.34 in the extended interval care group. No other pessary-related adverse events occurred in either care group.

Study strengths and limitations

This trial provides good evidence that the timing of office pessary care can be extended to 24 weeks without compromising outcomes. However, since nearly three-quarters of the study participants used vaginal estrogen, the results may not be applicable to pessary users who do not use vaginal estrogen.

Physicians may soon have another tool to help patients deal with pain: virtual reality (VR) therapy. A New York Times article earlier this year described this new treatment option and the way immersive VR experiences seem to crowd pain sensations out of the brain.

copyright pixologicstudio/thinkstockphotos.com

Jeffrey I. Gold, PhD, director of the Children’s Outcomes, Research, and Evaluation program at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, told the newspaper that VR was “like an endogenous narcotic providing a physiological and chemical burst that causes you to feel good.”

So far, VR has been most successfully used in cases of acute pain. “But it can also enhance the effectiveness of established techniques like physical therapy, hypnosis and cognitive behavioral therapy to treat debilitating chronic pain,” the New York Times reported.

“Using VR as an adjunct, we can teach coping skills, techniques patients can use on their own that will help diminish chronic pain,” said Hunter Hoffman, PhD, principal investigator at the Human Photonics Laboratory of the University of Washington, Seattle. “Learning changes the brain and gives patients something that continues to work when they take the helmet off. When patients realize their pain isn’t inevitable, they’re more receptive to doing physical therapy exercises and more likely to move on their own.”

Others with experience in VR say the technique can foster mindfulness, which teaches the mind how to quiet the body and nervous system through breathing.

Pilot studies of VR and pain management are underway, and software companies are developing programs that create therapeutic VR environments.

Reference

1. “Virtual Reality as Therapy for Pain.” Jane E. Brody, New York Times. 2019 Apr 29. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/29/well/live/virtual-reality-as-therapy-for-pain.html.

Physicians may soon have another tool to help patients deal with pain: virtual reality (VR) therapy. A New York Times article earlier this year described this new treatment option and the way immersive VR experiences seem to crowd pain sensations out of the brain.

copyright pixologicstudio/thinkstockphotos.com

Jeffrey I. Gold, PhD, director of the Children’s Outcomes, Research, and Evaluation program at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, told the newspaper that VR was “like an endogenous narcotic providing a physiological and chemical burst that causes you to feel good.”

So far, VR has been most successfully used in cases of acute pain. “But it can also enhance the effectiveness of established techniques like physical therapy, hypnosis and cognitive behavioral therapy to treat debilitating chronic pain,” the New York Times reported.

“Using VR as an adjunct, we can teach coping skills, techniques patients can use on their own that will help diminish chronic pain,” said Hunter Hoffman, PhD, principal investigator at the Human Photonics Laboratory of the University of Washington, Seattle. “Learning changes the brain and gives patients something that continues to work when they take the helmet off. When patients realize their pain isn’t inevitable, they’re more receptive to doing physical therapy exercises and more likely to move on their own.”

Others with experience in VR say the technique can foster mindfulness, which teaches the mind how to quiet the body and nervous system through breathing.

Pilot studies of VR and pain management are underway, and software companies are developing programs that create therapeutic VR environments.

Reference

1. “Virtual Reality as Therapy for Pain.” Jane E. Brody, New York Times. 2019 Apr 29. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/29/well/live/virtual-reality-as-therapy-for-pain.html.

Physicians may soon have another tool to help patients deal with pain: virtual reality (VR) therapy. A New York Times article earlier this year described this new treatment option and the way immersive VR experiences seem to crowd pain sensations out of the brain.

copyright pixologicstudio/thinkstockphotos.com

Jeffrey I. Gold, PhD, director of the Children’s Outcomes, Research, and Evaluation program at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, told the newspaper that VR was “like an endogenous narcotic providing a physiological and chemical burst that causes you to feel good.”

So far, VR has been most successfully used in cases of acute pain. “But it can also enhance the effectiveness of established techniques like physical therapy, hypnosis and cognitive behavioral therapy to treat debilitating chronic pain,” the New York Times reported.

“Using VR as an adjunct, we can teach coping skills, techniques patients can use on their own that will help diminish chronic pain,” said Hunter Hoffman, PhD, principal investigator at the Human Photonics Laboratory of the University of Washington, Seattle. “Learning changes the brain and gives patients something that continues to work when they take the helmet off. When patients realize their pain isn’t inevitable, they’re more receptive to doing physical therapy exercises and more likely to move on their own.”

Others with experience in VR say the technique can foster mindfulness, which teaches the mind how to quiet the body and nervous system through breathing.

Pilot studies of VR and pain management are underway, and software companies are developing programs that create therapeutic VR environments.

Reference

1. “Virtual Reality as Therapy for Pain.” Jane E. Brody, New York Times. 2019 Apr 29. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/29/well/live/virtual-reality-as-therapy-for-pain.html.

LAS VEGAS – Pay close attention to the urinary system with an eye toward spotting injuries and repairing them – but when the time is appropriate, John B. Gebhart, MD, MS, urged.

You don’t need to stop a procedure to fix a bladder injury. Rather, mark the spot with a suture, finish what you are doing, then come back and fix the bladder injury, he advised.

“We need to be thinking [of the]urinary tract all the time in the procedures that we’re doing,” Dr. Gebhart, a urogynecologist and reconstructive pelvic surgeon from the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn, said at the Pelvic Anatomy and Gynecologic Surgery Symposium.

“Can you look at the bladder and see that it’s intact, that ureters are functioning like they should? You don’t need to have the skill set to place stents, but you should be able to look in and know you’re okay leaving the operating room,” he said.

According to Dr. Gebhart, urethral injuries can occur in these procedures: anterior repair, cystoscopy, midurethral sling, and treatment of diverticulitis or Skene’s duct abscess.

He offered these tips about urethral injuries:

• Use catheters, dyes, and urethroscopy to reveal injuries. “Putting in a catheter is great because it helps you identify injury because you can visually see it,” he said. “We can squirt some dye in the urethra and see if it’s leaking out. We can put in a zero-degree scope and do urethroscopy.”
• Consider linking multiple holes in the urethra. “Don’t make individual repairs,” he said. “Connect the holes, making them into one hole that you can fix in one setting.”
• Check your repairs for leakage. “I might take a little indigo carmine or methylene blue in a little [angiocatheter], squirt it down the urethra, and see if I’ve got anything leaking out from my repair site,” he said. “If I do, then I want to go back and repair that so that I’ve got a watertight closure.”
• Consider a catheter after repair. “If you do a repair, you want to place a catheter at the end of the splint in the urethra for 7 to 10 to 14 days to help prevent stricture afterwards.”

Dr. Gebhart also discussed bladder injuries, which he said can occur in anterior repair, cystoscopy, hysterectomy, midurethral slings, sacrocolpopexy, and other procedures.

He offered these tips:

• Use bladder backfilling to detect injury. “We can backfill the bladder with the little methylene blue stain–normal saline to help identify whether you’ve got a leak or an injury,” he said. “[Cystogram] can also be very helpful as well.”
• Don’t stop a hysterectomy to fix a bladder injury. “Mark the hole with a suture, finish the hysterectomy and get it out of the way, then come back and fix the hole in the bladder,” Dr. Gebhart said.
• After repair, drain the bladder with a catheter for 10-14 days. “You’re always better draining through a catheter a little longer than pulling the catheter too soon, putting a stretch on the bladder, and maybe compromising your repair,” he said.

He recommended performing a quick cystogram before pulling the catheter to make sure there’s no leak.

Dr. Gebhart disclosed consultant (Hologic) and advisory board (UroCure) relationships and royalties (UpToDate, Elsevier).

This meeting was jointly provided by Global Academy for Medical Education and the University of Cincinnati. Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same company.

LAS VEGAS – Pay close attention to the urinary system with an eye toward spotting injuries and repairing them – but when the time is appropriate, John B. Gebhart, MD, MS, urged.

You don’t need to stop a procedure to fix a bladder injury. Rather, mark the spot with a suture, finish what you are doing, then come back and fix the bladder injury, he advised.

“We need to be thinking [of the]urinary tract all the time in the procedures that we’re doing,” Dr. Gebhart, a urogynecologist and reconstructive pelvic surgeon from the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn, said at the Pelvic Anatomy and Gynecologic Surgery Symposium.

“Can you look at the bladder and see that it’s intact, that ureters are functioning like they should? You don’t need to have the skill set to place stents, but you should be able to look in and know you’re okay leaving the operating room,” he said.

According to Dr. Gebhart, urethral injuries can occur in these procedures: anterior repair, cystoscopy, midurethral sling, and treatment of diverticulitis or Skene’s duct abscess.

He offered these tips about urethral injuries:

• Use catheters, dyes, and urethroscopy to reveal injuries. “Putting in a catheter is great because it helps you identify injury because you can visually see it,” he said. “We can squirt some dye in the urethra and see if it’s leaking out. We can put in a zero-degree scope and do urethroscopy.”
• Consider linking multiple holes in the urethra. “Don’t make individual repairs,” he said. “Connect the holes, making them into one hole that you can fix in one setting.”
• Check your repairs for leakage. “I might take a little indigo carmine or methylene blue in a little [angiocatheter], squirt it down the urethra, and see if I’ve got anything leaking out from my repair site,” he said. “If I do, then I want to go back and repair that so that I’ve got a watertight closure.”
• Consider a catheter after repair. “If you do a repair, you want to place a catheter at the end of the splint in the urethra for 7 to 10 to 14 days to help prevent stricture afterwards.”

Dr. Gebhart also discussed bladder injuries, which he said can occur in anterior repair, cystoscopy, hysterectomy, midurethral slings, sacrocolpopexy, and other procedures.

He offered these tips:

• Use bladder backfilling to detect injury. “We can backfill the bladder with the little methylene blue stain–normal saline to help identify whether you’ve got a leak or an injury,” he said. “[Cystogram] can also be very helpful as well.”
• Don’t stop a hysterectomy to fix a bladder injury. “Mark the hole with a suture, finish the hysterectomy and get it out of the way, then come back and fix the hole in the bladder,” Dr. Gebhart said.
• After repair, drain the bladder with a catheter for 10-14 days. “You’re always better draining through a catheter a little longer than pulling the catheter too soon, putting a stretch on the bladder, and maybe compromising your repair,” he said.

He recommended performing a quick cystogram before pulling the catheter to make sure there’s no leak.

Dr. Gebhart disclosed consultant (Hologic) and advisory board (UroCure) relationships and royalties (UpToDate, Elsevier).

This meeting was jointly provided by Global Academy for Medical Education and the University of Cincinnati. Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same company.

LAS VEGAS – Pay close attention to the urinary system with an eye toward spotting injuries and repairing them – but when the time is appropriate, John B. Gebhart, MD, MS, urged.

You don’t need to stop a procedure to fix a bladder injury. Rather, mark the spot with a suture, finish what you are doing, then come back and fix the bladder injury, he advised.

“We need to be thinking [of the]urinary tract all the time in the procedures that we’re doing,” Dr. Gebhart, a urogynecologist and reconstructive pelvic surgeon from the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn, said at the Pelvic Anatomy and Gynecologic Surgery Symposium.

“Can you look at the bladder and see that it’s intact, that ureters are functioning like they should? You don’t need to have the skill set to place stents, but you should be able to look in and know you’re okay leaving the operating room,” he said.

According to Dr. Gebhart, urethral injuries can occur in these procedures: anterior repair, cystoscopy, midurethral sling, and treatment of diverticulitis or Skene’s duct abscess.

He offered these tips about urethral injuries:

• Use catheters, dyes, and urethroscopy to reveal injuries. “Putting in a catheter is great because it helps you identify injury because you can visually see it,” he said. “We can squirt some dye in the urethra and see if it’s leaking out. We can put in a zero-degree scope and do urethroscopy.”
• Consider linking multiple holes in the urethra. “Don’t make individual repairs,” he said. “Connect the holes, making them into one hole that you can fix in one setting.”
• Check your repairs for leakage. “I might take a little indigo carmine or methylene blue in a little [angiocatheter], squirt it down the urethra, and see if I’ve got anything leaking out from my repair site,” he said. “If I do, then I want to go back and repair that so that I’ve got a watertight closure.”
• Consider a catheter after repair. “If you do a repair, you want to place a catheter at the end of the splint in the urethra for 7 to 10 to 14 days to help prevent stricture afterwards.”

Dr. Gebhart also discussed bladder injuries, which he said can occur in anterior repair, cystoscopy, hysterectomy, midurethral slings, sacrocolpopexy, and other procedures.

He offered these tips:

• Use bladder backfilling to detect injury. “We can backfill the bladder with the little methylene blue stain–normal saline to help identify whether you’ve got a leak or an injury,” he said. “[Cystogram] can also be very helpful as well.”
• Don’t stop a hysterectomy to fix a bladder injury. “Mark the hole with a suture, finish the hysterectomy and get it out of the way, then come back and fix the hole in the bladder,” Dr. Gebhart said.
• After repair, drain the bladder with a catheter for 10-14 days. “You’re always better draining through a catheter a little longer than pulling the catheter too soon, putting a stretch on the bladder, and maybe compromising your repair,” he said.

He recommended performing a quick cystogram before pulling the catheter to make sure there’s no leak.

Dr. Gebhart disclosed consultant (Hologic) and advisory board (UroCure) relationships and royalties (UpToDate, Elsevier).

This meeting was jointly provided by Global Academy for Medical Education and the University of Cincinnati. Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same company.

LAS VEGAS – Use caution when positioning patients during vaginal surgery to prevent potentially severe nerve injuries, a pelvic surgeon urged colleagues.

“It’s a very high medical and legal risk. You have to think about the various nerves that can be influenced,” urogynecologist Mickey M. Karram, MD, said at the Pelvic Anatomy and Gynecologic Surgery Symposium.

Dr. Karram, director of urogynecology and reconstructive surgery at the Christ Hospital in Cincinnati and clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Cincinnati, offered these pearls:

• Understand the anatomy of nerves at risk. These include the ilioinguinal nerve, obturator neurovascular bundle, and pudendal nerve.
• Position the patient correctly. The buttocks should be at edge of table, Dr. Karram said, and there should be slight extension and lateral rotation of the thigh. Beware of compression of the lateral knee.
• Avoid compression from stirrups. If you still use candy-cane stirrups, he said, you can get compression along the lateral aspect of the knee. “You can [get] common perineal nerve injuries. You can also get femoral nerve injuries that are stretch injuries and over-extension injuries as well. Just be careful about this.” Dr. Karram said he prefers fin-type stirrups such as the Allen Yellofin brand. Also, he said, avoid compression injuries that result when there are too many people between the patient’s legs and someone leans on the thighs, he said.
• Free the retractor in abdominal procedures. “If you’re operating abdominally and use retractors, free the retractor at times,” he said. Otherwise, “you can get injuries to the genitofemoral nerve and the femoral nerve itself.”
• Beware buttock pain after sacrospinous fixation. “About 15%-20% of the time, you’ll get extreme buttock pain,” Dr. Karram said. “Assuming the buttock pain doesn’t radiate anywhere and doesn’t go down the leg, it’s definitely not a problem. If it goes down the leg, then you have to think about things like deligating pretty quickly.”

Dr. Karram disclosed consulting (Coloplast and Cynosure/Hologic) and speaker (Allergan, Astellas, Coloplast, and Cynosure/Hologic) relationships. He has royalties from Fidelis Medical and LumeNXT.

This meeting was jointly provided by Global Academy for Medical Education and the University of Cincinnati. Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same company.

LAS VEGAS – Use caution when positioning patients during vaginal surgery to prevent potentially severe nerve injuries, a pelvic surgeon urged colleagues.

“It’s a very high medical and legal risk. You have to think about the various nerves that can be influenced,” urogynecologist Mickey M. Karram, MD, said at the Pelvic Anatomy and Gynecologic Surgery Symposium.

Dr. Karram, director of urogynecology and reconstructive surgery at the Christ Hospital in Cincinnati and clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Cincinnati, offered these pearls:

• Understand the anatomy of nerves at risk. These include the ilioinguinal nerve, obturator neurovascular bundle, and pudendal nerve.
• Position the patient correctly. The buttocks should be at edge of table, Dr. Karram said, and there should be slight extension and lateral rotation of the thigh. Beware of compression of the lateral knee.
• Avoid compression from stirrups. If you still use candy-cane stirrups, he said, you can get compression along the lateral aspect of the knee. “You can [get] common perineal nerve injuries. You can also get femoral nerve injuries that are stretch injuries and over-extension injuries as well. Just be careful about this.” Dr. Karram said he prefers fin-type stirrups such as the Allen Yellofin brand. Also, he said, avoid compression injuries that result when there are too many people between the patient’s legs and someone leans on the thighs, he said.
• Free the retractor in abdominal procedures. “If you’re operating abdominally and use retractors, free the retractor at times,” he said. Otherwise, “you can get injuries to the genitofemoral nerve and the femoral nerve itself.”
• Beware buttock pain after sacrospinous fixation. “About 15%-20% of the time, you’ll get extreme buttock pain,” Dr. Karram said. “Assuming the buttock pain doesn’t radiate anywhere and doesn’t go down the leg, it’s definitely not a problem. If it goes down the leg, then you have to think about things like deligating pretty quickly.”

Dr. Karram disclosed consulting (Coloplast and Cynosure/Hologic) and speaker (Allergan, Astellas, Coloplast, and Cynosure/Hologic) relationships. He has royalties from Fidelis Medical and LumeNXT.

This meeting was jointly provided by Global Academy for Medical Education and the University of Cincinnati. Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same company.

LAS VEGAS – Use caution when positioning patients during vaginal surgery to prevent potentially severe nerve injuries, a pelvic surgeon urged colleagues.

“It’s a very high medical and legal risk. You have to think about the various nerves that can be influenced,” urogynecologist Mickey M. Karram, MD, said at the Pelvic Anatomy and Gynecologic Surgery Symposium.

Dr. Karram, director of urogynecology and reconstructive surgery at the Christ Hospital in Cincinnati and clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Cincinnati, offered these pearls:

• Understand the anatomy of nerves at risk. These include the ilioinguinal nerve, obturator neurovascular bundle, and pudendal nerve.
• Position the patient correctly. The buttocks should be at edge of table, Dr. Karram said, and there should be slight extension and lateral rotation of the thigh. Beware of compression of the lateral knee.
• Avoid compression from stirrups. If you still use candy-cane stirrups, he said, you can get compression along the lateral aspect of the knee. “You can [get] common perineal nerve injuries. You can also get femoral nerve injuries that are stretch injuries and over-extension injuries as well. Just be careful about this.” Dr. Karram said he prefers fin-type stirrups such as the Allen Yellofin brand. Also, he said, avoid compression injuries that result when there are too many people between the patient’s legs and someone leans on the thighs, he said.
• Free the retractor in abdominal procedures. “If you’re operating abdominally and use retractors, free the retractor at times,” he said. Otherwise, “you can get injuries to the genitofemoral nerve and the femoral nerve itself.”
• Beware buttock pain after sacrospinous fixation. “About 15%-20% of the time, you’ll get extreme buttock pain,” Dr. Karram said. “Assuming the buttock pain doesn’t radiate anywhere and doesn’t go down the leg, it’s definitely not a problem. If it goes down the leg, then you have to think about things like deligating pretty quickly.”

Dr. Karram disclosed consulting (Coloplast and Cynosure/Hologic) and speaker (Allergan, Astellas, Coloplast, and Cynosure/Hologic) relationships. He has royalties from Fidelis Medical and LumeNXT.

This meeting was jointly provided by Global Academy for Medical Education and the University of Cincinnati. Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same company.

PHILADELPHIA – Treatment with the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab linked with a significant cut in the rates of peripheral artery disease events and ischemic strokes without increasing the rate of hemorrhagic strokes, and alirocumab treatment also showed a trend toward an association with a reduced rate of venous thromboembolic events in prespecified, ancillary analyses of data collected from more than 18,000 patients in the ODYSSEY Outcomes trial.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The analyses that looked at peripheral artery disease (PAD) events and venous thromboembolism (VTE) events also suggested that the apparent ability of alirocumab to reduce their incidence may have been largely mediated through a reduction in Lp(a) lipoprotein, with less of a contribution from the drug’s primary action of reducing LDL cholesterol, Gregory G. Schwartz, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

When used on top of intensive statin treatment, as in the ODYSSEY Outcomes trial, treatment with the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab “may be useful to prevent PAD events, particularly in patients with high levels of Lp(a),” said Dr. Schwartz, professor of medicine at the University of Colorado Denver in Aurora. In the analysis he reported, patients treated with alirocumab for a median of 2.8 years had a statistically significant 31% reduced rate of PAD or VTE event and a significant 31% reduced rate of PAD events alone, compared with control patients who received placebo, he reported. Alirocumab treatment was also associated with a 33% lower rate of VTE events only, but the overall rate of these events was low, and this difference just missed statistical significance with a P value of .06.

“Levels of Lp(a), but not LDL cholesterol, predicted the risk of PAD events,” and in patients on alirocumab treatment “the magnitude of Lp(a) reduction, but not LDL-cholesterol reduction, was associated with a reduction in PAD events and VTE.” The reduction in PAD events linked with alirocumab treatment “may be related to Lp(a) lowering,” Dr. Schwartz suggested.

The link between alirocumab treatment and a reduction in ischemic stroke with no increase in hemorrhagic strokes appeared in a separate prespecified analysis from ODYSSEY Outcomes that looked at the rates of ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, and their combined incidence during the median 2.8 year of study follow-up. Patients treated with alirocumab had a statistically significant 27% reduction in their rate of ischemic strokes compared with patients on placebo, and a statistically significant 28% relative reduction in the rate of any stroke with alirocumab treatment, J. Wouter Jukema, MD, said in a separate report at the meeting. The rate of hemorrhagic strokes was small, and showed a nominal 17% reduction in patients treated with alirocumab, compared with controls, a difference that was not statistically significant.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Further analysis of the stroke outcomes also showed that these reductions in total strokes occurred with alirocumab treatment at roughly similar rates regardless of baseline level of LDL cholesterol or history of a prior cerebrovascular event. Analysis also showed that the rate of hemorrhagic strokes was consistently low regardless of the on-treatment level of LDL cholesterol. Even among patients whose LDL cholesterol level fell below 25 mg/dL on alirocumab treatment, the incidence of hemorrhagic strokes during follow-up was 0.1%, “a very reassuring finding,” said Dr. Jukema, professor of cardiology at Leiden (The Netherlands) University. The stroke analyses did not examine possible linkages of these effects with changes in level of Lp(a).

ODYSSEY Outcomes (Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab) included 18,924 patients who had experienced an acute coronary syndrome event within the prior 12 months and had an LDL cholesterol level of at least 70 mg/dL despite maximally tolerated statin treatment and randomized them to treatment with alirocumab or placebo. The primary endpoint was the combination of coronary heart disease death, nonfatal MI, ischemic stroke, and hospitalization for unstable angina, which alirocumab effectively reduced compared with placebo (N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 29;379[22]:2097-107).

The PAD analysis tallied the combined rate of acute limb ischemia, revascularization, or amputation related to PAD, and the VTE cases included patients who developed deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. All cases were nonadjudicated reports from participating investigators. Because Lp(a) makes up a portion of LDL cholesterol, Dr. Schwartz and associates calculated adjusted values for LDL cholesterol that were independent of Lp(a).

In a multivariable analysis that adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics as well as baseline Lp(a) and the calculated level of LDL cholesterol, every 1 mg/dL decrease in Lp(a) linked with a statistically significant, nearly 1% decrease in the rate of either a PAD or VTE event, while the change in LDL cholesterol had no significant relationship with this endpoint, said Dr. Schwartz.

The impact of Lp(a) lowering was most dramatic among the subgroups of patients who entered the study with the highest levels of Lp(a). “In the lowest quartile [for baseline level of Lp(a)] the effect of treatment [with alirocumab] was inconsequential; all of the action was in the upper two quartiles,” he said. Dr. Schwartz highlighted that 90% of patients in the study were on an “intense” statin dosage, and 97% received some statin treatment. Against that treatment background, the findings showed that patients still had residual cardiovascular disease risk that did not appear to respond to changes in LDL cholesterol but which did appear to respond to a reduction in Lp(a) produced by alirocumab. Dr. Schwartz further suggested that alirocumab’s reduction of Lp(a) might also mediate the drug’s apparent effect on reducing VTE incidence, possibly because Lp(a) is structurally similar to plasminogen and hence can have prothrombotic effects.

ODYSSEY Outcomes was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron, the companies that market alirocumab (Praluent). Dr. Schwartz has received research support from Sanofi and from Resverlogix, Roche, and The Medicines Company. Dr. Jukema has been a speaker for and received research support from Sanofi Regeneron, and has also been a speaker for Amgen, MSD, and Roche and has also received research support from Biotronik

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Schwartz GG et al. AHA 2019, Abstract 309; Jukema JW et al. AHA 2019, Abstract 334.

PHILADELPHIA – Treatment with the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab linked with a significant cut in the rates of peripheral artery disease events and ischemic strokes without increasing the rate of hemorrhagic strokes, and alirocumab treatment also showed a trend toward an association with a reduced rate of venous thromboembolic events in prespecified, ancillary analyses of data collected from more than 18,000 patients in the ODYSSEY Outcomes trial.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The analyses that looked at peripheral artery disease (PAD) events and venous thromboembolism (VTE) events also suggested that the apparent ability of alirocumab to reduce their incidence may have been largely mediated through a reduction in Lp(a) lipoprotein, with less of a contribution from the drug’s primary action of reducing LDL cholesterol, Gregory G. Schwartz, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

When used on top of intensive statin treatment, as in the ODYSSEY Outcomes trial, treatment with the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab “may be useful to prevent PAD events, particularly in patients with high levels of Lp(a),” said Dr. Schwartz, professor of medicine at the University of Colorado Denver in Aurora. In the analysis he reported, patients treated with alirocumab for a median of 2.8 years had a statistically significant 31% reduced rate of PAD or VTE event and a significant 31% reduced rate of PAD events alone, compared with control patients who received placebo, he reported. Alirocumab treatment was also associated with a 33% lower rate of VTE events only, but the overall rate of these events was low, and this difference just missed statistical significance with a P value of .06.

“Levels of Lp(a), but not LDL cholesterol, predicted the risk of PAD events,” and in patients on alirocumab treatment “the magnitude of Lp(a) reduction, but not LDL-cholesterol reduction, was associated with a reduction in PAD events and VTE.” The reduction in PAD events linked with alirocumab treatment “may be related to Lp(a) lowering,” Dr. Schwartz suggested.

The link between alirocumab treatment and a reduction in ischemic stroke with no increase in hemorrhagic strokes appeared in a separate prespecified analysis from ODYSSEY Outcomes that looked at the rates of ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, and their combined incidence during the median 2.8 year of study follow-up. Patients treated with alirocumab had a statistically significant 27% reduction in their rate of ischemic strokes compared with patients on placebo, and a statistically significant 28% relative reduction in the rate of any stroke with alirocumab treatment, J. Wouter Jukema, MD, said in a separate report at the meeting. The rate of hemorrhagic strokes was small, and showed a nominal 17% reduction in patients treated with alirocumab, compared with controls, a difference that was not statistically significant.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Further analysis of the stroke outcomes also showed that these reductions in total strokes occurred with alirocumab treatment at roughly similar rates regardless of baseline level of LDL cholesterol or history of a prior cerebrovascular event. Analysis also showed that the rate of hemorrhagic strokes was consistently low regardless of the on-treatment level of LDL cholesterol. Even among patients whose LDL cholesterol level fell below 25 mg/dL on alirocumab treatment, the incidence of hemorrhagic strokes during follow-up was 0.1%, “a very reassuring finding,” said Dr. Jukema, professor of cardiology at Leiden (The Netherlands) University. The stroke analyses did not examine possible linkages of these effects with changes in level of Lp(a).

ODYSSEY Outcomes (Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab) included 18,924 patients who had experienced an acute coronary syndrome event within the prior 12 months and had an LDL cholesterol level of at least 70 mg/dL despite maximally tolerated statin treatment and randomized them to treatment with alirocumab or placebo. The primary endpoint was the combination of coronary heart disease death, nonfatal MI, ischemic stroke, and hospitalization for unstable angina, which alirocumab effectively reduced compared with placebo (N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 29;379[22]:2097-107).

The PAD analysis tallied the combined rate of acute limb ischemia, revascularization, or amputation related to PAD, and the VTE cases included patients who developed deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. All cases were nonadjudicated reports from participating investigators. Because Lp(a) makes up a portion of LDL cholesterol, Dr. Schwartz and associates calculated adjusted values for LDL cholesterol that were independent of Lp(a).

In a multivariable analysis that adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics as well as baseline Lp(a) and the calculated level of LDL cholesterol, every 1 mg/dL decrease in Lp(a) linked with a statistically significant, nearly 1% decrease in the rate of either a PAD or VTE event, while the change in LDL cholesterol had no significant relationship with this endpoint, said Dr. Schwartz.

The impact of Lp(a) lowering was most dramatic among the subgroups of patients who entered the study with the highest levels of Lp(a). “In the lowest quartile [for baseline level of Lp(a)] the effect of treatment [with alirocumab] was inconsequential; all of the action was in the upper two quartiles,” he said. Dr. Schwartz highlighted that 90% of patients in the study were on an “intense” statin dosage, and 97% received some statin treatment. Against that treatment background, the findings showed that patients still had residual cardiovascular disease risk that did not appear to respond to changes in LDL cholesterol but which did appear to respond to a reduction in Lp(a) produced by alirocumab. Dr. Schwartz further suggested that alirocumab’s reduction of Lp(a) might also mediate the drug’s apparent effect on reducing VTE incidence, possibly because Lp(a) is structurally similar to plasminogen and hence can have prothrombotic effects.

ODYSSEY Outcomes was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron, the companies that market alirocumab (Praluent). Dr. Schwartz has received research support from Sanofi and from Resverlogix, Roche, and The Medicines Company. Dr. Jukema has been a speaker for and received research support from Sanofi Regeneron, and has also been a speaker for Amgen, MSD, and Roche and has also received research support from Biotronik

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Schwartz GG et al. AHA 2019, Abstract 309; Jukema JW et al. AHA 2019, Abstract 334.

PHILADELPHIA – Treatment with the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab linked with a significant cut in the rates of peripheral artery disease events and ischemic strokes without increasing the rate of hemorrhagic strokes, and alirocumab treatment also showed a trend toward an association with a reduced rate of venous thromboembolic events in prespecified, ancillary analyses of data collected from more than 18,000 patients in the ODYSSEY Outcomes trial.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The analyses that looked at peripheral artery disease (PAD) events and venous thromboembolism (VTE) events also suggested that the apparent ability of alirocumab to reduce their incidence may have been largely mediated through a reduction in Lp(a) lipoprotein, with less of a contribution from the drug’s primary action of reducing LDL cholesterol, Gregory G. Schwartz, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

When used on top of intensive statin treatment, as in the ODYSSEY Outcomes trial, treatment with the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab “may be useful to prevent PAD events, particularly in patients with high levels of Lp(a),” said Dr. Schwartz, professor of medicine at the University of Colorado Denver in Aurora. In the analysis he reported, patients treated with alirocumab for a median of 2.8 years had a statistically significant 31% reduced rate of PAD or VTE event and a significant 31% reduced rate of PAD events alone, compared with control patients who received placebo, he reported. Alirocumab treatment was also associated with a 33% lower rate of VTE events only, but the overall rate of these events was low, and this difference just missed statistical significance with a P value of .06.

“Levels of Lp(a), but not LDL cholesterol, predicted the risk of PAD events,” and in patients on alirocumab treatment “the magnitude of Lp(a) reduction, but not LDL-cholesterol reduction, was associated with a reduction in PAD events and VTE.” The reduction in PAD events linked with alirocumab treatment “may be related to Lp(a) lowering,” Dr. Schwartz suggested.

The link between alirocumab treatment and a reduction in ischemic stroke with no increase in hemorrhagic strokes appeared in a separate prespecified analysis from ODYSSEY Outcomes that looked at the rates of ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, and their combined incidence during the median 2.8 year of study follow-up. Patients treated with alirocumab had a statistically significant 27% reduction in their rate of ischemic strokes compared with patients on placebo, and a statistically significant 28% relative reduction in the rate of any stroke with alirocumab treatment, J. Wouter Jukema, MD, said in a separate report at the meeting. The rate of hemorrhagic strokes was small, and showed a nominal 17% reduction in patients treated with alirocumab, compared with controls, a difference that was not statistically significant.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Further analysis of the stroke outcomes also showed that these reductions in total strokes occurred with alirocumab treatment at roughly similar rates regardless of baseline level of LDL cholesterol or history of a prior cerebrovascular event. Analysis also showed that the rate of hemorrhagic strokes was consistently low regardless of the on-treatment level of LDL cholesterol. Even among patients whose LDL cholesterol level fell below 25 mg/dL on alirocumab treatment, the incidence of hemorrhagic strokes during follow-up was 0.1%, “a very reassuring finding,” said Dr. Jukema, professor of cardiology at Leiden (The Netherlands) University. The stroke analyses did not examine possible linkages of these effects with changes in level of Lp(a).

ODYSSEY Outcomes (Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab) included 18,924 patients who had experienced an acute coronary syndrome event within the prior 12 months and had an LDL cholesterol level of at least 70 mg/dL despite maximally tolerated statin treatment and randomized them to treatment with alirocumab or placebo. The primary endpoint was the combination of coronary heart disease death, nonfatal MI, ischemic stroke, and hospitalization for unstable angina, which alirocumab effectively reduced compared with placebo (N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 29;379[22]:2097-107).

The PAD analysis tallied the combined rate of acute limb ischemia, revascularization, or amputation related to PAD, and the VTE cases included patients who developed deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. All cases were nonadjudicated reports from participating investigators. Because Lp(a) makes up a portion of LDL cholesterol, Dr. Schwartz and associates calculated adjusted values for LDL cholesterol that were independent of Lp(a).

In a multivariable analysis that adjusted for demographic and clinical characteristics as well as baseline Lp(a) and the calculated level of LDL cholesterol, every 1 mg/dL decrease in Lp(a) linked with a statistically significant, nearly 1% decrease in the rate of either a PAD or VTE event, while the change in LDL cholesterol had no significant relationship with this endpoint, said Dr. Schwartz.

The impact of Lp(a) lowering was most dramatic among the subgroups of patients who entered the study with the highest levels of Lp(a). “In the lowest quartile [for baseline level of Lp(a)] the effect of treatment [with alirocumab] was inconsequential; all of the action was in the upper two quartiles,” he said. Dr. Schwartz highlighted that 90% of patients in the study were on an “intense” statin dosage, and 97% received some statin treatment. Against that treatment background, the findings showed that patients still had residual cardiovascular disease risk that did not appear to respond to changes in LDL cholesterol but which did appear to respond to a reduction in Lp(a) produced by alirocumab. Dr. Schwartz further suggested that alirocumab’s reduction of Lp(a) might also mediate the drug’s apparent effect on reducing VTE incidence, possibly because Lp(a) is structurally similar to plasminogen and hence can have prothrombotic effects.

ODYSSEY Outcomes was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron, the companies that market alirocumab (Praluent). Dr. Schwartz has received research support from Sanofi and from Resverlogix, Roche, and The Medicines Company. Dr. Jukema has been a speaker for and received research support from Sanofi Regeneron, and has also been a speaker for Amgen, MSD, and Roche and has also received research support from Biotronik

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Schwartz GG et al. AHA 2019, Abstract 309; Jukema JW et al. AHA 2019, Abstract 334.

Practice Gap

A 69-year-old man underwent staged excision for an invasive melanoma (0.4-mm Breslow depth; stage Ia) of the right dorsal nose. Two stages were required to achieve clear margins, leaving a 3.0×2.5-cm defect involving the nasal dorsum, right nasal sidewall, and nasal supratip (Figure 1). He declined any multistage repair and preferred a full-thickness skin graft (FTSG) over any interpolation flap.

Given the size of our patient’s defect, primary repair was not possible and second intention healing may have resulted in a suboptimal cosmetic outcome, potential alar distortion, and prolonged healing. No single local flap, such as the dorsal nasal rotation flap, crescentic advancement flap, bilobed flap, and Rintala flap, would have provided adequate coverage. A FTSG of the entire defect would not have been an ideal tissue match, and given the limited surrounding laxity, a Burow FTSG would have required the linear repair to extend well into the forehead with a questionable cosmetic outcome.

The Technique

We opted to repair the defect using a combination of local flaps for a single-stage repair. Using the right cheek reservoir, a crescentic advancement flap was performed to restore the right nasal sidewall as best as possible with a standing cone taken superiorly. To execute this flap, an incision was made extending from the alar sulcus into the nasolabial fold while preserving the apical triangle of the upper cutaneous lip. The flap was elevated submuscularly on the nose, and broad undermining was performed in the subcutaneous plane of the medial cheek. A crescentic redundancy above the alar sulcus was excised, and periosteal tacking sutures were placed to both help advance the flap and to recreate the nasofacial sulcus.¹

Next, a nasal tip spiral/rotation flap was designed to restore the remaining nasal defect.² An incision was made at the right inferiormost aspect of the defect and extended along the inferior border of the nasal tip as it crossed the midline to the left side of the nose. After incising and elevating the flap in the submuscular plane, there was not enough of a tissue reservoir to cover the entire remaining nasal defect.

To resolve this intraoperative conundrum, simple interrupted sutures were placed into the nasal cartilage at midline to narrow the structure of the nose (Figure 2). Three 4-0 polyglactin 910 sutures were placed beginning with the upper lateral cartilages and extending inferiorly to the lower lateral cartilages. Narrowing the nasal cartilages allowed for a smaller residual defect. The nasal tip rotation flap was then spiraled into place with adequate coverage. Some of the flap tip was trimmed after the superior aspect of the rotation flap was sutured to the inferior edge of the crescentic advancement flap. The immediate postoperative appearance is shown in Figure 3.

Practice Implications

Cartilage sutures highlight an underutilized technique in nasal reconstruction, with few cases reported in the dermatologic surgery literature.^3,4 The interdomal suture is placed through the left and right lower lateral cartilages to help narrow and redefine the nasal tip.⁵ Reported techniques include simple interrupted suture or horizontal mattress suture. Suture material for nasal cartilage may be permanent (nylon or polypropylene) or long-lasting (polydioxanone or polyglactin 910).⁵ The use of interdomal sutures has been reported to narrow and decrease the volume of nasal tip defects prior to repair with local flaps and FTSG.^3,4 In addition to the interdomal suture of the lower lateral nasal cartilage, simple interrupted sutures were placed in the upper lateral cartilages that created an even smaller residual defect. Sutures of the nasal cartilage may be a good option for select patients in dermatologic reconstruction, allowing for a simple repair with the added benefit of improved cosmetic result.

A combination of local flaps may be used to repair large nasal defects involving multiple subunits, especially in patients who decline multistage reconstruction. A nasal tip rotation/spiral flap can be considered for the appropriate nasal tip defect. Suturing the nasal cartilage with either permanent or long-lasting suture can narrow the cartilage and facilitate flap coverage for nasal defects while also improving the appearance of patients with wide prominent lower noses.

Practice Gap

A 69-year-old man underwent staged excision for an invasive melanoma (0.4-mm Breslow depth; stage Ia) of the right dorsal nose. Two stages were required to achieve clear margins, leaving a 3.0×2.5-cm defect involving the nasal dorsum, right nasal sidewall, and nasal supratip (Figure 1). He declined any multistage repair and preferred a full-thickness skin graft (FTSG) over any interpolation flap.

Given the size of our patient’s defect, primary repair was not possible and second intention healing may have resulted in a suboptimal cosmetic outcome, potential alar distortion, and prolonged healing. No single local flap, such as the dorsal nasal rotation flap, crescentic advancement flap, bilobed flap, and Rintala flap, would have provided adequate coverage. A FTSG of the entire defect would not have been an ideal tissue match, and given the limited surrounding laxity, a Burow FTSG would have required the linear repair to extend well into the forehead with a questionable cosmetic outcome.

The Technique

We opted to repair the defect using a combination of local flaps for a single-stage repair. Using the right cheek reservoir, a crescentic advancement flap was performed to restore the right nasal sidewall as best as possible with a standing cone taken superiorly. To execute this flap, an incision was made extending from the alar sulcus into the nasolabial fold while preserving the apical triangle of the upper cutaneous lip. The flap was elevated submuscularly on the nose, and broad undermining was performed in the subcutaneous plane of the medial cheek. A crescentic redundancy above the alar sulcus was excised, and periosteal tacking sutures were placed to both help advance the flap and to recreate the nasofacial sulcus.¹

Next, a nasal tip spiral/rotation flap was designed to restore the remaining nasal defect.² An incision was made at the right inferiormost aspect of the defect and extended along the inferior border of the nasal tip as it crossed the midline to the left side of the nose. After incising and elevating the flap in the submuscular plane, there was not enough of a tissue reservoir to cover the entire remaining nasal defect.

To resolve this intraoperative conundrum, simple interrupted sutures were placed into the nasal cartilage at midline to narrow the structure of the nose (Figure 2). Three 4-0 polyglactin 910 sutures were placed beginning with the upper lateral cartilages and extending inferiorly to the lower lateral cartilages. Narrowing the nasal cartilages allowed for a smaller residual defect. The nasal tip rotation flap was then spiraled into place with adequate coverage. Some of the flap tip was trimmed after the superior aspect of the rotation flap was sutured to the inferior edge of the crescentic advancement flap. The immediate postoperative appearance is shown in Figure 3.

Practice Implications

Cartilage sutures highlight an underutilized technique in nasal reconstruction, with few cases reported in the dermatologic surgery literature.^3,4 The interdomal suture is placed through the left and right lower lateral cartilages to help narrow and redefine the nasal tip.⁵ Reported techniques include simple interrupted suture or horizontal mattress suture. Suture material for nasal cartilage may be permanent (nylon or polypropylene) or long-lasting (polydioxanone or polyglactin 910).⁵ The use of interdomal sutures has been reported to narrow and decrease the volume of nasal tip defects prior to repair with local flaps and FTSG.^3,4 In addition to the interdomal suture of the lower lateral nasal cartilage, simple interrupted sutures were placed in the upper lateral cartilages that created an even smaller residual defect. Sutures of the nasal cartilage may be a good option for select patients in dermatologic reconstruction, allowing for a simple repair with the added benefit of improved cosmetic result.

A combination of local flaps may be used to repair large nasal defects involving multiple subunits, especially in patients who decline multistage reconstruction. A nasal tip rotation/spiral flap can be considered for the appropriate nasal tip defect. Suturing the nasal cartilage with either permanent or long-lasting suture can narrow the cartilage and facilitate flap coverage for nasal defects while also improving the appearance of patients with wide prominent lower noses.

Practice Gap

A 69-year-old man underwent staged excision for an invasive melanoma (0.4-mm Breslow depth; stage Ia) of the right dorsal nose. Two stages were required to achieve clear margins, leaving a 3.0×2.5-cm defect involving the nasal dorsum, right nasal sidewall, and nasal supratip (Figure 1). He declined any multistage repair and preferred a full-thickness skin graft (FTSG) over any interpolation flap.

Given the size of our patient’s defect, primary repair was not possible and second intention healing may have resulted in a suboptimal cosmetic outcome, potential alar distortion, and prolonged healing. No single local flap, such as the dorsal nasal rotation flap, crescentic advancement flap, bilobed flap, and Rintala flap, would have provided adequate coverage. A FTSG of the entire defect would not have been an ideal tissue match, and given the limited surrounding laxity, a Burow FTSG would have required the linear repair to extend well into the forehead with a questionable cosmetic outcome.

The Technique

We opted to repair the defect using a combination of local flaps for a single-stage repair. Using the right cheek reservoir, a crescentic advancement flap was performed to restore the right nasal sidewall as best as possible with a standing cone taken superiorly. To execute this flap, an incision was made extending from the alar sulcus into the nasolabial fold while preserving the apical triangle of the upper cutaneous lip. The flap was elevated submuscularly on the nose, and broad undermining was performed in the subcutaneous plane of the medial cheek. A crescentic redundancy above the alar sulcus was excised, and periosteal tacking sutures were placed to both help advance the flap and to recreate the nasofacial sulcus.¹

Next, a nasal tip spiral/rotation flap was designed to restore the remaining nasal defect.² An incision was made at the right inferiormost aspect of the defect and extended along the inferior border of the nasal tip as it crossed the midline to the left side of the nose. After incising and elevating the flap in the submuscular plane, there was not enough of a tissue reservoir to cover the entire remaining nasal defect.

To resolve this intraoperative conundrum, simple interrupted sutures were placed into the nasal cartilage at midline to narrow the structure of the nose (Figure 2). Three 4-0 polyglactin 910 sutures were placed beginning with the upper lateral cartilages and extending inferiorly to the lower lateral cartilages. Narrowing the nasal cartilages allowed for a smaller residual defect. The nasal tip rotation flap was then spiraled into place with adequate coverage. Some of the flap tip was trimmed after the superior aspect of the rotation flap was sutured to the inferior edge of the crescentic advancement flap. The immediate postoperative appearance is shown in Figure 3.

Practice Implications

Cartilage sutures highlight an underutilized technique in nasal reconstruction, with few cases reported in the dermatologic surgery literature.^3,4 The interdomal suture is placed through the left and right lower lateral cartilages to help narrow and redefine the nasal tip.⁵ Reported techniques include simple interrupted suture or horizontal mattress suture. Suture material for nasal cartilage may be permanent (nylon or polypropylene) or long-lasting (polydioxanone or polyglactin 910).⁵ The use of interdomal sutures has been reported to narrow and decrease the volume of nasal tip defects prior to repair with local flaps and FTSG.^3,4 In addition to the interdomal suture of the lower lateral nasal cartilage, simple interrupted sutures were placed in the upper lateral cartilages that created an even smaller residual defect. Sutures of the nasal cartilage may be a good option for select patients in dermatologic reconstruction, allowing for a simple repair with the added benefit of improved cosmetic result.

A combination of local flaps may be used to repair large nasal defects involving multiple subunits, especially in patients who decline multistage reconstruction. A nasal tip rotation/spiral flap can be considered for the appropriate nasal tip defect. Suturing the nasal cartilage with either permanent or long-lasting suture can narrow the cartilage and facilitate flap coverage for nasal defects while also improving the appearance of patients with wide prominent lower noses.