MDedge Cardiology

My field of electrophysiology is abuzz with excitement over the new technology of pulsed field ablation (PFA). It dominated 2024’s heart rhythm meetings, and it dominates my private electrophysiologist chat groups. My Google alert for “AF ablation” most often includes notices on PFA and the expansion of the atrial fibrillation ablation market. 

Yet, the excitement does not match the empirical data. 

Despite having strong brains, electrophysiologists adopt new things as if we were emotional shoppers. Our neighbor buys a sports car and we think we need the same car. Left atrial appendage occlusion and subcutaneous defibrillators were past examples. 

The most recent example of soft thinking (especially in the United States) is the enthusiasm and early adoption of first-generation PFA systems for the treatment of AF. 

Readers of cardiac news (including some of my patients) might think PFA has solved the AF puzzle. It has not.

A true breakthrough in AF would be to find its cause. PFA is simply another way to destroy (ablate) cardiac myocytes. PFA uses electrical energy (think shocks) to create pores in the cell membranes of myocytes. It’s delivered through various types of catheters. 

The main theoretical advantage of PFA is cardioselectivity, which is possible because myocytes have lower thresholds for irreversible electroporation than surrounding tissues. The dose of electrical energy that ablates cardiac tissue does not affect surrounding tissues. Cardioselectivity decreases the chance of the most feared complication of standard AF ablation, thermal damage to the esophagus, which is often fatal. The esophagus lies immediately behind the posterior wall of the left atrium and can be inadvertently injured during thermal ablation. 

The challenge in assessing this potential advantage is that thermal esophageal damage is, thankfully, exceedingly rare. Its incidence is in the range of 1 in 10,000 AF ablations. But it might be even lower than that in contemporary practice, because knowledge of esophageal injury has led to innovations that probably have reduced its incidence even further. 

Proponents of PFA would rightly point to the fact that not having to worry about esophageal injury allows operators to add posterior wall ablation to the normal pulmonary vein isolation lesion set. This ability, they would argue, is likely to improve AF ablation outcomes. The problem is that the strongest and most recent trial of posterior wall isolation (with radiofrequency ablation) did not show better outcomes. A more recent observational analysis also showed no benefit to posterior wall isolation (using PFA) over pulmonary vein isolation alone. 
 

What About PFA Efficacy?

I’ve long spoken and written about the lack of progress in AF ablation. In 1998, the first report on ablation of AF showed a 62% arrhythmia-free rate. Two decades later, in the carefully chosen labs treating patients in the CABANA trial, arrhythmia-free rates after AF ablation remain unchanged. We have improved our speed and ability to isolate pulmonary veins, but this has not increased our success in eliminating AF. The reason, I believe, is that we have made little to no progress in understanding the pathophysiology of AF. 

The Food and Drug Administration regulatory trial called ADVENT randomly assigned more than 600 patients to thermal ablation or PFA, and the primary endpoint of ablation success was nearly identical. Single-center studies, observational registries, and single-arm studies have all shown similar efficacy of PFA and thermal ablation. 

Proponents of PFA might argue that these early studies used first-generation PFA systems, and iteration will lead to better efficacy. Perhaps, but we’ve had 20 years of iteration of thermal ablation, and its efficacy has not budged. 
 

What About PFA Safety?

In the ADVENT randomized trial, safety results were similar, though the one death, caused by cardiac perforation and tamponade, occurred in the PFA arm. In the MANIFEST-17K multinational survey of PFA ablation, safety events were in the range reported with thermal ablation. PFA still involves placing catheters in the heart, and complications such as tamponade, stroke, and vascular damage occur. 

The large MANIFEST-17K survey also exposed two PFA-specific complications: coronary artery spasm, which can occur when PFA is delivered close to coronary arteries; and hemolysis-related kidney failure — severe enough to require dialysis in five patients. Supporters of PFA speculate that hemolysis occurs because electrical energy within the atrium can shred red blood cells. Their solution is to strive for good contact and use hydration. The irony of this latter fix is that one of the best advances in thermal ablation has been catheters that deliver less fluid and less need for diuresis after the procedure. 

No PFA study has shown a decreased incidence of thermal damage to the esophagus with PFA ablation. Of course, this is because it is such a low-incidence event. 

One of my concerns with PFA is brain safety. PFA creates substantial microbubbles in the left atrium, which can then travel north to the brain. In a small series from ADVENT, three patients had brain lesions after PFA vs none with thermal ablation. PFA proponents wrote that brain safety was important to study, but few patients have been systematically studied with brain MRI scans. Asymptomatic brain lesions have been noted after many arterial procedures. The clinical significance of these is not known. As a new technology, and one that creates substantial microbubbles in the left atrium, I agree with the PFA proponents that brain safety should be thoroughly studied — before widespread adoption. 
 

What About Speed and Cost? 

Observational studies from European labs report fast procedure times. I have seen PFA procedures in Europe; they’re fast — typically under an hour. A standard thermal ablation takes me about 60-70 minutes.

I am not sure that US operators can duplicate European procedural times. In the ADVENT regulatory trial, the mean procedure time was 105 minutes and that was in experienced US centers. While this still represents early experience with PFA, the culture of US AF ablation entails far more mapping and extra catheters than I have seen used in European labs. 

Cost is a major issue. It’s hard to sort out exact costs in the United States, but a PFA catheter costs approximately threefold more than a standard ablation catheter. A recent study from Liverpool, England, found that PFA ablation was faster but more expensive than standard thermal ablation because of higher PFA equipment prices. For better or worse, US patients are not directly affected by the higher procedural costs. But the fact remains that PFA adds more costs to the healthcare system. 
 

What Drives the Enthusiasm for First-Generation PFA? 

So why all the enthusiasm? It’s surely not the empirical data. Evidence thus far shows no obvious advantage in safety or efficacy. European use of PFA does seem to reduce procedure time. But in many electrophysiology labs in the United States, the rate-limiting step for AF ablation is not time in the lab but having enough staff to turn rooms around.

The main factor driving early acceptance of PFA relates to basic human nature. It is the fear of missing out. Marketing works on consumers, and it surely works on doctors. Companies that make PFA systems sponsor key opinion leaders to discuss PFA. These companies have beautiful booths in the expo of our meetings; they host dinners and talks. When a hospital in a city does PFA, the other hospitals feel the urge to keep up. It’s hard to be a Top Person in electrophysiology and not be a PFA user. 

One of my favorite comments came from a key opinion leader. He told me that he advised his administration to buy a PFA system, promote that they have it, and keep it in the closet until better systems are released. 

Iteration in the medical device field is tricky. There are negatives to being too harsh on first-generation systems. Early cardiac resynchronization tools, for instance, were horrible. Now CRT is transformative in selected patients with heart failure. 

It’s possible (but not certain) that electrical ablative therapy will iterate and surpass thermal ablation in the future. Maybe. 

But for now, the enthusiasm for PFA far outstrips its evidence. Until better evidence emerges, I will be a slow adopter. And I hope that our field gathers evidence before widespread adoption makes it impossible to do proper studies. 
 

Dr. Mandrola, clinical electrophysiologist, Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

My field of electrophysiology is abuzz with excitement over the new technology of pulsed field ablation (PFA). It dominated 2024’s heart rhythm meetings, and it dominates my private electrophysiologist chat groups. My Google alert for “AF ablation” most often includes notices on PFA and the expansion of the atrial fibrillation ablation market. 

Yet, the excitement does not match the empirical data. 

Despite having strong brains, electrophysiologists adopt new things as if we were emotional shoppers. Our neighbor buys a sports car and we think we need the same car. Left atrial appendage occlusion and subcutaneous defibrillators were past examples. 

The most recent example of soft thinking (especially in the United States) is the enthusiasm and early adoption of first-generation PFA systems for the treatment of AF. 

Readers of cardiac news (including some of my patients) might think PFA has solved the AF puzzle. It has not.

A true breakthrough in AF would be to find its cause. PFA is simply another way to destroy (ablate) cardiac myocytes. PFA uses electrical energy (think shocks) to create pores in the cell membranes of myocytes. It’s delivered through various types of catheters. 

The main theoretical advantage of PFA is cardioselectivity, which is possible because myocytes have lower thresholds for irreversible electroporation than surrounding tissues. The dose of electrical energy that ablates cardiac tissue does not affect surrounding tissues. Cardioselectivity decreases the chance of the most feared complication of standard AF ablation, thermal damage to the esophagus, which is often fatal. The esophagus lies immediately behind the posterior wall of the left atrium and can be inadvertently injured during thermal ablation. 

The challenge in assessing this potential advantage is that thermal esophageal damage is, thankfully, exceedingly rare. Its incidence is in the range of 1 in 10,000 AF ablations. But it might be even lower than that in contemporary practice, because knowledge of esophageal injury has led to innovations that probably have reduced its incidence even further. 

Proponents of PFA would rightly point to the fact that not having to worry about esophageal injury allows operators to add posterior wall ablation to the normal pulmonary vein isolation lesion set. This ability, they would argue, is likely to improve AF ablation outcomes. The problem is that the strongest and most recent trial of posterior wall isolation (with radiofrequency ablation) did not show better outcomes. A more recent observational analysis also showed no benefit to posterior wall isolation (using PFA) over pulmonary vein isolation alone. 
 

What About PFA Efficacy?

I’ve long spoken and written about the lack of progress in AF ablation. In 1998, the first report on ablation of AF showed a 62% arrhythmia-free rate. Two decades later, in the carefully chosen labs treating patients in the CABANA trial, arrhythmia-free rates after AF ablation remain unchanged. We have improved our speed and ability to isolate pulmonary veins, but this has not increased our success in eliminating AF. The reason, I believe, is that we have made little to no progress in understanding the pathophysiology of AF. 

The Food and Drug Administration regulatory trial called ADVENT randomly assigned more than 600 patients to thermal ablation or PFA, and the primary endpoint of ablation success was nearly identical. Single-center studies, observational registries, and single-arm studies have all shown similar efficacy of PFA and thermal ablation. 

Proponents of PFA might argue that these early studies used first-generation PFA systems, and iteration will lead to better efficacy. Perhaps, but we’ve had 20 years of iteration of thermal ablation, and its efficacy has not budged. 
 

What About PFA Safety?

In the ADVENT randomized trial, safety results were similar, though the one death, caused by cardiac perforation and tamponade, occurred in the PFA arm. In the MANIFEST-17K multinational survey of PFA ablation, safety events were in the range reported with thermal ablation. PFA still involves placing catheters in the heart, and complications such as tamponade, stroke, and vascular damage occur. 

The large MANIFEST-17K survey also exposed two PFA-specific complications: coronary artery spasm, which can occur when PFA is delivered close to coronary arteries; and hemolysis-related kidney failure — severe enough to require dialysis in five patients. Supporters of PFA speculate that hemolysis occurs because electrical energy within the atrium can shred red blood cells. Their solution is to strive for good contact and use hydration. The irony of this latter fix is that one of the best advances in thermal ablation has been catheters that deliver less fluid and less need for diuresis after the procedure. 

No PFA study has shown a decreased incidence of thermal damage to the esophagus with PFA ablation. Of course, this is because it is such a low-incidence event. 

One of my concerns with PFA is brain safety. PFA creates substantial microbubbles in the left atrium, which can then travel north to the brain. In a small series from ADVENT, three patients had brain lesions after PFA vs none with thermal ablation. PFA proponents wrote that brain safety was important to study, but few patients have been systematically studied with brain MRI scans. Asymptomatic brain lesions have been noted after many arterial procedures. The clinical significance of these is not known. As a new technology, and one that creates substantial microbubbles in the left atrium, I agree with the PFA proponents that brain safety should be thoroughly studied — before widespread adoption. 
 

What About Speed and Cost? 

Observational studies from European labs report fast procedure times. I have seen PFA procedures in Europe; they’re fast — typically under an hour. A standard thermal ablation takes me about 60-70 minutes.

I am not sure that US operators can duplicate European procedural times. In the ADVENT regulatory trial, the mean procedure time was 105 minutes and that was in experienced US centers. While this still represents early experience with PFA, the culture of US AF ablation entails far more mapping and extra catheters than I have seen used in European labs. 

Cost is a major issue. It’s hard to sort out exact costs in the United States, but a PFA catheter costs approximately threefold more than a standard ablation catheter. A recent study from Liverpool, England, found that PFA ablation was faster but more expensive than standard thermal ablation because of higher PFA equipment prices. For better or worse, US patients are not directly affected by the higher procedural costs. But the fact remains that PFA adds more costs to the healthcare system. 
 

What Drives the Enthusiasm for First-Generation PFA? 

So why all the enthusiasm? It’s surely not the empirical data. Evidence thus far shows no obvious advantage in safety or efficacy. European use of PFA does seem to reduce procedure time. But in many electrophysiology labs in the United States, the rate-limiting step for AF ablation is not time in the lab but having enough staff to turn rooms around.

The main factor driving early acceptance of PFA relates to basic human nature. It is the fear of missing out. Marketing works on consumers, and it surely works on doctors. Companies that make PFA systems sponsor key opinion leaders to discuss PFA. These companies have beautiful booths in the expo of our meetings; they host dinners and talks. When a hospital in a city does PFA, the other hospitals feel the urge to keep up. It’s hard to be a Top Person in electrophysiology and not be a PFA user. 

One of my favorite comments came from a key opinion leader. He told me that he advised his administration to buy a PFA system, promote that they have it, and keep it in the closet until better systems are released. 

Iteration in the medical device field is tricky. There are negatives to being too harsh on first-generation systems. Early cardiac resynchronization tools, for instance, were horrible. Now CRT is transformative in selected patients with heart failure. 

It’s possible (but not certain) that electrical ablative therapy will iterate and surpass thermal ablation in the future. Maybe. 

But for now, the enthusiasm for PFA far outstrips its evidence. Until better evidence emerges, I will be a slow adopter. And I hope that our field gathers evidence before widespread adoption makes it impossible to do proper studies. 
 

Dr. Mandrola, clinical electrophysiologist, Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

My field of electrophysiology is abuzz with excitement over the new technology of pulsed field ablation (PFA). It dominated 2024’s heart rhythm meetings, and it dominates my private electrophysiologist chat groups. My Google alert for “AF ablation” most often includes notices on PFA and the expansion of the atrial fibrillation ablation market. 

Yet, the excitement does not match the empirical data. 

Despite having strong brains, electrophysiologists adopt new things as if we were emotional shoppers. Our neighbor buys a sports car and we think we need the same car. Left atrial appendage occlusion and subcutaneous defibrillators were past examples. 

The most recent example of soft thinking (especially in the United States) is the enthusiasm and early adoption of first-generation PFA systems for the treatment of AF. 

Readers of cardiac news (including some of my patients) might think PFA has solved the AF puzzle. It has not.

A true breakthrough in AF would be to find its cause. PFA is simply another way to destroy (ablate) cardiac myocytes. PFA uses electrical energy (think shocks) to create pores in the cell membranes of myocytes. It’s delivered through various types of catheters. 

The main theoretical advantage of PFA is cardioselectivity, which is possible because myocytes have lower thresholds for irreversible electroporation than surrounding tissues. The dose of electrical energy that ablates cardiac tissue does not affect surrounding tissues. Cardioselectivity decreases the chance of the most feared complication of standard AF ablation, thermal damage to the esophagus, which is often fatal. The esophagus lies immediately behind the posterior wall of the left atrium and can be inadvertently injured during thermal ablation. 

The challenge in assessing this potential advantage is that thermal esophageal damage is, thankfully, exceedingly rare. Its incidence is in the range of 1 in 10,000 AF ablations. But it might be even lower than that in contemporary practice, because knowledge of esophageal injury has led to innovations that probably have reduced its incidence even further. 

Proponents of PFA would rightly point to the fact that not having to worry about esophageal injury allows operators to add posterior wall ablation to the normal pulmonary vein isolation lesion set. This ability, they would argue, is likely to improve AF ablation outcomes. The problem is that the strongest and most recent trial of posterior wall isolation (with radiofrequency ablation) did not show better outcomes. A more recent observational analysis also showed no benefit to posterior wall isolation (using PFA) over pulmonary vein isolation alone. 
 

What About PFA Efficacy?

I’ve long spoken and written about the lack of progress in AF ablation. In 1998, the first report on ablation of AF showed a 62% arrhythmia-free rate. Two decades later, in the carefully chosen labs treating patients in the CABANA trial, arrhythmia-free rates after AF ablation remain unchanged. We have improved our speed and ability to isolate pulmonary veins, but this has not increased our success in eliminating AF. The reason, I believe, is that we have made little to no progress in understanding the pathophysiology of AF. 

The Food and Drug Administration regulatory trial called ADVENT randomly assigned more than 600 patients to thermal ablation or PFA, and the primary endpoint of ablation success was nearly identical. Single-center studies, observational registries, and single-arm studies have all shown similar efficacy of PFA and thermal ablation. 

Proponents of PFA might argue that these early studies used first-generation PFA systems, and iteration will lead to better efficacy. Perhaps, but we’ve had 20 years of iteration of thermal ablation, and its efficacy has not budged. 
 

What About PFA Safety?

In the ADVENT randomized trial, safety results were similar, though the one death, caused by cardiac perforation and tamponade, occurred in the PFA arm. In the MANIFEST-17K multinational survey of PFA ablation, safety events were in the range reported with thermal ablation. PFA still involves placing catheters in the heart, and complications such as tamponade, stroke, and vascular damage occur. 

The large MANIFEST-17K survey also exposed two PFA-specific complications: coronary artery spasm, which can occur when PFA is delivered close to coronary arteries; and hemolysis-related kidney failure — severe enough to require dialysis in five patients. Supporters of PFA speculate that hemolysis occurs because electrical energy within the atrium can shred red blood cells. Their solution is to strive for good contact and use hydration. The irony of this latter fix is that one of the best advances in thermal ablation has been catheters that deliver less fluid and less need for diuresis after the procedure. 

No PFA study has shown a decreased incidence of thermal damage to the esophagus with PFA ablation. Of course, this is because it is such a low-incidence event. 

One of my concerns with PFA is brain safety. PFA creates substantial microbubbles in the left atrium, which can then travel north to the brain. In a small series from ADVENT, three patients had brain lesions after PFA vs none with thermal ablation. PFA proponents wrote that brain safety was important to study, but few patients have been systematically studied with brain MRI scans. Asymptomatic brain lesions have been noted after many arterial procedures. The clinical significance of these is not known. As a new technology, and one that creates substantial microbubbles in the left atrium, I agree with the PFA proponents that brain safety should be thoroughly studied — before widespread adoption. 
 

What About Speed and Cost? 

Observational studies from European labs report fast procedure times. I have seen PFA procedures in Europe; they’re fast — typically under an hour. A standard thermal ablation takes me about 60-70 minutes.

I am not sure that US operators can duplicate European procedural times. In the ADVENT regulatory trial, the mean procedure time was 105 minutes and that was in experienced US centers. While this still represents early experience with PFA, the culture of US AF ablation entails far more mapping and extra catheters than I have seen used in European labs. 

Cost is a major issue. It’s hard to sort out exact costs in the United States, but a PFA catheter costs approximately threefold more than a standard ablation catheter. A recent study from Liverpool, England, found that PFA ablation was faster but more expensive than standard thermal ablation because of higher PFA equipment prices. For better or worse, US patients are not directly affected by the higher procedural costs. But the fact remains that PFA adds more costs to the healthcare system. 
 

What Drives the Enthusiasm for First-Generation PFA? 

So why all the enthusiasm? It’s surely not the empirical data. Evidence thus far shows no obvious advantage in safety or efficacy. European use of PFA does seem to reduce procedure time. But in many electrophysiology labs in the United States, the rate-limiting step for AF ablation is not time in the lab but having enough staff to turn rooms around.

The main factor driving early acceptance of PFA relates to basic human nature. It is the fear of missing out. Marketing works on consumers, and it surely works on doctors. Companies that make PFA systems sponsor key opinion leaders to discuss PFA. These companies have beautiful booths in the expo of our meetings; they host dinners and talks. When a hospital in a city does PFA, the other hospitals feel the urge to keep up. It’s hard to be a Top Person in electrophysiology and not be a PFA user. 

One of my favorite comments came from a key opinion leader. He told me that he advised his administration to buy a PFA system, promote that they have it, and keep it in the closet until better systems are released. 

Iteration in the medical device field is tricky. There are negatives to being too harsh on first-generation systems. Early cardiac resynchronization tools, for instance, were horrible. Now CRT is transformative in selected patients with heart failure. 

It’s possible (but not certain) that electrical ablative therapy will iterate and surpass thermal ablation in the future. Maybe. 

But for now, the enthusiasm for PFA far outstrips its evidence. Until better evidence emerges, I will be a slow adopter. And I hope that our field gathers evidence before widespread adoption makes it impossible to do proper studies. 
 

Dr. Mandrola, clinical electrophysiologist, Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Just after lunchtime on June 18, Massachusetts’ leaders discovered that the statewide 911 system was down.

A scramble to handle the crisis was on.

Police texted out administrative numbers that callers could use, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu gave outage updates at a press conference outlining plans for the Celtics’ championship parade, and local officials urged people to summon help by pulling red fire alarm boxes.

About 7 million people went roughly 2 hours with no 911 service. Such crashes have become more of a feature than a bug in the nation’s fragmented emergency response system.

Outages have hit at least eight states in 2024. They’re emblematic of problems plaguing emergency communications caused in part by wide disparities in the systems’ age and capabilities, and in funding of 911 systems across the country. While some states, cities, and counties have already modernized their systems or have made plans to upgrade, many others are lagging.

911 is typically supported by fees tacked on to phone bills, but state and local governments also tap general funds or other resources.

“Now there are haves and have-nots,” said Jonathan Gilad, vice president of government affairs at the National Emergency Number Association (NENA), which represents 911 first responders. “Next-generation 911 shouldn’t be for people who happen to have an emergency in a good location.”

Meanwhile, federal legislation that could steer billions of dollars into modernizing the patchwork 911 system remains waylaid in Congress.

“This is a national security imperative,” said George Kelemen, executive director of the Industry Council for Emergency Response Technologies, a trade association that represents companies that provide hardware and software to the emergency response industry.

“In a crisis — a school shooting or a house fire or, God forbid, a terrorist attack — people call 911 first,” he said. “The system can’t go down.”

The United States debuted a single, universal 911 emergency number in February 1968 to simplify crisis response. But instead of a seamless national program, the 911 response network has evolved into a massive puzzle of many interlocking pieces. There are more than 6,000 911 call centers to handle an estimated 240 million emergency calls each year, according to federal data. More than three-quarters of call centers experienced outages in the prior 12 months, according to a survey in February by NENA, which sets standards and advocates for 911, and Carbyne, a provider of public safety technology solutions.

In April, widespread 911 outages affected millions in Nebraska, Nevada, South Dakota, and Texas. The shutdown was blamed on workers’ severing a fiber line while installing a light pole.

In February, tens of thousands of people in areas of California, Georgia, Illinois, Texas, and other states lost cellphone service, including some 911 services, from an outage.

And in June, Verizon agreed to pay a $1.05 million fine to settle a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) probe into a December 2022 outage that affected 911 calls in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

The fires that raced across the Hawaiian island of Maui in August 2023 highlighted the critical importance of 911 systems. Dispatchers there fielded more than 4,500 contacts, meaning calls and texts, on Aug. 8, the day the fires broke out, compared with about 400 on a typical day, said Davlynn Racadio, emergency services dispatch coordinator in Maui County.

“We’re dying out here,” one caller told 911 operators.

But some cell towers faltered because of widespread service outages, according to county officials. Maui County in May filed a lawsuit against four telecommunications companies, saying they failed to inform dispatchers about the outages.

“If 911 calls came in with no voice, we would send text messages,” Ms. Racadio said. “The state is looking at upgrading our system. Next-generation 911 would take us even further into the future.”

Florida, Illinois, Montana, and Oklahoma passed legislation in 2023 to advance or fund modernized 911 systems, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The upgrades include replacing analog 911 infrastructure with digital, Internet-based systems.

Instead of just fielding calls, next-generation systems can pinpoint a caller’s location, accept texts, and enable residents in a crisis to send videos and images to dispatchers. While outages can still occur, modernized systems often include more redundancy to minimize the odds of a shutdown, Mr. Gilad said.

Lawmakers have looked at modernizing 911 systems by tapping revenue the FCC gets from auctioning off the rights to transmit signals over specific bands of the electromagnetic spectrum.

But the U.S. Senate, in March 2023, for the first time allowed a lapse of the FCC’s authority to auction spectrum bands.

Legislation that would allocate almost $15 billion in grants from auction proceeds to speed deployment of next-generation 911 in every state unanimously passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee in May 2023. The bill, HR 3565, sponsored by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), would also extend the FCC’s auction authority.

Other bills have been introduced by various lawmakers, including one in March from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and legislation from Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) to extend the auction authority. For now, neither effort has advanced. Nine former FCC chairs wrote lawmakers in February, urging them to make 911 upgrades a national priority. They suggested Congress tap unspent federal COVID-19 money.

“Whatever the funding source, the need is urgent and the time to act is now,” they wrote.

Ajit Pai, who served as chair of the FCC from 2017 to 2021, said outages often occur in older, legacy systems.

“The fact that the FCC doesn’t have authority to auction spectrum is a real hindrance now,” Mr. Pai said in an interview. “You may never need to call 911, but it can make the difference between life and death. We need more of an organized effort at the federal level because 911 is so decentralized.”

Meanwhile, some safety leaders are making backup plans for 911 outages or conducting investigations into their causes. In Massachusetts, a firewall designed to prevent hacking led to the recent 2-hour outage, according to the state 911 department.

“Outages bring to everyone’s attention that we rely on 911 and we don’t think about how we really rely on it until something happens,” said April Heinze, chief of 911 operations at NENA.

Mass General Brigham, a health system in the Boston area, sent out emergency alerts when the outage happened letting clinics and smaller practices know how to find their 10-digit emergency numbers. In the wake of the outage, it plans to keep the backup numbers next to phones at those facilities.

“Two hours can be a long time,” said Paul Biddinger, chief preparedness and continuity officer at the health system.
 

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

Just after lunchtime on June 18, Massachusetts’ leaders discovered that the statewide 911 system was down.

A scramble to handle the crisis was on.

Police texted out administrative numbers that callers could use, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu gave outage updates at a press conference outlining plans for the Celtics’ championship parade, and local officials urged people to summon help by pulling red fire alarm boxes.

About 7 million people went roughly 2 hours with no 911 service. Such crashes have become more of a feature than a bug in the nation’s fragmented emergency response system.

Outages have hit at least eight states in 2024. They’re emblematic of problems plaguing emergency communications caused in part by wide disparities in the systems’ age and capabilities, and in funding of 911 systems across the country. While some states, cities, and counties have already modernized their systems or have made plans to upgrade, many others are lagging.

911 is typically supported by fees tacked on to phone bills, but state and local governments also tap general funds or other resources.

“Now there are haves and have-nots,” said Jonathan Gilad, vice president of government affairs at the National Emergency Number Association (NENA), which represents 911 first responders. “Next-generation 911 shouldn’t be for people who happen to have an emergency in a good location.”

Meanwhile, federal legislation that could steer billions of dollars into modernizing the patchwork 911 system remains waylaid in Congress.

“This is a national security imperative,” said George Kelemen, executive director of the Industry Council for Emergency Response Technologies, a trade association that represents companies that provide hardware and software to the emergency response industry.

“In a crisis — a school shooting or a house fire or, God forbid, a terrorist attack — people call 911 first,” he said. “The system can’t go down.”

The United States debuted a single, universal 911 emergency number in February 1968 to simplify crisis response. But instead of a seamless national program, the 911 response network has evolved into a massive puzzle of many interlocking pieces. There are more than 6,000 911 call centers to handle an estimated 240 million emergency calls each year, according to federal data. More than three-quarters of call centers experienced outages in the prior 12 months, according to a survey in February by NENA, which sets standards and advocates for 911, and Carbyne, a provider of public safety technology solutions.

In April, widespread 911 outages affected millions in Nebraska, Nevada, South Dakota, and Texas. The shutdown was blamed on workers’ severing a fiber line while installing a light pole.

In February, tens of thousands of people in areas of California, Georgia, Illinois, Texas, and other states lost cellphone service, including some 911 services, from an outage.

And in June, Verizon agreed to pay a $1.05 million fine to settle a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) probe into a December 2022 outage that affected 911 calls in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

The fires that raced across the Hawaiian island of Maui in August 2023 highlighted the critical importance of 911 systems. Dispatchers there fielded more than 4,500 contacts, meaning calls and texts, on Aug. 8, the day the fires broke out, compared with about 400 on a typical day, said Davlynn Racadio, emergency services dispatch coordinator in Maui County.

“We’re dying out here,” one caller told 911 operators.

But some cell towers faltered because of widespread service outages, according to county officials. Maui County in May filed a lawsuit against four telecommunications companies, saying they failed to inform dispatchers about the outages.

“If 911 calls came in with no voice, we would send text messages,” Ms. Racadio said. “The state is looking at upgrading our system. Next-generation 911 would take us even further into the future.”

Florida, Illinois, Montana, and Oklahoma passed legislation in 2023 to advance or fund modernized 911 systems, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The upgrades include replacing analog 911 infrastructure with digital, Internet-based systems.

Instead of just fielding calls, next-generation systems can pinpoint a caller’s location, accept texts, and enable residents in a crisis to send videos and images to dispatchers. While outages can still occur, modernized systems often include more redundancy to minimize the odds of a shutdown, Mr. Gilad said.

Lawmakers have looked at modernizing 911 systems by tapping revenue the FCC gets from auctioning off the rights to transmit signals over specific bands of the electromagnetic spectrum.

But the U.S. Senate, in March 2023, for the first time allowed a lapse of the FCC’s authority to auction spectrum bands.

Legislation that would allocate almost $15 billion in grants from auction proceeds to speed deployment of next-generation 911 in every state unanimously passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee in May 2023. The bill, HR 3565, sponsored by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), would also extend the FCC’s auction authority.

Other bills have been introduced by various lawmakers, including one in March from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and legislation from Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) to extend the auction authority. For now, neither effort has advanced. Nine former FCC chairs wrote lawmakers in February, urging them to make 911 upgrades a national priority. They suggested Congress tap unspent federal COVID-19 money.

“Whatever the funding source, the need is urgent and the time to act is now,” they wrote.

Ajit Pai, who served as chair of the FCC from 2017 to 2021, said outages often occur in older, legacy systems.

“The fact that the FCC doesn’t have authority to auction spectrum is a real hindrance now,” Mr. Pai said in an interview. “You may never need to call 911, but it can make the difference between life and death. We need more of an organized effort at the federal level because 911 is so decentralized.”

Meanwhile, some safety leaders are making backup plans for 911 outages or conducting investigations into their causes. In Massachusetts, a firewall designed to prevent hacking led to the recent 2-hour outage, according to the state 911 department.

“Outages bring to everyone’s attention that we rely on 911 and we don’t think about how we really rely on it until something happens,” said April Heinze, chief of 911 operations at NENA.

Mass General Brigham, a health system in the Boston area, sent out emergency alerts when the outage happened letting clinics and smaller practices know how to find their 10-digit emergency numbers. In the wake of the outage, it plans to keep the backup numbers next to phones at those facilities.

“Two hours can be a long time,” said Paul Biddinger, chief preparedness and continuity officer at the health system.
 

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

Just after lunchtime on June 18, Massachusetts’ leaders discovered that the statewide 911 system was down.

A scramble to handle the crisis was on.

Police texted out administrative numbers that callers could use, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu gave outage updates at a press conference outlining plans for the Celtics’ championship parade, and local officials urged people to summon help by pulling red fire alarm boxes.

About 7 million people went roughly 2 hours with no 911 service. Such crashes have become more of a feature than a bug in the nation’s fragmented emergency response system.

Outages have hit at least eight states in 2024. They’re emblematic of problems plaguing emergency communications caused in part by wide disparities in the systems’ age and capabilities, and in funding of 911 systems across the country. While some states, cities, and counties have already modernized their systems or have made plans to upgrade, many others are lagging.

911 is typically supported by fees tacked on to phone bills, but state and local governments also tap general funds or other resources.

“Now there are haves and have-nots,” said Jonathan Gilad, vice president of government affairs at the National Emergency Number Association (NENA), which represents 911 first responders. “Next-generation 911 shouldn’t be for people who happen to have an emergency in a good location.”

Meanwhile, federal legislation that could steer billions of dollars into modernizing the patchwork 911 system remains waylaid in Congress.

“This is a national security imperative,” said George Kelemen, executive director of the Industry Council for Emergency Response Technologies, a trade association that represents companies that provide hardware and software to the emergency response industry.

“In a crisis — a school shooting or a house fire or, God forbid, a terrorist attack — people call 911 first,” he said. “The system can’t go down.”

The United States debuted a single, universal 911 emergency number in February 1968 to simplify crisis response. But instead of a seamless national program, the 911 response network has evolved into a massive puzzle of many interlocking pieces. There are more than 6,000 911 call centers to handle an estimated 240 million emergency calls each year, according to federal data. More than three-quarters of call centers experienced outages in the prior 12 months, according to a survey in February by NENA, which sets standards and advocates for 911, and Carbyne, a provider of public safety technology solutions.

In April, widespread 911 outages affected millions in Nebraska, Nevada, South Dakota, and Texas. The shutdown was blamed on workers’ severing a fiber line while installing a light pole.

In February, tens of thousands of people in areas of California, Georgia, Illinois, Texas, and other states lost cellphone service, including some 911 services, from an outage.

And in June, Verizon agreed to pay a $1.05 million fine to settle a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) probe into a December 2022 outage that affected 911 calls in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

The fires that raced across the Hawaiian island of Maui in August 2023 highlighted the critical importance of 911 systems. Dispatchers there fielded more than 4,500 contacts, meaning calls and texts, on Aug. 8, the day the fires broke out, compared with about 400 on a typical day, said Davlynn Racadio, emergency services dispatch coordinator in Maui County.

“We’re dying out here,” one caller told 911 operators.

But some cell towers faltered because of widespread service outages, according to county officials. Maui County in May filed a lawsuit against four telecommunications companies, saying they failed to inform dispatchers about the outages.

“If 911 calls came in with no voice, we would send text messages,” Ms. Racadio said. “The state is looking at upgrading our system. Next-generation 911 would take us even further into the future.”

Florida, Illinois, Montana, and Oklahoma passed legislation in 2023 to advance or fund modernized 911 systems, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The upgrades include replacing analog 911 infrastructure with digital, Internet-based systems.

Instead of just fielding calls, next-generation systems can pinpoint a caller’s location, accept texts, and enable residents in a crisis to send videos and images to dispatchers. While outages can still occur, modernized systems often include more redundancy to minimize the odds of a shutdown, Mr. Gilad said.

Lawmakers have looked at modernizing 911 systems by tapping revenue the FCC gets from auctioning off the rights to transmit signals over specific bands of the electromagnetic spectrum.

But the U.S. Senate, in March 2023, for the first time allowed a lapse of the FCC’s authority to auction spectrum bands.

Legislation that would allocate almost $15 billion in grants from auction proceeds to speed deployment of next-generation 911 in every state unanimously passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee in May 2023. The bill, HR 3565, sponsored by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), would also extend the FCC’s auction authority.

Other bills have been introduced by various lawmakers, including one in March from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and legislation from Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) to extend the auction authority. For now, neither effort has advanced. Nine former FCC chairs wrote lawmakers in February, urging them to make 911 upgrades a national priority. They suggested Congress tap unspent federal COVID-19 money.

“Whatever the funding source, the need is urgent and the time to act is now,” they wrote.

Ajit Pai, who served as chair of the FCC from 2017 to 2021, said outages often occur in older, legacy systems.

“The fact that the FCC doesn’t have authority to auction spectrum is a real hindrance now,” Mr. Pai said in an interview. “You may never need to call 911, but it can make the difference between life and death. We need more of an organized effort at the federal level because 911 is so decentralized.”

Meanwhile, some safety leaders are making backup plans for 911 outages or conducting investigations into their causes. In Massachusetts, a firewall designed to prevent hacking led to the recent 2-hour outage, according to the state 911 department.

“Outages bring to everyone’s attention that we rely on 911 and we don’t think about how we really rely on it until something happens,” said April Heinze, chief of 911 operations at NENA.

Mass General Brigham, a health system in the Boston area, sent out emergency alerts when the outage happened letting clinics and smaller practices know how to find their 10-digit emergency numbers. In the wake of the outage, it plans to keep the backup numbers next to phones at those facilities.

“Two hours can be a long time,” said Paul Biddinger, chief preparedness and continuity officer at the health system.
 

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

Editor’s Note: This piece was originally published in Dr. Glasser’s bimonthly column in The Jolt, a nonprofit online news organization based in Olympia, Washington. She was inspired to write her story after meeting Christine Laine, MD, one of three female physician presenters at the Sommer Lectures in Portland, Oregon, in May 2024. The article has been edited lightly from the original. 

Primary care internal medicine — the medical field I chose, loved, and practiced for four decades — is dead. 

The grief and shock I feel about this is personal and transpersonal. The loss of internists (internal medicine physicians) practicing primary care is a major loss to us all. 

From the 1970s to roughly 2020, there were three groups of primary care physicians: family practice, pediatricians, and internists. In their 3-year residencies (after 4 years of medical school), pediatricians trained to care for children and adolescents; internists for adults; and FPs for children, adults, and women and pregnancy. Family practitioners are the most general of the generalists, whereas the others’ training involves comprehensive care of complex patients in their age groups.

How and when the field of primary care internal medicine flourished is my story. 

I was one of those kids who was hyperfocused on science, math, and the human body. By the end of high school, I was considering medicine for my career. 

To learn more, I volunteered at the local hospital. In my typical style, I requested not to be one of those candy stripers serving drinks on the wards. Instead, they put me in the emergency department, where I would transport patients and clean the stretchers. There I was free to watch whatever was going on if I did not interfere with the staff. On my first shift, a 20-year-old drowning victim arrived by ambulance. I watched the entire unsuccessful resuscitation and as shocked and saddened as I was, I knew (in the way only a headstrong 18-year-old can) that medicine was for me. 

It was a fortuitous time to graduate as a female pre-med student. 

In 1975, our country was in the midst of the women’s movement and a national effort to train primary care physicians. I was accepted to my state medical school. The University of Massachusetts Medical School had been established a few years earlier, with its main purpose to train primary care physicians and spread them around the state (especially out of the Boston metropolitan area). The curriculum was designed to expose students to primary care from year one. I was assigned to shadow a general practice physician in inner-city Springfield who saw over 50 patients a day! The patients knew they could see and afford him, so they crammed into his waiting room until their name was called in order of their arrival. No appointments necessary. His chart notes were a few scribbled sentences. I didn’t see myself in that practice exactly, but his work ethic and dedication inspired me. 

Over half of our graduating class chose to train in primary care specialties, and most stayed in-state. It turned out to be a good bet on the part of the government of Massachusetts. 

When I applied for residency in 1980, several internal medicine programs had a focus on primary care, which was my goal. I matched at Providence St. Vincent Hospital in Portland, Oregon, and moved across the country to the Pacific Northwest, never to look back. There, my attendings were doctors like I wanted to be: primary care internists in the community, not in academia. It was the perfect choice and an excellent training program. 

In 1984, I hung out my private practice internal medicine shingle in Hillsboro, Oregon, across the street from the community hospital. My primary care internal medicine colleagues and I shared weekend calls and admitted and cared for our patients in the hospital, and when they were discharged. That is now called “continuity of care.” It was a time when we ate in the doctors’ lounge together, met in hallways, and informally consulted each other about our patients. These were called “curbside consults.” They were invaluable to our ability to provide comprehensive care to our patients in primary care, led to fewer specialty referrals, and were free. That would now be called interprofessional communication and collegiality. 

“Burnout” was not a word you heard. We were busy and happy doing what we had spent 12 years of our precious youth to prepare for. 

What did internists offer to primary care? That also is part of my story. 

When I moved to Olympia, I took a position in the women’s health clinic at the American Lake Veterans Administration Medical Center. 

We were a small group: two family practice doctors, three nurse practitioners, and me, the only internist. Many of our patients were sick and complex. Two of the nurse practitioners (NPs) asked me to take their most complicated patients. Being comfortable with complexity as an internist, I said yes. 

One of the NPs was inappropriately hired, as she had experience in women’s health. She came to me freaked out: “Oh my God, I have no idea how to manage COPD!” The other wanted simpler patients. I don’t blame them for the patient transfers. NPs typically have 3 years of training before they practice, in contrast to primary care physicians’ 8. 

Guess who made friends with the custodian, staying until 8 p.m. most evenings, and who left by 5:30 p.m. 

What was I doing in those extra hours? I was trudging through clerical, yet important, tasks my medical assistant and transcriptionist used to do in private practice. In the 30 minutes allotted for the patient, I needed to focus entirely on them and their multiple complex medical problems. 

What is lost with the death of primary care internal medicine? 

At the recent Sommer Memorial Lectures in Portland, Steven D. Freer, MD, the current director of the residency program where I trained, has not had a single of his eight annual internal medicine graduates choose primary care in several years. Half (two of four) of those in my year did: One went to Tillamook, an underserved area on the Oregon coast, and I to Hillsboro. 

What are internal medicine training graduates doing now? They are becoming hospitalists or, more often, specialists in cardiology, pulmonology, nephrology, oncology, and other more lucrative fields of medicine. 

Why are they not choosing primary care? As when the University of Massachusetts Medical School was established, a shortage of primary care physicians persists and probably is more severe than it was in the 1970s. Massachusetts was proactive. We are already years behind catching up. The shortage is no longer in rural areas alone. 

Christine Laine, MD, who is editor in chief of Annals of Internal Medicine and spoke at the Sommer Memorial Lectures, lives in Philadelphia. Even there, she has lost her own primary care internal medicine physician and cannot find another primary care physician (much less an internist) for herself. 

Washington State, where I live, scores a D grade for our primary care staffing statewide. 

Is there hope for the future of primary care in general? Or for the restoration of primary care internal medicine? 

Maybe. I was relieved to hear from Dr. Freer and Dr. Laine that efforts are beginning to revive the field. 

Just like internists’ patients, the potential restoration of the field will be complex and multilayered. It will require new laws, policies, residency programs, and incentives for students, including debt reduction. Administrative burdens will need to be reduced; de-corporatization and restoring healthcare leadership to those with in-depth medical training will need to be a part of the solution as well. 

Let’s all hope the new resuscitation efforts will be successful for the field of primary care in general and primary care internal medicine specifically. It will be good for healthcare and for your patients! 

Many work for large systems in which they feel powerless to effect change.

Dr. Glasser is a retired internal medicine physician in Olympia, Washington. She can be reached at [email protected].

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Editor’s Note: This piece was originally published in Dr. Glasser’s bimonthly column in The Jolt, a nonprofit online news organization based in Olympia, Washington. She was inspired to write her story after meeting Christine Laine, MD, one of three female physician presenters at the Sommer Lectures in Portland, Oregon, in May 2024. The article has been edited lightly from the original. 

Primary care internal medicine — the medical field I chose, loved, and practiced for four decades — is dead. 

The grief and shock I feel about this is personal and transpersonal. The loss of internists (internal medicine physicians) practicing primary care is a major loss to us all. 

From the 1970s to roughly 2020, there were three groups of primary care physicians: family practice, pediatricians, and internists. In their 3-year residencies (after 4 years of medical school), pediatricians trained to care for children and adolescents; internists for adults; and FPs for children, adults, and women and pregnancy. Family practitioners are the most general of the generalists, whereas the others’ training involves comprehensive care of complex patients in their age groups.

How and when the field of primary care internal medicine flourished is my story. 

I was one of those kids who was hyperfocused on science, math, and the human body. By the end of high school, I was considering medicine for my career. 

To learn more, I volunteered at the local hospital. In my typical style, I requested not to be one of those candy stripers serving drinks on the wards. Instead, they put me in the emergency department, where I would transport patients and clean the stretchers. There I was free to watch whatever was going on if I did not interfere with the staff. On my first shift, a 20-year-old drowning victim arrived by ambulance. I watched the entire unsuccessful resuscitation and as shocked and saddened as I was, I knew (in the way only a headstrong 18-year-old can) that medicine was for me. 

It was a fortuitous time to graduate as a female pre-med student. 

In 1975, our country was in the midst of the women’s movement and a national effort to train primary care physicians. I was accepted to my state medical school. The University of Massachusetts Medical School had been established a few years earlier, with its main purpose to train primary care physicians and spread them around the state (especially out of the Boston metropolitan area). The curriculum was designed to expose students to primary care from year one. I was assigned to shadow a general practice physician in inner-city Springfield who saw over 50 patients a day! The patients knew they could see and afford him, so they crammed into his waiting room until their name was called in order of their arrival. No appointments necessary. His chart notes were a few scribbled sentences. I didn’t see myself in that practice exactly, but his work ethic and dedication inspired me. 

Over half of our graduating class chose to train in primary care specialties, and most stayed in-state. It turned out to be a good bet on the part of the government of Massachusetts. 

When I applied for residency in 1980, several internal medicine programs had a focus on primary care, which was my goal. I matched at Providence St. Vincent Hospital in Portland, Oregon, and moved across the country to the Pacific Northwest, never to look back. There, my attendings were doctors like I wanted to be: primary care internists in the community, not in academia. It was the perfect choice and an excellent training program. 

In 1984, I hung out my private practice internal medicine shingle in Hillsboro, Oregon, across the street from the community hospital. My primary care internal medicine colleagues and I shared weekend calls and admitted and cared for our patients in the hospital, and when they were discharged. That is now called “continuity of care.” It was a time when we ate in the doctors’ lounge together, met in hallways, and informally consulted each other about our patients. These were called “curbside consults.” They were invaluable to our ability to provide comprehensive care to our patients in primary care, led to fewer specialty referrals, and were free. That would now be called interprofessional communication and collegiality. 

“Burnout” was not a word you heard. We were busy and happy doing what we had spent 12 years of our precious youth to prepare for. 

What did internists offer to primary care? That also is part of my story. 

When I moved to Olympia, I took a position in the women’s health clinic at the American Lake Veterans Administration Medical Center. 

We were a small group: two family practice doctors, three nurse practitioners, and me, the only internist. Many of our patients were sick and complex. Two of the nurse practitioners (NPs) asked me to take their most complicated patients. Being comfortable with complexity as an internist, I said yes. 

One of the NPs was inappropriately hired, as she had experience in women’s health. She came to me freaked out: “Oh my God, I have no idea how to manage COPD!” The other wanted simpler patients. I don’t blame them for the patient transfers. NPs typically have 3 years of training before they practice, in contrast to primary care physicians’ 8. 

Guess who made friends with the custodian, staying until 8 p.m. most evenings, and who left by 5:30 p.m. 

What was I doing in those extra hours? I was trudging through clerical, yet important, tasks my medical assistant and transcriptionist used to do in private practice. In the 30 minutes allotted for the patient, I needed to focus entirely on them and their multiple complex medical problems. 

What is lost with the death of primary care internal medicine? 

At the recent Sommer Memorial Lectures in Portland, Steven D. Freer, MD, the current director of the residency program where I trained, has not had a single of his eight annual internal medicine graduates choose primary care in several years. Half (two of four) of those in my year did: One went to Tillamook, an underserved area on the Oregon coast, and I to Hillsboro. 

What are internal medicine training graduates doing now? They are becoming hospitalists or, more often, specialists in cardiology, pulmonology, nephrology, oncology, and other more lucrative fields of medicine. 

Why are they not choosing primary care? As when the University of Massachusetts Medical School was established, a shortage of primary care physicians persists and probably is more severe than it was in the 1970s. Massachusetts was proactive. We are already years behind catching up. The shortage is no longer in rural areas alone. 

Christine Laine, MD, who is editor in chief of Annals of Internal Medicine and spoke at the Sommer Memorial Lectures, lives in Philadelphia. Even there, she has lost her own primary care internal medicine physician and cannot find another primary care physician (much less an internist) for herself. 

Washington State, where I live, scores a D grade for our primary care staffing statewide. 

Is there hope for the future of primary care in general? Or for the restoration of primary care internal medicine? 

Maybe. I was relieved to hear from Dr. Freer and Dr. Laine that efforts are beginning to revive the field. 

Just like internists’ patients, the potential restoration of the field will be complex and multilayered. It will require new laws, policies, residency programs, and incentives for students, including debt reduction. Administrative burdens will need to be reduced; de-corporatization and restoring healthcare leadership to those with in-depth medical training will need to be a part of the solution as well. 

Let’s all hope the new resuscitation efforts will be successful for the field of primary care in general and primary care internal medicine specifically. It will be good for healthcare and for your patients! 

Many work for large systems in which they feel powerless to effect change.

Dr. Glasser is a retired internal medicine physician in Olympia, Washington. She can be reached at [email protected].

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Editor’s Note: This piece was originally published in Dr. Glasser’s bimonthly column in The Jolt, a nonprofit online news organization based in Olympia, Washington. She was inspired to write her story after meeting Christine Laine, MD, one of three female physician presenters at the Sommer Lectures in Portland, Oregon, in May 2024. The article has been edited lightly from the original. 

Primary care internal medicine — the medical field I chose, loved, and practiced for four decades — is dead. 

The grief and shock I feel about this is personal and transpersonal. The loss of internists (internal medicine physicians) practicing primary care is a major loss to us all. 

From the 1970s to roughly 2020, there were three groups of primary care physicians: family practice, pediatricians, and internists. In their 3-year residencies (after 4 years of medical school), pediatricians trained to care for children and adolescents; internists for adults; and FPs for children, adults, and women and pregnancy. Family practitioners are the most general of the generalists, whereas the others’ training involves comprehensive care of complex patients in their age groups.

How and when the field of primary care internal medicine flourished is my story. 

I was one of those kids who was hyperfocused on science, math, and the human body. By the end of high school, I was considering medicine for my career. 

To learn more, I volunteered at the local hospital. In my typical style, I requested not to be one of those candy stripers serving drinks on the wards. Instead, they put me in the emergency department, where I would transport patients and clean the stretchers. There I was free to watch whatever was going on if I did not interfere with the staff. On my first shift, a 20-year-old drowning victim arrived by ambulance. I watched the entire unsuccessful resuscitation and as shocked and saddened as I was, I knew (in the way only a headstrong 18-year-old can) that medicine was for me. 

It was a fortuitous time to graduate as a female pre-med student. 

In 1975, our country was in the midst of the women’s movement and a national effort to train primary care physicians. I was accepted to my state medical school. The University of Massachusetts Medical School had been established a few years earlier, with its main purpose to train primary care physicians and spread them around the state (especially out of the Boston metropolitan area). The curriculum was designed to expose students to primary care from year one. I was assigned to shadow a general practice physician in inner-city Springfield who saw over 50 patients a day! The patients knew they could see and afford him, so they crammed into his waiting room until their name was called in order of their arrival. No appointments necessary. His chart notes were a few scribbled sentences. I didn’t see myself in that practice exactly, but his work ethic and dedication inspired me. 

Over half of our graduating class chose to train in primary care specialties, and most stayed in-state. It turned out to be a good bet on the part of the government of Massachusetts. 

When I applied for residency in 1980, several internal medicine programs had a focus on primary care, which was my goal. I matched at Providence St. Vincent Hospital in Portland, Oregon, and moved across the country to the Pacific Northwest, never to look back. There, my attendings were doctors like I wanted to be: primary care internists in the community, not in academia. It was the perfect choice and an excellent training program. 

In 1984, I hung out my private practice internal medicine shingle in Hillsboro, Oregon, across the street from the community hospital. My primary care internal medicine colleagues and I shared weekend calls and admitted and cared for our patients in the hospital, and when they were discharged. That is now called “continuity of care.” It was a time when we ate in the doctors’ lounge together, met in hallways, and informally consulted each other about our patients. These were called “curbside consults.” They were invaluable to our ability to provide comprehensive care to our patients in primary care, led to fewer specialty referrals, and were free. That would now be called interprofessional communication and collegiality. 

“Burnout” was not a word you heard. We were busy and happy doing what we had spent 12 years of our precious youth to prepare for. 

What did internists offer to primary care? That also is part of my story. 

When I moved to Olympia, I took a position in the women’s health clinic at the American Lake Veterans Administration Medical Center. 

We were a small group: two family practice doctors, three nurse practitioners, and me, the only internist. Many of our patients were sick and complex. Two of the nurse practitioners (NPs) asked me to take their most complicated patients. Being comfortable with complexity as an internist, I said yes. 

One of the NPs was inappropriately hired, as she had experience in women’s health. She came to me freaked out: “Oh my God, I have no idea how to manage COPD!” The other wanted simpler patients. I don’t blame them for the patient transfers. NPs typically have 3 years of training before they practice, in contrast to primary care physicians’ 8. 

Guess who made friends with the custodian, staying until 8 p.m. most evenings, and who left by 5:30 p.m. 

What was I doing in those extra hours? I was trudging through clerical, yet important, tasks my medical assistant and transcriptionist used to do in private practice. In the 30 minutes allotted for the patient, I needed to focus entirely on them and their multiple complex medical problems. 

What is lost with the death of primary care internal medicine? 

At the recent Sommer Memorial Lectures in Portland, Steven D. Freer, MD, the current director of the residency program where I trained, has not had a single of his eight annual internal medicine graduates choose primary care in several years. Half (two of four) of those in my year did: One went to Tillamook, an underserved area on the Oregon coast, and I to Hillsboro. 

What are internal medicine training graduates doing now? They are becoming hospitalists or, more often, specialists in cardiology, pulmonology, nephrology, oncology, and other more lucrative fields of medicine. 

Why are they not choosing primary care? As when the University of Massachusetts Medical School was established, a shortage of primary care physicians persists and probably is more severe than it was in the 1970s. Massachusetts was proactive. We are already years behind catching up. The shortage is no longer in rural areas alone. 

Christine Laine, MD, who is editor in chief of Annals of Internal Medicine and spoke at the Sommer Memorial Lectures, lives in Philadelphia. Even there, she has lost her own primary care internal medicine physician and cannot find another primary care physician (much less an internist) for herself. 

Washington State, where I live, scores a D grade for our primary care staffing statewide. 

Is there hope for the future of primary care in general? Or for the restoration of primary care internal medicine? 

Maybe. I was relieved to hear from Dr. Freer and Dr. Laine that efforts are beginning to revive the field. 

Just like internists’ patients, the potential restoration of the field will be complex and multilayered. It will require new laws, policies, residency programs, and incentives for students, including debt reduction. Administrative burdens will need to be reduced; de-corporatization and restoring healthcare leadership to those with in-depth medical training will need to be a part of the solution as well. 

Let’s all hope the new resuscitation efforts will be successful for the field of primary care in general and primary care internal medicine specifically. It will be good for healthcare and for your patients! 

Many work for large systems in which they feel powerless to effect change.

Dr. Glasser is a retired internal medicine physician in Olympia, Washington. She can be reached at [email protected].

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The link between influenza infection and a rise in short-term risk for acute myocardial infarction (MI) has been reaffirmed in a new study, which showed the risk appears to be particularly elevated in individuals with no prior diagnosis of coronary artery disease.

“Our study results confirm previous findings of an increased risk of MI during or immediately following acute severe flu infection and raises the idea of giving prophylactic anticoagulation to these patients,” reported Patricia Bruijning-Verhagen, MD, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands, who is the senior author of the study, which was published online in NEJM Evidence.

“Our results also change things — in that we now know the focus should be on people without a history of cardiovascular disease — and highlight the importance of flu vaccination, particularly for this group,” she pointed out.

The observational, self-controlled, case-series study linked laboratory records on respiratory virus polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing from 16 laboratories in the Netherlands to national mortality, hospitalization, medication, and administrative registries. Investigators compared the incidence of acute MI during the risk period — days 1-7 after influenza infection — with that in the control period — 1 year before and 51 weeks after the risk period.

The researchers found 26,221 positive PCR tests for influenza, constituting 23,405 unique influenza illness episodes. Of the episodes of acute MI occurring in the year before or the year after confirmed influenza infection and included in the analysis, 25 cases of acute MI occurred on days 1-7 after influenza infection and 394 occurred during the control period.

The adjusted relative incidence of acute MI during the risk period compared with during the control period was 6.16 (95% CI, 4.11-9.24).

The relative incidence of acute MI in individuals with no previous hospitalization for coronary artery disease was 16.60 (95% CI, 10.45-26.37); for those with a previous hospital admission for coronary artery disease, the relative incidence was 1.43 (95% CI, 0.53-3.84).

A temporary increase in the risk for MI has been reported in several previous studies. A 2018 Canadian study by Kwong and colleagues showed a sixfold elevation in the risk for acute MI after influenza infection, which was subsequently confirmed in studies from the United States, Denmark, and Scotland.

In their study, Dr. Bruijning-Verhagen and colleagues aimed to further quantify the association between laboratory-confirmed influenza infection and acute MI and to look at specific subgroups that might have the potential to guide a more individualized approach to prevention.

They replicated the Canadian study using a self-controlled case-series design that corrects for time-invariant confounding and found very similar results: A sixfold increase in the risk for acute MI in the first week after laboratory-confirmed influenza infection.

“The fact that we found similar results to Kwong et al. strengthens the finding that acute flu infection is linked to increased MI risk. This is becoming more and more clear now. It also shows that this effect is generalizable to other countries,” Dr. Bruijning-Verhagen said.
 

People Without Cardiovascular Disease at Highest Risk 

The researchers moved the field ahead by also looking at whether there is a difference in risk between individuals with flu who already had cardiovascular disease and those who did not.

“Most previous studies of flu and MI didn’t stratify between individuals with and without existing cardiovascular disease. And the ones that did look at this weren’t able to show a difference with any confidence,” Dr. Bruijning-Verhagen explained. “There have been suggestions before of a higher risk of MI in individuals with acute flu infection who do not have existing known cardiovascular disease, but this was uncertain.” 

The current study showed a large difference between the two groups, with a much higher risk for MI linked to flu in individuals without any known cardiovascular disease.

“You would think patients with existing cardiovascular disease would be more at risk of MI with flu infection, so this was a surprising result,” reported Dr. Bruijning-Verhagen. “But I think the result is real. The difference between the two groups was too big for it not to be.”

Influenza can cause a hypercoagulable state, systemic inflammation, and vascular changes that can trigger MI, even in patients not thought to be at risk before, she pointed out. And this is on top of high cardiac demands because of the acute infection.

Patients who already have cardiovascular disease may be protected to some extent by the cardiovascular medications that they are taking, she added.

These results could justify the use of short-term anticoagulation in patients with severe flu infection to cover the high-risk period, Dr. Bruijning-Verhagen suggested. “We give short-term anticoagulation as prophylaxis to patients when they have surgery. This would not be that different. But obviously, this approach would have to be tested.”

Clinical studies looking at such a strategy are currently underway.
 

‘Get Your Flu Shot’

The results reinforce the need for anyone who is eligible to get the flu vaccine. “These results should give extra weight to the message to get your flu shot,” she said. “Even if you do not consider yourself someone at risk of cardiovascular disease, our study shows that you can still have an increased risk of MI as a result of severe flu infection.” 

In many countries, the flu vaccine is recommended for everyone older than 60 or 65 years and for younger people with a history of cardiovascular disease. Data on flu vaccination was not available in the current study, but the average age of patients infected with flu was 74 years, so most patients would have been eligible to receive vaccination, she said.

In the Netherlands where the research took place, flu vaccination is recommended for everyone older than 60 years, and uptake is about 60%.

“There will be some cases in younger people, but the number needed to vaccinate to show a benefit would be much larger in younger people, and that may not be cost-effective,” reported Dr. Bruijning-Verhagen.

Flu vaccination policies vary across the world, with many factors being taken into account; some countries already advocate for universal vaccination every year.
 

Extend Flu Vaccination to Prevent ACS 

This study “provides further impetus to policy makers to review and update guidelines on prevention of acute coronary syndromes,” Raina MacIntyre, MBBS, Zubair Akhtar, MPH, and Aye Moa, MPH, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Although vaccination to prevent influenza is recommended and funded in many countries for people 65 years of age and older, the additional benefits of prevention of ACS [acute coronary syndromes] have not been adopted universally into policy and practice nor have recommendations considered prevention of ACS in people 50-64 years of age,” they added.

“Vaccination is low-hanging fruit for people at risk of acute myocardial infarction who have not yet had a first event. It is time that we viewed influenza vaccine as a routine preventive measure for ACS and for people with coronary artery disease risk factors, along with statins, blood pressure control, and smoking cessation,” she explained.

The question of whether the link found between elevated MI risk and severe flu infection might be the result of MI being more likely to be detected in patients hospitalized with severe flu infection, who would undergo a thorough workup, was raised in a second editorial by Lori E. Dodd, PhD, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.

“I think this would be very unlikely to account for the large effect we found,” responded Dr. Bruijning-Verhagen. “There may be the occasional silent MI that gets missed in patients who are not hospitalized, but, in general, acute MI is not something that goes undetected.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The link between influenza infection and a rise in short-term risk for acute myocardial infarction (MI) has been reaffirmed in a new study, which showed the risk appears to be particularly elevated in individuals with no prior diagnosis of coronary artery disease.

“Our study results confirm previous findings of an increased risk of MI during or immediately following acute severe flu infection and raises the idea of giving prophylactic anticoagulation to these patients,” reported Patricia Bruijning-Verhagen, MD, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands, who is the senior author of the study, which was published online in NEJM Evidence.

“Our results also change things — in that we now know the focus should be on people without a history of cardiovascular disease — and highlight the importance of flu vaccination, particularly for this group,” she pointed out.

The observational, self-controlled, case-series study linked laboratory records on respiratory virus polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing from 16 laboratories in the Netherlands to national mortality, hospitalization, medication, and administrative registries. Investigators compared the incidence of acute MI during the risk period — days 1-7 after influenza infection — with that in the control period — 1 year before and 51 weeks after the risk period.

The researchers found 26,221 positive PCR tests for influenza, constituting 23,405 unique influenza illness episodes. Of the episodes of acute MI occurring in the year before or the year after confirmed influenza infection and included in the analysis, 25 cases of acute MI occurred on days 1-7 after influenza infection and 394 occurred during the control period.

The adjusted relative incidence of acute MI during the risk period compared with during the control period was 6.16 (95% CI, 4.11-9.24).

The relative incidence of acute MI in individuals with no previous hospitalization for coronary artery disease was 16.60 (95% CI, 10.45-26.37); for those with a previous hospital admission for coronary artery disease, the relative incidence was 1.43 (95% CI, 0.53-3.84).

A temporary increase in the risk for MI has been reported in several previous studies. A 2018 Canadian study by Kwong and colleagues showed a sixfold elevation in the risk for acute MI after influenza infection, which was subsequently confirmed in studies from the United States, Denmark, and Scotland.

In their study, Dr. Bruijning-Verhagen and colleagues aimed to further quantify the association between laboratory-confirmed influenza infection and acute MI and to look at specific subgroups that might have the potential to guide a more individualized approach to prevention.

They replicated the Canadian study using a self-controlled case-series design that corrects for time-invariant confounding and found very similar results: A sixfold increase in the risk for acute MI in the first week after laboratory-confirmed influenza infection.

“The fact that we found similar results to Kwong et al. strengthens the finding that acute flu infection is linked to increased MI risk. This is becoming more and more clear now. It also shows that this effect is generalizable to other countries,” Dr. Bruijning-Verhagen said.
 

People Without Cardiovascular Disease at Highest Risk 

The researchers moved the field ahead by also looking at whether there is a difference in risk between individuals with flu who already had cardiovascular disease and those who did not.

“Most previous studies of flu and MI didn’t stratify between individuals with and without existing cardiovascular disease. And the ones that did look at this weren’t able to show a difference with any confidence,” Dr. Bruijning-Verhagen explained. “There have been suggestions before of a higher risk of MI in individuals with acute flu infection who do not have existing known cardiovascular disease, but this was uncertain.” 

The current study showed a large difference between the two groups, with a much higher risk for MI linked to flu in individuals without any known cardiovascular disease.

“You would think patients with existing cardiovascular disease would be more at risk of MI with flu infection, so this was a surprising result,” reported Dr. Bruijning-Verhagen. “But I think the result is real. The difference between the two groups was too big for it not to be.”

Influenza can cause a hypercoagulable state, systemic inflammation, and vascular changes that can trigger MI, even in patients not thought to be at risk before, she pointed out. And this is on top of high cardiac demands because of the acute infection.

Patients who already have cardiovascular disease may be protected to some extent by the cardiovascular medications that they are taking, she added.

These results could justify the use of short-term anticoagulation in patients with severe flu infection to cover the high-risk period, Dr. Bruijning-Verhagen suggested. “We give short-term anticoagulation as prophylaxis to patients when they have surgery. This would not be that different. But obviously, this approach would have to be tested.”

Clinical studies looking at such a strategy are currently underway.
 

‘Get Your Flu Shot’

The results reinforce the need for anyone who is eligible to get the flu vaccine. “These results should give extra weight to the message to get your flu shot,” she said. “Even if you do not consider yourself someone at risk of cardiovascular disease, our study shows that you can still have an increased risk of MI as a result of severe flu infection.” 

In many countries, the flu vaccine is recommended for everyone older than 60 or 65 years and for younger people with a history of cardiovascular disease. Data on flu vaccination was not available in the current study, but the average age of patients infected with flu was 74 years, so most patients would have been eligible to receive vaccination, she said.

In the Netherlands where the research took place, flu vaccination is recommended for everyone older than 60 years, and uptake is about 60%.

“There will be some cases in younger people, but the number needed to vaccinate to show a benefit would be much larger in younger people, and that may not be cost-effective,” reported Dr. Bruijning-Verhagen.

Flu vaccination policies vary across the world, with many factors being taken into account; some countries already advocate for universal vaccination every year.
 

Extend Flu Vaccination to Prevent ACS 

This study “provides further impetus to policy makers to review and update guidelines on prevention of acute coronary syndromes,” Raina MacIntyre, MBBS, Zubair Akhtar, MPH, and Aye Moa, MPH, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Although vaccination to prevent influenza is recommended and funded in many countries for people 65 years of age and older, the additional benefits of prevention of ACS [acute coronary syndromes] have not been adopted universally into policy and practice nor have recommendations considered prevention of ACS in people 50-64 years of age,” they added.

“Vaccination is low-hanging fruit for people at risk of acute myocardial infarction who have not yet had a first event. It is time that we viewed influenza vaccine as a routine preventive measure for ACS and for people with coronary artery disease risk factors, along with statins, blood pressure control, and smoking cessation,” she explained.

The question of whether the link found between elevated MI risk and severe flu infection might be the result of MI being more likely to be detected in patients hospitalized with severe flu infection, who would undergo a thorough workup, was raised in a second editorial by Lori E. Dodd, PhD, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.

“I think this would be very unlikely to account for the large effect we found,” responded Dr. Bruijning-Verhagen. “There may be the occasional silent MI that gets missed in patients who are not hospitalized, but, in general, acute MI is not something that goes undetected.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The link between influenza infection and a rise in short-term risk for acute myocardial infarction (MI) has been reaffirmed in a new study, which showed the risk appears to be particularly elevated in individuals with no prior diagnosis of coronary artery disease.

“Our study results confirm previous findings of an increased risk of MI during or immediately following acute severe flu infection and raises the idea of giving prophylactic anticoagulation to these patients,” reported Patricia Bruijning-Verhagen, MD, University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands, who is the senior author of the study, which was published online in NEJM Evidence.

“Our results also change things — in that we now know the focus should be on people without a history of cardiovascular disease — and highlight the importance of flu vaccination, particularly for this group,” she pointed out.

The observational, self-controlled, case-series study linked laboratory records on respiratory virus polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing from 16 laboratories in the Netherlands to national mortality, hospitalization, medication, and administrative registries. Investigators compared the incidence of acute MI during the risk period — days 1-7 after influenza infection — with that in the control period — 1 year before and 51 weeks after the risk period.

The researchers found 26,221 positive PCR tests for influenza, constituting 23,405 unique influenza illness episodes. Of the episodes of acute MI occurring in the year before or the year after confirmed influenza infection and included in the analysis, 25 cases of acute MI occurred on days 1-7 after influenza infection and 394 occurred during the control period.

The adjusted relative incidence of acute MI during the risk period compared with during the control period was 6.16 (95% CI, 4.11-9.24).

The relative incidence of acute MI in individuals with no previous hospitalization for coronary artery disease was 16.60 (95% CI, 10.45-26.37); for those with a previous hospital admission for coronary artery disease, the relative incidence was 1.43 (95% CI, 0.53-3.84).

A temporary increase in the risk for MI has been reported in several previous studies. A 2018 Canadian study by Kwong and colleagues showed a sixfold elevation in the risk for acute MI after influenza infection, which was subsequently confirmed in studies from the United States, Denmark, and Scotland.

In their study, Dr. Bruijning-Verhagen and colleagues aimed to further quantify the association between laboratory-confirmed influenza infection and acute MI and to look at specific subgroups that might have the potential to guide a more individualized approach to prevention.

They replicated the Canadian study using a self-controlled case-series design that corrects for time-invariant confounding and found very similar results: A sixfold increase in the risk for acute MI in the first week after laboratory-confirmed influenza infection.

“The fact that we found similar results to Kwong et al. strengthens the finding that acute flu infection is linked to increased MI risk. This is becoming more and more clear now. It also shows that this effect is generalizable to other countries,” Dr. Bruijning-Verhagen said.
 

People Without Cardiovascular Disease at Highest Risk 

The researchers moved the field ahead by also looking at whether there is a difference in risk between individuals with flu who already had cardiovascular disease and those who did not.

“Most previous studies of flu and MI didn’t stratify between individuals with and without existing cardiovascular disease. And the ones that did look at this weren’t able to show a difference with any confidence,” Dr. Bruijning-Verhagen explained. “There have been suggestions before of a higher risk of MI in individuals with acute flu infection who do not have existing known cardiovascular disease, but this was uncertain.” 

The current study showed a large difference between the two groups, with a much higher risk for MI linked to flu in individuals without any known cardiovascular disease.

“You would think patients with existing cardiovascular disease would be more at risk of MI with flu infection, so this was a surprising result,” reported Dr. Bruijning-Verhagen. “But I think the result is real. The difference between the two groups was too big for it not to be.”

Influenza can cause a hypercoagulable state, systemic inflammation, and vascular changes that can trigger MI, even in patients not thought to be at risk before, she pointed out. And this is on top of high cardiac demands because of the acute infection.

Patients who already have cardiovascular disease may be protected to some extent by the cardiovascular medications that they are taking, she added.

These results could justify the use of short-term anticoagulation in patients with severe flu infection to cover the high-risk period, Dr. Bruijning-Verhagen suggested. “We give short-term anticoagulation as prophylaxis to patients when they have surgery. This would not be that different. But obviously, this approach would have to be tested.”

Clinical studies looking at such a strategy are currently underway.
 

‘Get Your Flu Shot’

The results reinforce the need for anyone who is eligible to get the flu vaccine. “These results should give extra weight to the message to get your flu shot,” she said. “Even if you do not consider yourself someone at risk of cardiovascular disease, our study shows that you can still have an increased risk of MI as a result of severe flu infection.” 

In many countries, the flu vaccine is recommended for everyone older than 60 or 65 years and for younger people with a history of cardiovascular disease. Data on flu vaccination was not available in the current study, but the average age of patients infected with flu was 74 years, so most patients would have been eligible to receive vaccination, she said.

In the Netherlands where the research took place, flu vaccination is recommended for everyone older than 60 years, and uptake is about 60%.

“There will be some cases in younger people, but the number needed to vaccinate to show a benefit would be much larger in younger people, and that may not be cost-effective,” reported Dr. Bruijning-Verhagen.

Flu vaccination policies vary across the world, with many factors being taken into account; some countries already advocate for universal vaccination every year.
 

Extend Flu Vaccination to Prevent ACS 

This study “provides further impetus to policy makers to review and update guidelines on prevention of acute coronary syndromes,” Raina MacIntyre, MBBS, Zubair Akhtar, MPH, and Aye Moa, MPH, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Although vaccination to prevent influenza is recommended and funded in many countries for people 65 years of age and older, the additional benefits of prevention of ACS [acute coronary syndromes] have not been adopted universally into policy and practice nor have recommendations considered prevention of ACS in people 50-64 years of age,” they added.

“Vaccination is low-hanging fruit for people at risk of acute myocardial infarction who have not yet had a first event. It is time that we viewed influenza vaccine as a routine preventive measure for ACS and for people with coronary artery disease risk factors, along with statins, blood pressure control, and smoking cessation,” she explained.

The question of whether the link found between elevated MI risk and severe flu infection might be the result of MI being more likely to be detected in patients hospitalized with severe flu infection, who would undergo a thorough workup, was raised in a second editorial by Lori E. Dodd, PhD, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.

“I think this would be very unlikely to account for the large effect we found,” responded Dr. Bruijning-Verhagen. “There may be the occasional silent MI that gets missed in patients who are not hospitalized, but, in general, acute MI is not something that goes undetected.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s the difference between running a marathon and taking a leisurely stroll. That’s how recent pediatrics resident Joey Whelihan, MD, compared an 11-hour inpatient hospital day with an 8-hour outpatient shift where residents see patients in a clinic.

With inpatient training, “you are lucky if you have time to cook dinner, go to bed, and get ready for the next day,” said Dr. Whelihan, who recently started his adolescent medicine fellowship at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia after 3 years of residency there. Some residents have call every fourth day during inpatient rotations, working 24-28 hours at a time. They come in one morning and go home the next, he told this news organization.

“Outpatient blocks give you more time to catch your breath and feel somewhat refreshed and ready to take care of patients.”

Longer stretches of inpatient rotations are not sustainable, Dr. Whelihan added, and residents are likely to become exhausted. Fatigue is a leading cause of burnout, a mental, physical, and emotional challenge that residency programs and national medical organizations have been struggling to address.

In recent years, there has been a movement to reduce the maximum consecutive duration of resident duty hours in residency programs across the country. Fueled by resident health and patient safety concerns, the movement is a shift from the previous 24- to 36-hour call duty schedules.
 

Improved Call Systems = Better Residents

The connection between burnout, well-being, and work schedules appears regularly in national program standards. “Residents and faculty members are at risk for burnout and depression,” according to the current Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education’s standard residency program requirements.

“Programs, in partnership with their sponsoring institutions, have the same responsibility to address well-being as other aspects of resident competence,” the guidelines state. That charge includes “attention to scheduling, work intensity, and work compression that impacts resident well-being.”

In Medscape’s Residents Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2023, a third of residents surveyed rarely or never paid attention to their well-being, which closely mirrors the 31% who rarely or never had time for a social life. Slightly more residents (37%) said their work-life balance was “somewhat worse” or “much worse” than they expected.

“I think everyone has burnout as a resident, regardless of the type of program they are in,” Dr. Whelihan said. He described the experience as when you lack fulfillment and empathy and feel exhausted, callous, and removed from interactions with colleagues and patients.

The American Medical Association’s recently released report on the state of residency well-being in 2023 also found that about 43% of residents and fellows had at least one symptom of burnout, about a 2% increase from 2022.
 

Efforts to Combat Burnout

One residency program found a way to reduce burnout by changing its block scheduling from 4 inpatient weeks followed by 1 outpatient week (4 + 1) to 4 inpatient call-based weeks and 4 outpatient ambulatory, non-call weeks (4 + 4), according to a survey study published recently in JAMA Network Open. The initiative drew praise from some residents and a med school professor who studies wellness issues.

In the survey of postgraduate year (PGY) 1 and PGY-2 hospitalist and primary care residents from the University of Colorado’s Internal Medicine Residency Program, Aurora, between June 2019 and June 2021, the schedule change resulted in improved burnout scores and self-reported professional, educational, and health benefits.

As part of the survey, residents rated symptoms on a 7-point scale on the basis of how frequently they experienced emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment.

Investigators also used a questionnaire to evaluate how participants perceived the rotation structure with various outcomes, including the ability to acquire clinical skills, access educational and scholarly opportunities, job satisfaction, and health.

The study concluded that the schedule change improved burnout, health, wellness, and professional development without weakening residents perceived clinical skills or standardized exam scores.

Still, the study authors acknowledged that several factors, including the pandemic, may have limited the findings. During that time, the study transitioned from in-person to electronic submissions, resulting in reduced response rates because of changes in staffing needs and fewer research and scholarly activities.

“One of the things we worried about was that the pandemic would make [burnout findings] look worse,” said lead author Dan Heppe, MD, a hospitalist and associate director of the CU Internal Medicine Residency Program. “Anecdotally, residents may have had more support in our program than perhaps some other programs. Though they had long hours with very sick patients, we tried to keep going in a positive direction.”

Dr. Heppe said in an interview that the purpose of the schedule change was to space out more intense rotations and build in more time for research, leadership, teaching, and professional development. He suggested the new schedule could help with other aspects of residents’ careers, exposing them to alternate avenues earlier in their training and in a more structured way.

Like most of the study authors, Dr. Heppe is a graduate of the residency program. He recalled how the program changed from multiple inpatient months in a row with clinic half days during those rotations to a 4 + 1 schedule. But the 1 week between inpatient rotations wasn’t enough time to recover or catch up on clinical work, said Dr. Heppe, who is also an associate professor of medicine at CU.

“It was too erratic,” he said of his former residency schedule. “There was a month of research here or there and clinic and then right back to the ICU for a couple of months without a break, and it was less predictable.”

Dr. Heppe said other residency programs have expressed interest in duplicating CU’s schedule change. He admits it may be difficult because of intensive schedule coordination, and some hospitals may not want to reduce clinical services.

The Yale Internal Medicine Traditional Residency Program also recently ended its 28-hour call, during which residents worked 24 hours with an additional 4 hours to transfer the patient to the incoming team. The move was made in response to residents’ requests, saying that the grueling call rotation’s time had come. The reaction has been overwhelmingly positive.

Proponents of alternate scheduling blocks [4 + 4 or 6 + 2] say that they improve residents’ educational experience, patient care, and continuity of care, reduce burnout, and guarantee residents time off.
 

Advancing Resident Well-Being

“The premise of looking at scheduling in a more intentional way is a sound one in the process of trying to support and advance resident well-being,” said Mark Greenawald, MD, vice chair of academic affairs, well-being, and professional development for the Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine’s Department of Family and Community Medicine in Roanoke.

He said it’s up to residency program directors or graduate medical education departments within a specialty to determine whether such scheduling changes fit their requirements for inpatient and outpatient care and training electives. Requirements may limit some scheduling changes, but within the specialty, there’s some flexibility to be creative with rotations. The CU study considered how to create a residency rhythm without stacking inpatient rotations so there’s recovery time.

“Human beings need a break. If residents work 80 hours continually, they will start to experience greater distress, which for many leads to burnout,” he said

Still, the study includes design flaws because it doesn’t explain how call times and hours differ between inpatient and outpatient rotations. “My own [family medicine] program also does outpatient clinics when we have inpatient service. We have half days in the clinic, which ensures better continuity care with the patient.”

Dr. Greenawald has yet to see much research published about the impact of resident schedule changes. By taking an experimental approach, the CU study showed that their particular change positively affected burnout. If the study leads to improvements in rotation schedules or encourages other programs to experiment with their schedules, it will be a step in the right direction.
 

How Residents Respond

Haidn Foster, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, remembered experiencing burnout as an intern. At that time, he occasionally dealt with poor patient outcomes and sick patients while working long hours with only 1 day off each week. During a particularly challenging rotation, he felt overwhelmed and numb, which was exacerbated if a patient’s condition worsened or they passed away, he said.

His program follows a schedule of 6 weeks of inpatient training and 2 weeks of outpatient rotations (6 + 2). He said that restructuring residents’ schedules may be more effective than commonly used individual wellness modules, referring to the CU study. “The authors tried out a novel systematic way to tackle the epidemic of physician burnout overwhelming people in the medical community.”

Although the study found that schedule changes don’t affect standardized exam scores, Dr. Foster wondered about preceptor ratings, another marker for clinical competency.

He said future studies should attempt to change the structure of medical training delivery by evaluating models that best reduce burnout, are consistent with residents’ career goals, and produce competent physicians. “Burnout plagues our medical system and leads to too many physicians and physicians-in-training leaving the field or taking their lives. I’m not sure this particular mechanism gets us there, but it’s a step, and so that’s very important.”

Like Dr. Foster, Dr. Whelihan follows a 6 + 2 schedule. He said he would have welcomed a schedule that included more outpatient and less inpatient training and can see how changes in scheduling could reduce burnout. “More outpatient time gives you an opportunity to breathe. You get a little more time off working in clinic with less sick people at a slower pace.”

Ally Fuher, MD, said she chose CU’s Internal Medicine Residency Program 4 years ago largely because of its innovative schedule. Now the program’s chief medical resident, she knew the structure would give her more time to pursue other nonclinical interests including research and medical education, meet regularly with mentors, visit family in another state, and attend important life events.

She acknowledged that the alternative would have meant a more irregular schedule with the possibility of working as many as 80 hours a week on back-to-back inpatient rotations with only 1 day off a week, leaving minimal time to plan other activities, let alone rest and recover.

Dr. Fuher said a balanced schedule made her a more well-rounded person excited to engage in her profession. While she hasn’t personally experienced burnout, she realizes a schedule change may not completely solve the issue for others. However, it shows what progress programs can make when they create systemic structural change.

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

It’s the difference between running a marathon and taking a leisurely stroll. That’s how recent pediatrics resident Joey Whelihan, MD, compared an 11-hour inpatient hospital day with an 8-hour outpatient shift where residents see patients in a clinic.

With inpatient training, “you are lucky if you have time to cook dinner, go to bed, and get ready for the next day,” said Dr. Whelihan, who recently started his adolescent medicine fellowship at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia after 3 years of residency there. Some residents have call every fourth day during inpatient rotations, working 24-28 hours at a time. They come in one morning and go home the next, he told this news organization.

“Outpatient blocks give you more time to catch your breath and feel somewhat refreshed and ready to take care of patients.”

Longer stretches of inpatient rotations are not sustainable, Dr. Whelihan added, and residents are likely to become exhausted. Fatigue is a leading cause of burnout, a mental, physical, and emotional challenge that residency programs and national medical organizations have been struggling to address.

In recent years, there has been a movement to reduce the maximum consecutive duration of resident duty hours in residency programs across the country. Fueled by resident health and patient safety concerns, the movement is a shift from the previous 24- to 36-hour call duty schedules.
 

Improved Call Systems = Better Residents

The connection between burnout, well-being, and work schedules appears regularly in national program standards. “Residents and faculty members are at risk for burnout and depression,” according to the current Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education’s standard residency program requirements.

“Programs, in partnership with their sponsoring institutions, have the same responsibility to address well-being as other aspects of resident competence,” the guidelines state. That charge includes “attention to scheduling, work intensity, and work compression that impacts resident well-being.”

In Medscape’s Residents Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2023, a third of residents surveyed rarely or never paid attention to their well-being, which closely mirrors the 31% who rarely or never had time for a social life. Slightly more residents (37%) said their work-life balance was “somewhat worse” or “much worse” than they expected.

“I think everyone has burnout as a resident, regardless of the type of program they are in,” Dr. Whelihan said. He described the experience as when you lack fulfillment and empathy and feel exhausted, callous, and removed from interactions with colleagues and patients.

The American Medical Association’s recently released report on the state of residency well-being in 2023 also found that about 43% of residents and fellows had at least one symptom of burnout, about a 2% increase from 2022.
 

Efforts to Combat Burnout

One residency program found a way to reduce burnout by changing its block scheduling from 4 inpatient weeks followed by 1 outpatient week (4 + 1) to 4 inpatient call-based weeks and 4 outpatient ambulatory, non-call weeks (4 + 4), according to a survey study published recently in JAMA Network Open. The initiative drew praise from some residents and a med school professor who studies wellness issues.

In the survey of postgraduate year (PGY) 1 and PGY-2 hospitalist and primary care residents from the University of Colorado’s Internal Medicine Residency Program, Aurora, between June 2019 and June 2021, the schedule change resulted in improved burnout scores and self-reported professional, educational, and health benefits.

As part of the survey, residents rated symptoms on a 7-point scale on the basis of how frequently they experienced emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment.

Investigators also used a questionnaire to evaluate how participants perceived the rotation structure with various outcomes, including the ability to acquire clinical skills, access educational and scholarly opportunities, job satisfaction, and health.

The study concluded that the schedule change improved burnout, health, wellness, and professional development without weakening residents perceived clinical skills or standardized exam scores.

Still, the study authors acknowledged that several factors, including the pandemic, may have limited the findings. During that time, the study transitioned from in-person to electronic submissions, resulting in reduced response rates because of changes in staffing needs and fewer research and scholarly activities.

“One of the things we worried about was that the pandemic would make [burnout findings] look worse,” said lead author Dan Heppe, MD, a hospitalist and associate director of the CU Internal Medicine Residency Program. “Anecdotally, residents may have had more support in our program than perhaps some other programs. Though they had long hours with very sick patients, we tried to keep going in a positive direction.”

Dr. Heppe said in an interview that the purpose of the schedule change was to space out more intense rotations and build in more time for research, leadership, teaching, and professional development. He suggested the new schedule could help with other aspects of residents’ careers, exposing them to alternate avenues earlier in their training and in a more structured way.

Like most of the study authors, Dr. Heppe is a graduate of the residency program. He recalled how the program changed from multiple inpatient months in a row with clinic half days during those rotations to a 4 + 1 schedule. But the 1 week between inpatient rotations wasn’t enough time to recover or catch up on clinical work, said Dr. Heppe, who is also an associate professor of medicine at CU.

“It was too erratic,” he said of his former residency schedule. “There was a month of research here or there and clinic and then right back to the ICU for a couple of months without a break, and it was less predictable.”

Dr. Heppe said other residency programs have expressed interest in duplicating CU’s schedule change. He admits it may be difficult because of intensive schedule coordination, and some hospitals may not want to reduce clinical services.

The Yale Internal Medicine Traditional Residency Program also recently ended its 28-hour call, during which residents worked 24 hours with an additional 4 hours to transfer the patient to the incoming team. The move was made in response to residents’ requests, saying that the grueling call rotation’s time had come. The reaction has been overwhelmingly positive.

Proponents of alternate scheduling blocks [4 + 4 or 6 + 2] say that they improve residents’ educational experience, patient care, and continuity of care, reduce burnout, and guarantee residents time off.
 

Advancing Resident Well-Being

“The premise of looking at scheduling in a more intentional way is a sound one in the process of trying to support and advance resident well-being,” said Mark Greenawald, MD, vice chair of academic affairs, well-being, and professional development for the Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine’s Department of Family and Community Medicine in Roanoke.

He said it’s up to residency program directors or graduate medical education departments within a specialty to determine whether such scheduling changes fit their requirements for inpatient and outpatient care and training electives. Requirements may limit some scheduling changes, but within the specialty, there’s some flexibility to be creative with rotations. The CU study considered how to create a residency rhythm without stacking inpatient rotations so there’s recovery time.

“Human beings need a break. If residents work 80 hours continually, they will start to experience greater distress, which for many leads to burnout,” he said

Still, the study includes design flaws because it doesn’t explain how call times and hours differ between inpatient and outpatient rotations. “My own [family medicine] program also does outpatient clinics when we have inpatient service. We have half days in the clinic, which ensures better continuity care with the patient.”

Dr. Greenawald has yet to see much research published about the impact of resident schedule changes. By taking an experimental approach, the CU study showed that their particular change positively affected burnout. If the study leads to improvements in rotation schedules or encourages other programs to experiment with their schedules, it will be a step in the right direction.
 

How Residents Respond

Haidn Foster, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, remembered experiencing burnout as an intern. At that time, he occasionally dealt with poor patient outcomes and sick patients while working long hours with only 1 day off each week. During a particularly challenging rotation, he felt overwhelmed and numb, which was exacerbated if a patient’s condition worsened or they passed away, he said.

His program follows a schedule of 6 weeks of inpatient training and 2 weeks of outpatient rotations (6 + 2). He said that restructuring residents’ schedules may be more effective than commonly used individual wellness modules, referring to the CU study. “The authors tried out a novel systematic way to tackle the epidemic of physician burnout overwhelming people in the medical community.”

Although the study found that schedule changes don’t affect standardized exam scores, Dr. Foster wondered about preceptor ratings, another marker for clinical competency.

He said future studies should attempt to change the structure of medical training delivery by evaluating models that best reduce burnout, are consistent with residents’ career goals, and produce competent physicians. “Burnout plagues our medical system and leads to too many physicians and physicians-in-training leaving the field or taking their lives. I’m not sure this particular mechanism gets us there, but it’s a step, and so that’s very important.”

Like Dr. Foster, Dr. Whelihan follows a 6 + 2 schedule. He said he would have welcomed a schedule that included more outpatient and less inpatient training and can see how changes in scheduling could reduce burnout. “More outpatient time gives you an opportunity to breathe. You get a little more time off working in clinic with less sick people at a slower pace.”

Ally Fuher, MD, said she chose CU’s Internal Medicine Residency Program 4 years ago largely because of its innovative schedule. Now the program’s chief medical resident, she knew the structure would give her more time to pursue other nonclinical interests including research and medical education, meet regularly with mentors, visit family in another state, and attend important life events.

She acknowledged that the alternative would have meant a more irregular schedule with the possibility of working as many as 80 hours a week on back-to-back inpatient rotations with only 1 day off a week, leaving minimal time to plan other activities, let alone rest and recover.

Dr. Fuher said a balanced schedule made her a more well-rounded person excited to engage in her profession. While she hasn’t personally experienced burnout, she realizes a schedule change may not completely solve the issue for others. However, it shows what progress programs can make when they create systemic structural change.

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

It’s the difference between running a marathon and taking a leisurely stroll. That’s how recent pediatrics resident Joey Whelihan, MD, compared an 11-hour inpatient hospital day with an 8-hour outpatient shift where residents see patients in a clinic.

With inpatient training, “you are lucky if you have time to cook dinner, go to bed, and get ready for the next day,” said Dr. Whelihan, who recently started his adolescent medicine fellowship at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia after 3 years of residency there. Some residents have call every fourth day during inpatient rotations, working 24-28 hours at a time. They come in one morning and go home the next, he told this news organization.

“Outpatient blocks give you more time to catch your breath and feel somewhat refreshed and ready to take care of patients.”

Longer stretches of inpatient rotations are not sustainable, Dr. Whelihan added, and residents are likely to become exhausted. Fatigue is a leading cause of burnout, a mental, physical, and emotional challenge that residency programs and national medical organizations have been struggling to address.

In recent years, there has been a movement to reduce the maximum consecutive duration of resident duty hours in residency programs across the country. Fueled by resident health and patient safety concerns, the movement is a shift from the previous 24- to 36-hour call duty schedules.
 

Improved Call Systems = Better Residents

The connection between burnout, well-being, and work schedules appears regularly in national program standards. “Residents and faculty members are at risk for burnout and depression,” according to the current Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education’s standard residency program requirements.

“Programs, in partnership with their sponsoring institutions, have the same responsibility to address well-being as other aspects of resident competence,” the guidelines state. That charge includes “attention to scheduling, work intensity, and work compression that impacts resident well-being.”

In Medscape’s Residents Lifestyle & Happiness Report 2023, a third of residents surveyed rarely or never paid attention to their well-being, which closely mirrors the 31% who rarely or never had time for a social life. Slightly more residents (37%) said their work-life balance was “somewhat worse” or “much worse” than they expected.

“I think everyone has burnout as a resident, regardless of the type of program they are in,” Dr. Whelihan said. He described the experience as when you lack fulfillment and empathy and feel exhausted, callous, and removed from interactions with colleagues and patients.

The American Medical Association’s recently released report on the state of residency well-being in 2023 also found that about 43% of residents and fellows had at least one symptom of burnout, about a 2% increase from 2022.
 

Efforts to Combat Burnout

One residency program found a way to reduce burnout by changing its block scheduling from 4 inpatient weeks followed by 1 outpatient week (4 + 1) to 4 inpatient call-based weeks and 4 outpatient ambulatory, non-call weeks (4 + 4), according to a survey study published recently in JAMA Network Open. The initiative drew praise from some residents and a med school professor who studies wellness issues.

In the survey of postgraduate year (PGY) 1 and PGY-2 hospitalist and primary care residents from the University of Colorado’s Internal Medicine Residency Program, Aurora, between June 2019 and June 2021, the schedule change resulted in improved burnout scores and self-reported professional, educational, and health benefits.

As part of the survey, residents rated symptoms on a 7-point scale on the basis of how frequently they experienced emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment.

Investigators also used a questionnaire to evaluate how participants perceived the rotation structure with various outcomes, including the ability to acquire clinical skills, access educational and scholarly opportunities, job satisfaction, and health.

The study concluded that the schedule change improved burnout, health, wellness, and professional development without weakening residents perceived clinical skills or standardized exam scores.

Still, the study authors acknowledged that several factors, including the pandemic, may have limited the findings. During that time, the study transitioned from in-person to electronic submissions, resulting in reduced response rates because of changes in staffing needs and fewer research and scholarly activities.

“One of the things we worried about was that the pandemic would make [burnout findings] look worse,” said lead author Dan Heppe, MD, a hospitalist and associate director of the CU Internal Medicine Residency Program. “Anecdotally, residents may have had more support in our program than perhaps some other programs. Though they had long hours with very sick patients, we tried to keep going in a positive direction.”

Dr. Heppe said in an interview that the purpose of the schedule change was to space out more intense rotations and build in more time for research, leadership, teaching, and professional development. He suggested the new schedule could help with other aspects of residents’ careers, exposing them to alternate avenues earlier in their training and in a more structured way.

Like most of the study authors, Dr. Heppe is a graduate of the residency program. He recalled how the program changed from multiple inpatient months in a row with clinic half days during those rotations to a 4 + 1 schedule. But the 1 week between inpatient rotations wasn’t enough time to recover or catch up on clinical work, said Dr. Heppe, who is also an associate professor of medicine at CU.

“It was too erratic,” he said of his former residency schedule. “There was a month of research here or there and clinic and then right back to the ICU for a couple of months without a break, and it was less predictable.”

Dr. Heppe said other residency programs have expressed interest in duplicating CU’s schedule change. He admits it may be difficult because of intensive schedule coordination, and some hospitals may not want to reduce clinical services.

The Yale Internal Medicine Traditional Residency Program also recently ended its 28-hour call, during which residents worked 24 hours with an additional 4 hours to transfer the patient to the incoming team. The move was made in response to residents’ requests, saying that the grueling call rotation’s time had come. The reaction has been overwhelmingly positive.

Proponents of alternate scheduling blocks [4 + 4 or 6 + 2] say that they improve residents’ educational experience, patient care, and continuity of care, reduce burnout, and guarantee residents time off.
 

Advancing Resident Well-Being

“The premise of looking at scheduling in a more intentional way is a sound one in the process of trying to support and advance resident well-being,” said Mark Greenawald, MD, vice chair of academic affairs, well-being, and professional development for the Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine’s Department of Family and Community Medicine in Roanoke.

He said it’s up to residency program directors or graduate medical education departments within a specialty to determine whether such scheduling changes fit their requirements for inpatient and outpatient care and training electives. Requirements may limit some scheduling changes, but within the specialty, there’s some flexibility to be creative with rotations. The CU study considered how to create a residency rhythm without stacking inpatient rotations so there’s recovery time.

“Human beings need a break. If residents work 80 hours continually, they will start to experience greater distress, which for many leads to burnout,” he said

Still, the study includes design flaws because it doesn’t explain how call times and hours differ between inpatient and outpatient rotations. “My own [family medicine] program also does outpatient clinics when we have inpatient service. We have half days in the clinic, which ensures better continuity care with the patient.”

Dr. Greenawald has yet to see much research published about the impact of resident schedule changes. By taking an experimental approach, the CU study showed that their particular change positively affected burnout. If the study leads to improvements in rotation schedules or encourages other programs to experiment with their schedules, it will be a step in the right direction.
 

How Residents Respond

Haidn Foster, MD, a third-year internal medicine resident at Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, remembered experiencing burnout as an intern. At that time, he occasionally dealt with poor patient outcomes and sick patients while working long hours with only 1 day off each week. During a particularly challenging rotation, he felt overwhelmed and numb, which was exacerbated if a patient’s condition worsened or they passed away, he said.

His program follows a schedule of 6 weeks of inpatient training and 2 weeks of outpatient rotations (6 + 2). He said that restructuring residents’ schedules may be more effective than commonly used individual wellness modules, referring to the CU study. “The authors tried out a novel systematic way to tackle the epidemic of physician burnout overwhelming people in the medical community.”

Although the study found that schedule changes don’t affect standardized exam scores, Dr. Foster wondered about preceptor ratings, another marker for clinical competency.

He said future studies should attempt to change the structure of medical training delivery by evaluating models that best reduce burnout, are consistent with residents’ career goals, and produce competent physicians. “Burnout plagues our medical system and leads to too many physicians and physicians-in-training leaving the field or taking their lives. I’m not sure this particular mechanism gets us there, but it’s a step, and so that’s very important.”

Like Dr. Foster, Dr. Whelihan follows a 6 + 2 schedule. He said he would have welcomed a schedule that included more outpatient and less inpatient training and can see how changes in scheduling could reduce burnout. “More outpatient time gives you an opportunity to breathe. You get a little more time off working in clinic with less sick people at a slower pace.”

Ally Fuher, MD, said she chose CU’s Internal Medicine Residency Program 4 years ago largely because of its innovative schedule. Now the program’s chief medical resident, she knew the structure would give her more time to pursue other nonclinical interests including research and medical education, meet regularly with mentors, visit family in another state, and attend important life events.

She acknowledged that the alternative would have meant a more irregular schedule with the possibility of working as many as 80 hours a week on back-to-back inpatient rotations with only 1 day off a week, leaving minimal time to plan other activities, let alone rest and recover.

Dr. Fuher said a balanced schedule made her a more well-rounded person excited to engage in her profession. While she hasn’t personally experienced burnout, she realizes a schedule change may not completely solve the issue for others. However, it shows what progress programs can make when they create systemic structural change.

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

TOPLINE:

Lowering the dose of edoxaban to 30 mg in patients 80 years of age and older with atrial fibrillation (AF) reduces major bleeding events without increasing ischemic events.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a parallel design, double-blind clinical trial of 21,105 patients with AF.
• Nearly 3000 patients aged 80 years and older were included in the secondary analysis, focusing on edoxaban, 60 mg vs 30 mg, and edoxaban 30 mg vs warfarin.
• The primary outcome was a composite of death, stroke or systemic embolism, and major bleeding, with secondary outcomes including ischemic stroke and all-cause death.
• People were excluded from the study if they had moderate or severe mitral stenosis, a mechanical heart valve, a high risk for bleeding, or were on antiplatelet drugs.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants without dose-reduction criteria who received edoxaban 30 mg had lower rates of major bleeding than those who received 60 mg (hazard ratio [HR], 1.57; 95% CI, 1.04-2.38; P = .03).
• Rates of major gastrointestinal hemorrhage were higher with edoxaban 60 mg than with 30 mg (HR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.29-3.90; P = .004).
• People who took edoxaban 30 mg had a 17% lower risk for all-cause death than those who received warfarin (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-1.00; P = .046).
• In a little over 2400 participants with or without dose-reduction criteria, those receiving edoxaban 30 mg had the lower risk for major bleeding (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45-0.77; P < .001) and death (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-1.00; P = .046); risk for stroke or systemic embolism was comparable between the two drugs.

IN PRACTICE:

“These data suggest that lower-dose anticoagulants, such as edoxaban, 30 mg once daily, may be considered in all patients 80 years and older with AF irrespective of dose-reduction criteria,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by André Zimerman, MD, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Department of Medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston. It was published online in JAMA Cardiology. The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo for the TIMI Study Group.

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not adjust for multiple comparisons, increasing the risk for type I and type II errors. Additionally, the trial participants may represent a more compliant subset of the target population, which could influence the results.

DISCLOSURES:

Various authors reported receiving grants, consultant fees, and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, and Cardurion Pharmaceuticals, among others.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Lowering the dose of edoxaban to 30 mg in patients 80 years of age and older with atrial fibrillation (AF) reduces major bleeding events without increasing ischemic events.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a parallel design, double-blind clinical trial of 21,105 patients with AF.
• Nearly 3000 patients aged 80 years and older were included in the secondary analysis, focusing on edoxaban, 60 mg vs 30 mg, and edoxaban 30 mg vs warfarin.
• The primary outcome was a composite of death, stroke or systemic embolism, and major bleeding, with secondary outcomes including ischemic stroke and all-cause death.
• People were excluded from the study if they had moderate or severe mitral stenosis, a mechanical heart valve, a high risk for bleeding, or were on antiplatelet drugs.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants without dose-reduction criteria who received edoxaban 30 mg had lower rates of major bleeding than those who received 60 mg (hazard ratio [HR], 1.57; 95% CI, 1.04-2.38; P = .03).
• Rates of major gastrointestinal hemorrhage were higher with edoxaban 60 mg than with 30 mg (HR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.29-3.90; P = .004).
• People who took edoxaban 30 mg had a 17% lower risk for all-cause death than those who received warfarin (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-1.00; P = .046).
• In a little over 2400 participants with or without dose-reduction criteria, those receiving edoxaban 30 mg had the lower risk for major bleeding (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45-0.77; P < .001) and death (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-1.00; P = .046); risk for stroke or systemic embolism was comparable between the two drugs.

IN PRACTICE:

“These data suggest that lower-dose anticoagulants, such as edoxaban, 30 mg once daily, may be considered in all patients 80 years and older with AF irrespective of dose-reduction criteria,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by André Zimerman, MD, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Department of Medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston. It was published online in JAMA Cardiology. The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo for the TIMI Study Group.

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not adjust for multiple comparisons, increasing the risk for type I and type II errors. Additionally, the trial participants may represent a more compliant subset of the target population, which could influence the results.

DISCLOSURES:

Various authors reported receiving grants, consultant fees, and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, and Cardurion Pharmaceuticals, among others.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Lowering the dose of edoxaban to 30 mg in patients 80 years of age and older with atrial fibrillation (AF) reduces major bleeding events without increasing ischemic events.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a parallel design, double-blind clinical trial of 21,105 patients with AF.
• Nearly 3000 patients aged 80 years and older were included in the secondary analysis, focusing on edoxaban, 60 mg vs 30 mg, and edoxaban 30 mg vs warfarin.
• The primary outcome was a composite of death, stroke or systemic embolism, and major bleeding, with secondary outcomes including ischemic stroke and all-cause death.
• People were excluded from the study if they had moderate or severe mitral stenosis, a mechanical heart valve, a high risk for bleeding, or were on antiplatelet drugs.

TAKEAWAY:

• Participants without dose-reduction criteria who received edoxaban 30 mg had lower rates of major bleeding than those who received 60 mg (hazard ratio [HR], 1.57; 95% CI, 1.04-2.38; P = .03).
• Rates of major gastrointestinal hemorrhage were higher with edoxaban 60 mg than with 30 mg (HR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.29-3.90; P = .004).
• People who took edoxaban 30 mg had a 17% lower risk for all-cause death than those who received warfarin (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-1.00; P = .046).
• In a little over 2400 participants with or without dose-reduction criteria, those receiving edoxaban 30 mg had the lower risk for major bleeding (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45-0.77; P < .001) and death (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-1.00; P = .046); risk for stroke or systemic embolism was comparable between the two drugs.

IN PRACTICE:

“These data suggest that lower-dose anticoagulants, such as edoxaban, 30 mg once daily, may be considered in all patients 80 years and older with AF irrespective of dose-reduction criteria,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by André Zimerman, MD, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Department of Medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston. It was published online in JAMA Cardiology. The study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo for the TIMI Study Group.

LIMITATIONS:

The study did not adjust for multiple comparisons, increasing the risk for type I and type II errors. Additionally, the trial participants may represent a more compliant subset of the target population, which could influence the results.

DISCLOSURES:

Various authors reported receiving grants, consultant fees, and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim/Lilly, and Cardurion Pharmaceuticals, among others.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

New-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with a substantially higher risk for all-cause dementia in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies suggest a potential link between AF and dementia in the broader population, but evidence is scarce in people with diabetes, who are at increased risk for both conditions.
• This longitudinal observational study assessed the association between new-onset AF and dementia in 22,989 patients with T2D (median age at enrollment, 61.0 years; 62.3% men; 86.3% White individuals).
• New-onset AF was identified through hospital admission records using the International Classification of Diseases – 9th Revision (ICD-9) and ICD-10 codes, and dementia cases were identified using an algorithm developed by the UK Biobank.
• Time-varying Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to determine the association between incident dementia and new-onset AF.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up duration of about 12 years, 844 patients developed all-cause dementia, 342 were diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease, and 246 had vascular dementia.
• Patients with incident AF had a higher risk of developing all-cause dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 2.15; 95% CI, 1.80-2.57), Alzheimer’s disease (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.06-1.96), and vascular dementia (HR, 3.11; 95% CI, 2.32-4.17) than those without incident AF.
• The results are independent of common dementia risk factors, such as sociodemographic characteristics and lifestyle factors.
• The mean time intervals from the onset of AF to all-cause dementia, Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia were 2.95, 2.81, and 3.37 years, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“AF is a significant risk factor for dementia in patients with type 2 diabetes, suggesting the importance of timely and effective treatment of AF, such as early rhythm control strategies and anticoagulant use, in preventing dementia among this demographic,” the authors wrote.
 

SOURCE:

The study, led by Ying Zhou, PhD, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China, was published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study could not explore the link between different AF subtypes and dementia owing to its small sample size. The effects of AF treatment on the risk for dementia in patients with type 2 diabetes were not considered because of lack of information. The mostly White study population limits the generalizability of the findings to other races and ethnicities.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

New-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with a substantially higher risk for all-cause dementia in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies suggest a potential link between AF and dementia in the broader population, but evidence is scarce in people with diabetes, who are at increased risk for both conditions.
• This longitudinal observational study assessed the association between new-onset AF and dementia in 22,989 patients with T2D (median age at enrollment, 61.0 years; 62.3% men; 86.3% White individuals).
• New-onset AF was identified through hospital admission records using the International Classification of Diseases – 9th Revision (ICD-9) and ICD-10 codes, and dementia cases were identified using an algorithm developed by the UK Biobank.
• Time-varying Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to determine the association between incident dementia and new-onset AF.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up duration of about 12 years, 844 patients developed all-cause dementia, 342 were diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease, and 246 had vascular dementia.
• Patients with incident AF had a higher risk of developing all-cause dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 2.15; 95% CI, 1.80-2.57), Alzheimer’s disease (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.06-1.96), and vascular dementia (HR, 3.11; 95% CI, 2.32-4.17) than those without incident AF.
• The results are independent of common dementia risk factors, such as sociodemographic characteristics and lifestyle factors.
• The mean time intervals from the onset of AF to all-cause dementia, Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia were 2.95, 2.81, and 3.37 years, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“AF is a significant risk factor for dementia in patients with type 2 diabetes, suggesting the importance of timely and effective treatment of AF, such as early rhythm control strategies and anticoagulant use, in preventing dementia among this demographic,” the authors wrote.
 

SOURCE:

The study, led by Ying Zhou, PhD, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China, was published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study could not explore the link between different AF subtypes and dementia owing to its small sample size. The effects of AF treatment on the risk for dementia in patients with type 2 diabetes were not considered because of lack of information. The mostly White study population limits the generalizability of the findings to other races and ethnicities.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

New-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with a substantially higher risk for all-cause dementia in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies suggest a potential link between AF and dementia in the broader population, but evidence is scarce in people with diabetes, who are at increased risk for both conditions.
• This longitudinal observational study assessed the association between new-onset AF and dementia in 22,989 patients with T2D (median age at enrollment, 61.0 years; 62.3% men; 86.3% White individuals).
• New-onset AF was identified through hospital admission records using the International Classification of Diseases – 9th Revision (ICD-9) and ICD-10 codes, and dementia cases were identified using an algorithm developed by the UK Biobank.
• Time-varying Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to determine the association between incident dementia and new-onset AF.

TAKEAWAY:

• Over a median follow-up duration of about 12 years, 844 patients developed all-cause dementia, 342 were diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease, and 246 had vascular dementia.
• Patients with incident AF had a higher risk of developing all-cause dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 2.15; 95% CI, 1.80-2.57), Alzheimer’s disease (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.06-1.96), and vascular dementia (HR, 3.11; 95% CI, 2.32-4.17) than those without incident AF.
• The results are independent of common dementia risk factors, such as sociodemographic characteristics and lifestyle factors.
• The mean time intervals from the onset of AF to all-cause dementia, Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia were 2.95, 2.81, and 3.37 years, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“AF is a significant risk factor for dementia in patients with type 2 diabetes, suggesting the importance of timely and effective treatment of AF, such as early rhythm control strategies and anticoagulant use, in preventing dementia among this demographic,” the authors wrote.
 

SOURCE:

The study, led by Ying Zhou, PhD, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China, was published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study could not explore the link between different AF subtypes and dementia owing to its small sample size. The effects of AF treatment on the risk for dementia in patients with type 2 diabetes were not considered because of lack of information. The mostly White study population limits the generalizability of the findings to other races and ethnicities.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

An international trial of the Impella heart pump in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and cardiogenic shock has been stopped by the sponsor, Abiomed Inc. The termination followed news that another international trial, DanGer Shock, found that the pump improved survival in these patients.

Abiomed Inc., which manufactures the Impella microaxial flow pump, said in a statement that the trial’s Data and Safety Monitoring Board recommended stopping RECOVER IV.

“I was convinced that the study could not continue,” one of the principal investigators William O’Neill, MD, an interventional cardiologist with the Henry Ford Health in Detroit, said in an interview. After 3.5 years of work and thousands of person-hours, he added, “It’s not a decision that people took lightly.”

The trial already had three sites in Europe and one in the United States up and running, with two more US sites slated to join the trial. It had started enrolling patients, although few to date.

DanGer Shock trial results were expected to have a serious effect on how RECOVER IV would unfold. It was previously uncertain whether the Impella heart pump would save lives vs existing approaches, said O’Neill and co-principal investigator Navin Kapur, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Tufts Medical Center in Boston. Once the DanGer Shock trial showed the benefits of using the heart pump, that equipoise vanished.
 

Loss of Clinical Equipoise

“The clinicians were challenged in getting consent from patients where they had to say, ‘If you are randomized to the control arm, we are not able to use an Impella,’ ” said Dr. Kapur. He pointed out that patients would be unlikely to agree to participate in a trial where they might not get the treatment already shown to improve survival.

Dr. Kapur and Dr. O’Neill said the clinicians participating in the trial expressed discomfort at continuing. The RECOVER IV trial was expected to take many years to enroll the targeted number of patients. To participate, hospitals had to have the equipment and expertise to use the Impella heart pump, as well as the control treatments — balloon-pump support and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), Dr. Kapur explained. He said most patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock would present to their nearest community hospitals, many of which would not have these treatments and would be unable to participate in the study.

Patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock are uncommon. About 80,000 patients in the United States each year present with cardiogenic shock, of whom about 40% are not experiencing a STEMI, said Dr. O’Neill.

But those who do fit into the population of both STEMI and cardiogenic shock are at very high risk, said Dr. Kapur. “One in three or one in two patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock will die in hospital.”
 

Getting Hearts Pumping

The Impella heart pump was originally developed by Impella Cardiosystems in Aachen, Germany, which was acquired by Abiomed in 2005, according to the Abiomed website. And Abiomed was acquired by Johnson & Johnson MedTech in 2022. The company has developed a series of models over the years and said that Impella CP — the model used in DanGer Shock and RECOVER IV trials — is the world’s smallest heart pump.

“Impella is the only heart pump that can be introduced percutaneously through the leg,” said Dr. O’Neill, whereas other pumps available are used only in open-heart surgery. While Impella is the first pump to be used this way, he said it won’t be the last. Other, more powerful pumps are being developed.
 

DanGer Shock: A Leap Forward

Despite leading to the halt of another trial, the DanGer Shock results are a good news story, said the RECOVER IV investigators.

“The DanGer trial is a huge advance,” said Dr. O’Neill. “It’s the first study this century that shows something that improves survival in cardiogenic shock. You treat eight patients, and you save one life.” Dr. O’Neill said this is one of the best outcomes he has seen during his long career.

Dr. Kapur said the DanGer trial is also a leap forward in designing trials for cardiogenic shock. He said previous trials of mechanical support in cardiogenic shock had neutral results, probably due to broad inclusion criteria for patients.

“The DanGer trial was selective in its inclusion and exclusion criteria. That made it more difficult to enroll the population, so it took a lot longer. But it used the right device at the right time in the right patient, and it was successful,” he said.

“The DanGer investigators need to be applauded,” he added. “The lesson is, we have to design the right trials.”
 

New Cardiogenic Shock Trials

Dr. O’Neill and Dr. Kapur said the groundwork they laid for RECOVER IV can be used for new trials.

“We have 50 sites in the US, Germany, and Denmark. They’re interested, and they’re waiting,” said Dr. O’Neill. The researchers are poised to begin new trials once protocols are developed.

What will the next trials investigate?

DanGer Shock results showed higher rates of adverse events following Impella use than after standard care. “We need to come up with strategies to decrease bleeding problems and renal failure,” said Dr. O’Neill, and these could be tested in trials.

Other questions he would like to see investigated are using the Impella heart pump before or after angioplasty, and multi-vessel vs culprit-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock with Impella support.

Dr. Kapur mentioned studying patients excluded from the DanGer Shock trial — such as those needing right ventricular support — because DanGer Shock covered only left ventricular support and those suffering cardiac arrest outside hospital. He said trials could compare differences between models of Impella and investigate the role of ECMO.

“I’m optimistic that we can design more randomized controlled trials with the right patient population and right treatment algorithm,” Dr. Kapur said. This is a critical step toward better outcomes for patients, he added. Another step is optimizing the design of heart pumps, which should decrease the rates of adverse events, he said. “I have a lot of optimism for the future of device design.”

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

An international trial of the Impella heart pump in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and cardiogenic shock has been stopped by the sponsor, Abiomed Inc. The termination followed news that another international trial, DanGer Shock, found that the pump improved survival in these patients.

Abiomed Inc., which manufactures the Impella microaxial flow pump, said in a statement that the trial’s Data and Safety Monitoring Board recommended stopping RECOVER IV.

“I was convinced that the study could not continue,” one of the principal investigators William O’Neill, MD, an interventional cardiologist with the Henry Ford Health in Detroit, said in an interview. After 3.5 years of work and thousands of person-hours, he added, “It’s not a decision that people took lightly.”

The trial already had three sites in Europe and one in the United States up and running, with two more US sites slated to join the trial. It had started enrolling patients, although few to date.

DanGer Shock trial results were expected to have a serious effect on how RECOVER IV would unfold. It was previously uncertain whether the Impella heart pump would save lives vs existing approaches, said O’Neill and co-principal investigator Navin Kapur, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Tufts Medical Center in Boston. Once the DanGer Shock trial showed the benefits of using the heart pump, that equipoise vanished.
 

Loss of Clinical Equipoise

“The clinicians were challenged in getting consent from patients where they had to say, ‘If you are randomized to the control arm, we are not able to use an Impella,’ ” said Dr. Kapur. He pointed out that patients would be unlikely to agree to participate in a trial where they might not get the treatment already shown to improve survival.

Dr. Kapur and Dr. O’Neill said the clinicians participating in the trial expressed discomfort at continuing. The RECOVER IV trial was expected to take many years to enroll the targeted number of patients. To participate, hospitals had to have the equipment and expertise to use the Impella heart pump, as well as the control treatments — balloon-pump support and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), Dr. Kapur explained. He said most patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock would present to their nearest community hospitals, many of which would not have these treatments and would be unable to participate in the study.

Patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock are uncommon. About 80,000 patients in the United States each year present with cardiogenic shock, of whom about 40% are not experiencing a STEMI, said Dr. O’Neill.

But those who do fit into the population of both STEMI and cardiogenic shock are at very high risk, said Dr. Kapur. “One in three or one in two patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock will die in hospital.”
 

Getting Hearts Pumping

The Impella heart pump was originally developed by Impella Cardiosystems in Aachen, Germany, which was acquired by Abiomed in 2005, according to the Abiomed website. And Abiomed was acquired by Johnson & Johnson MedTech in 2022. The company has developed a series of models over the years and said that Impella CP — the model used in DanGer Shock and RECOVER IV trials — is the world’s smallest heart pump.

“Impella is the only heart pump that can be introduced percutaneously through the leg,” said Dr. O’Neill, whereas other pumps available are used only in open-heart surgery. While Impella is the first pump to be used this way, he said it won’t be the last. Other, more powerful pumps are being developed.
 

DanGer Shock: A Leap Forward

Despite leading to the halt of another trial, the DanGer Shock results are a good news story, said the RECOVER IV investigators.

“The DanGer trial is a huge advance,” said Dr. O’Neill. “It’s the first study this century that shows something that improves survival in cardiogenic shock. You treat eight patients, and you save one life.” Dr. O’Neill said this is one of the best outcomes he has seen during his long career.

Dr. Kapur said the DanGer trial is also a leap forward in designing trials for cardiogenic shock. He said previous trials of mechanical support in cardiogenic shock had neutral results, probably due to broad inclusion criteria for patients.

“The DanGer trial was selective in its inclusion and exclusion criteria. That made it more difficult to enroll the population, so it took a lot longer. But it used the right device at the right time in the right patient, and it was successful,” he said.

“The DanGer investigators need to be applauded,” he added. “The lesson is, we have to design the right trials.”
 

New Cardiogenic Shock Trials

Dr. O’Neill and Dr. Kapur said the groundwork they laid for RECOVER IV can be used for new trials.

“We have 50 sites in the US, Germany, and Denmark. They’re interested, and they’re waiting,” said Dr. O’Neill. The researchers are poised to begin new trials once protocols are developed.

What will the next trials investigate?

DanGer Shock results showed higher rates of adverse events following Impella use than after standard care. “We need to come up with strategies to decrease bleeding problems and renal failure,” said Dr. O’Neill, and these could be tested in trials.

Other questions he would like to see investigated are using the Impella heart pump before or after angioplasty, and multi-vessel vs culprit-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock with Impella support.

Dr. Kapur mentioned studying patients excluded from the DanGer Shock trial — such as those needing right ventricular support — because DanGer Shock covered only left ventricular support and those suffering cardiac arrest outside hospital. He said trials could compare differences between models of Impella and investigate the role of ECMO.

“I’m optimistic that we can design more randomized controlled trials with the right patient population and right treatment algorithm,” Dr. Kapur said. This is a critical step toward better outcomes for patients, he added. Another step is optimizing the design of heart pumps, which should decrease the rates of adverse events, he said. “I have a lot of optimism for the future of device design.”

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

An international trial of the Impella heart pump in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and cardiogenic shock has been stopped by the sponsor, Abiomed Inc. The termination followed news that another international trial, DanGer Shock, found that the pump improved survival in these patients.

Abiomed Inc., which manufactures the Impella microaxial flow pump, said in a statement that the trial’s Data and Safety Monitoring Board recommended stopping RECOVER IV.

“I was convinced that the study could not continue,” one of the principal investigators William O’Neill, MD, an interventional cardiologist with the Henry Ford Health in Detroit, said in an interview. After 3.5 years of work and thousands of person-hours, he added, “It’s not a decision that people took lightly.”

The trial already had three sites in Europe and one in the United States up and running, with two more US sites slated to join the trial. It had started enrolling patients, although few to date.

DanGer Shock trial results were expected to have a serious effect on how RECOVER IV would unfold. It was previously uncertain whether the Impella heart pump would save lives vs existing approaches, said O’Neill and co-principal investigator Navin Kapur, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Tufts Medical Center in Boston. Once the DanGer Shock trial showed the benefits of using the heart pump, that equipoise vanished.
 

Loss of Clinical Equipoise

“The clinicians were challenged in getting consent from patients where they had to say, ‘If you are randomized to the control arm, we are not able to use an Impella,’ ” said Dr. Kapur. He pointed out that patients would be unlikely to agree to participate in a trial where they might not get the treatment already shown to improve survival.

Dr. Kapur and Dr. O’Neill said the clinicians participating in the trial expressed discomfort at continuing. The RECOVER IV trial was expected to take many years to enroll the targeted number of patients. To participate, hospitals had to have the equipment and expertise to use the Impella heart pump, as well as the control treatments — balloon-pump support and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), Dr. Kapur explained. He said most patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock would present to their nearest community hospitals, many of which would not have these treatments and would be unable to participate in the study.

Patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock are uncommon. About 80,000 patients in the United States each year present with cardiogenic shock, of whom about 40% are not experiencing a STEMI, said Dr. O’Neill.

But those who do fit into the population of both STEMI and cardiogenic shock are at very high risk, said Dr. Kapur. “One in three or one in two patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock will die in hospital.”
 

Getting Hearts Pumping

The Impella heart pump was originally developed by Impella Cardiosystems in Aachen, Germany, which was acquired by Abiomed in 2005, according to the Abiomed website. And Abiomed was acquired by Johnson & Johnson MedTech in 2022. The company has developed a series of models over the years and said that Impella CP — the model used in DanGer Shock and RECOVER IV trials — is the world’s smallest heart pump.

“Impella is the only heart pump that can be introduced percutaneously through the leg,” said Dr. O’Neill, whereas other pumps available are used only in open-heart surgery. While Impella is the first pump to be used this way, he said it won’t be the last. Other, more powerful pumps are being developed.
 

DanGer Shock: A Leap Forward

Despite leading to the halt of another trial, the DanGer Shock results are a good news story, said the RECOVER IV investigators.

“The DanGer trial is a huge advance,” said Dr. O’Neill. “It’s the first study this century that shows something that improves survival in cardiogenic shock. You treat eight patients, and you save one life.” Dr. O’Neill said this is one of the best outcomes he has seen during his long career.

Dr. Kapur said the DanGer trial is also a leap forward in designing trials for cardiogenic shock. He said previous trials of mechanical support in cardiogenic shock had neutral results, probably due to broad inclusion criteria for patients.

“The DanGer trial was selective in its inclusion and exclusion criteria. That made it more difficult to enroll the population, so it took a lot longer. But it used the right device at the right time in the right patient, and it was successful,” he said.

“The DanGer investigators need to be applauded,” he added. “The lesson is, we have to design the right trials.”
 

New Cardiogenic Shock Trials

Dr. O’Neill and Dr. Kapur said the groundwork they laid for RECOVER IV can be used for new trials.

“We have 50 sites in the US, Germany, and Denmark. They’re interested, and they’re waiting,” said Dr. O’Neill. The researchers are poised to begin new trials once protocols are developed.

What will the next trials investigate?

DanGer Shock results showed higher rates of adverse events following Impella use than after standard care. “We need to come up with strategies to decrease bleeding problems and renal failure,” said Dr. O’Neill, and these could be tested in trials.

Other questions he would like to see investigated are using the Impella heart pump before or after angioplasty, and multi-vessel vs culprit-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention in cardiogenic shock with Impella support.

Dr. Kapur mentioned studying patients excluded from the DanGer Shock trial — such as those needing right ventricular support — because DanGer Shock covered only left ventricular support and those suffering cardiac arrest outside hospital. He said trials could compare differences between models of Impella and investigate the role of ECMO.

“I’m optimistic that we can design more randomized controlled trials with the right patient population and right treatment algorithm,” Dr. Kapur said. This is a critical step toward better outcomes for patients, he added. Another step is optimizing the design of heart pumps, which should decrease the rates of adverse events, he said. “I have a lot of optimism for the future of device design.”

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

Concerned about your patient’s type 2 diabetes risk? Along with the usual preventive strategies — like diet and exercise and, when appropriate, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists — there’s another simple, no-risk strategy that just might help: Turning off the light at night.

A study in The Lancet found that people who were exposed to the most light between 12:30 a.m. and 6 a.m. were 1.5 times more likely to develop diabetes than those who remained in darkness during that time frame.

The study builds on growing evidence linking nighttime light exposure to type 2 diabetes risk. But unlike previous large studies that relied on satellite data of outdoor light levels (an indirect measure of light exposure), the recent study looked at personal light exposure — that is, light measured directly on individuals — as recorded by a wrist-worn sensor.

“Those previous studies likely underestimated the effect,” said study author Andrew Phillips, PhD, professor of sleep health at Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia, “since they did not capture indoor light environments.”

Using data from 85,000 participants from the UK Biobank, the recent study is the largest to date linking diabetes risk to personal light exposure at night.

“This is really a phenomenal study,” said Courtney Peterson, PhD, a scientist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham’s Diabetes Research Center, who was not involved in the study. “This is the first large-scale study we have looking at people’s light exposure patterns and linking it to their long-term health.”
 

What the Study Showed

The participants wore the light sensors for a week, recording day and night light from all sources — whether from sunlight, lamps, streetlights, or digital screens. The researchers then tracked participants for 8 years.

“About half of the people that we looked at had very dim levels of light at night, so less than 1 lux — that basically means less than candlelight,” said Dr. Phillips. “They were the people who were protected against type 2 diabetes.”

Those exposed to more light at night — defined in the study as 12:30 a.m.–6 a.m. — had a higher risk for type 2 diabetes. The risk went up as a dose response, Phillips said: The brighter the light exposure, the higher the diabetes risk.

Participants in the top 10% of light exposure — who were exposed to about 48 lux , or the equivalent of relatively dim overhead lighting — were 1.5 times more likely to develop diabetes than those in the dark. That’s about the risk increase you’d get from having a family history of type 2 diabetes, the researchers said.

Even when they controlled for factors like socioeconomic status, smoking, diet, exercise, and shift work, “we still found there was this very strong relationship between light exposure and risk of type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Phillips.
 

How Light at Night May Increase Diabetes Risk

The results are not entirely surprising, said endocrinologist Susanne Miedlich, MD, a professor at the University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, who was not involved in the study.

Light at night can disrupt the circadian rhythm, or your body’s internal 24-hour cycle. And scientists have long known that circadian rhythm is important for all kinds of biologic processes, including how the body manages blood sugar.

One’s internal clock regulates food intake, sugar absorption, and the release of insulin. Dysregulation in the circadian rhythm is associated with insulin resistance, a precursor to type 2 diabetes.

Dr. Phillips speculated that the sleep hormone melatonin also plays a role.

“Melatonin does a lot of things, but one of the things that it does is it manages our glucose and our insulin responses,” Dr. Phillips said. “So if you’re chronically getting light exposure at night, that’s reducing a level of melatonin that, in the long term, could lead to poor metabolic outcomes.”

Previous studies have explored melatonin supplementation to help manage diabetes. “However, while melatonin clearly regulates circadian rhythms, its utility as a drug to prevent diabetes has not really panned out thus far,” Dr. Miedlich said.
 

Takeaways

Interventional studies are needed to confirm whether strategies like powering down screens, turning off lights, or using blackout curtains could reduce diabetes risk.

That said, “there’s no reason not to tell people to get healthy light exposure patterns and sleep, especially in the context of diabetes,” said Dr. Phillips.

Other known strategies for reducing diabetes risk include intensive lifestyle programs, which reduce risk by up to 58%, and GLP-1 agonists.

“Probably a GLP-1 agonist is going to be more effective,” Dr. Peterson said. “But this is still a fairly large effect without having to go through the expense of buying a GLP-1 or losing a lot of weight or making a big lifestyle change.”

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

Concerned about your patient’s type 2 diabetes risk? Along with the usual preventive strategies — like diet and exercise and, when appropriate, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists — there’s another simple, no-risk strategy that just might help: Turning off the light at night.

A study in The Lancet found that people who were exposed to the most light between 12:30 a.m. and 6 a.m. were 1.5 times more likely to develop diabetes than those who remained in darkness during that time frame.

The study builds on growing evidence linking nighttime light exposure to type 2 diabetes risk. But unlike previous large studies that relied on satellite data of outdoor light levels (an indirect measure of light exposure), the recent study looked at personal light exposure — that is, light measured directly on individuals — as recorded by a wrist-worn sensor.

“Those previous studies likely underestimated the effect,” said study author Andrew Phillips, PhD, professor of sleep health at Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia, “since they did not capture indoor light environments.”

Using data from 85,000 participants from the UK Biobank, the recent study is the largest to date linking diabetes risk to personal light exposure at night.

“This is really a phenomenal study,” said Courtney Peterson, PhD, a scientist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham’s Diabetes Research Center, who was not involved in the study. “This is the first large-scale study we have looking at people’s light exposure patterns and linking it to their long-term health.”
 

What the Study Showed

The participants wore the light sensors for a week, recording day and night light from all sources — whether from sunlight, lamps, streetlights, or digital screens. The researchers then tracked participants for 8 years.

“About half of the people that we looked at had very dim levels of light at night, so less than 1 lux — that basically means less than candlelight,” said Dr. Phillips. “They were the people who were protected against type 2 diabetes.”

Those exposed to more light at night — defined in the study as 12:30 a.m.–6 a.m. — had a higher risk for type 2 diabetes. The risk went up as a dose response, Phillips said: The brighter the light exposure, the higher the diabetes risk.

Participants in the top 10% of light exposure — who were exposed to about 48 lux , or the equivalent of relatively dim overhead lighting — were 1.5 times more likely to develop diabetes than those in the dark. That’s about the risk increase you’d get from having a family history of type 2 diabetes, the researchers said.

Even when they controlled for factors like socioeconomic status, smoking, diet, exercise, and shift work, “we still found there was this very strong relationship between light exposure and risk of type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Phillips.
 

How Light at Night May Increase Diabetes Risk

The results are not entirely surprising, said endocrinologist Susanne Miedlich, MD, a professor at the University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, who was not involved in the study.

Light at night can disrupt the circadian rhythm, or your body’s internal 24-hour cycle. And scientists have long known that circadian rhythm is important for all kinds of biologic processes, including how the body manages blood sugar.

One’s internal clock regulates food intake, sugar absorption, and the release of insulin. Dysregulation in the circadian rhythm is associated with insulin resistance, a precursor to type 2 diabetes.

Dr. Phillips speculated that the sleep hormone melatonin also plays a role.

“Melatonin does a lot of things, but one of the things that it does is it manages our glucose and our insulin responses,” Dr. Phillips said. “So if you’re chronically getting light exposure at night, that’s reducing a level of melatonin that, in the long term, could lead to poor metabolic outcomes.”

Previous studies have explored melatonin supplementation to help manage diabetes. “However, while melatonin clearly regulates circadian rhythms, its utility as a drug to prevent diabetes has not really panned out thus far,” Dr. Miedlich said.
 

Takeaways

Interventional studies are needed to confirm whether strategies like powering down screens, turning off lights, or using blackout curtains could reduce diabetes risk.

That said, “there’s no reason not to tell people to get healthy light exposure patterns and sleep, especially in the context of diabetes,” said Dr. Phillips.

Other known strategies for reducing diabetes risk include intensive lifestyle programs, which reduce risk by up to 58%, and GLP-1 agonists.

“Probably a GLP-1 agonist is going to be more effective,” Dr. Peterson said. “But this is still a fairly large effect without having to go through the expense of buying a GLP-1 or losing a lot of weight or making a big lifestyle change.”

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

Concerned about your patient’s type 2 diabetes risk? Along with the usual preventive strategies — like diet and exercise and, when appropriate, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists — there’s another simple, no-risk strategy that just might help: Turning off the light at night.

A study in The Lancet found that people who were exposed to the most light between 12:30 a.m. and 6 a.m. were 1.5 times more likely to develop diabetes than those who remained in darkness during that time frame.

The study builds on growing evidence linking nighttime light exposure to type 2 diabetes risk. But unlike previous large studies that relied on satellite data of outdoor light levels (an indirect measure of light exposure), the recent study looked at personal light exposure — that is, light measured directly on individuals — as recorded by a wrist-worn sensor.

“Those previous studies likely underestimated the effect,” said study author Andrew Phillips, PhD, professor of sleep health at Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia, “since they did not capture indoor light environments.”

Using data from 85,000 participants from the UK Biobank, the recent study is the largest to date linking diabetes risk to personal light exposure at night.

“This is really a phenomenal study,” said Courtney Peterson, PhD, a scientist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham’s Diabetes Research Center, who was not involved in the study. “This is the first large-scale study we have looking at people’s light exposure patterns and linking it to their long-term health.”
 

What the Study Showed

The participants wore the light sensors for a week, recording day and night light from all sources — whether from sunlight, lamps, streetlights, or digital screens. The researchers then tracked participants for 8 years.

“About half of the people that we looked at had very dim levels of light at night, so less than 1 lux — that basically means less than candlelight,” said Dr. Phillips. “They were the people who were protected against type 2 diabetes.”

Those exposed to more light at night — defined in the study as 12:30 a.m.–6 a.m. — had a higher risk for type 2 diabetes. The risk went up as a dose response, Phillips said: The brighter the light exposure, the higher the diabetes risk.

Participants in the top 10% of light exposure — who were exposed to about 48 lux , or the equivalent of relatively dim overhead lighting — were 1.5 times more likely to develop diabetes than those in the dark. That’s about the risk increase you’d get from having a family history of type 2 diabetes, the researchers said.

Even when they controlled for factors like socioeconomic status, smoking, diet, exercise, and shift work, “we still found there was this very strong relationship between light exposure and risk of type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Phillips.
 

How Light at Night May Increase Diabetes Risk

The results are not entirely surprising, said endocrinologist Susanne Miedlich, MD, a professor at the University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, who was not involved in the study.

Light at night can disrupt the circadian rhythm, or your body’s internal 24-hour cycle. And scientists have long known that circadian rhythm is important for all kinds of biologic processes, including how the body manages blood sugar.

One’s internal clock regulates food intake, sugar absorption, and the release of insulin. Dysregulation in the circadian rhythm is associated with insulin resistance, a precursor to type 2 diabetes.

Dr. Phillips speculated that the sleep hormone melatonin also plays a role.

“Melatonin does a lot of things, but one of the things that it does is it manages our glucose and our insulin responses,” Dr. Phillips said. “So if you’re chronically getting light exposure at night, that’s reducing a level of melatonin that, in the long term, could lead to poor metabolic outcomes.”

Previous studies have explored melatonin supplementation to help manage diabetes. “However, while melatonin clearly regulates circadian rhythms, its utility as a drug to prevent diabetes has not really panned out thus far,” Dr. Miedlich said.
 

Takeaways

Interventional studies are needed to confirm whether strategies like powering down screens, turning off lights, or using blackout curtains could reduce diabetes risk.

That said, “there’s no reason not to tell people to get healthy light exposure patterns and sleep, especially in the context of diabetes,” said Dr. Phillips.

Other known strategies for reducing diabetes risk include intensive lifestyle programs, which reduce risk by up to 58%, and GLP-1 agonists.

“Probably a GLP-1 agonist is going to be more effective,” Dr. Peterson said. “But this is still a fairly large effect without having to go through the expense of buying a GLP-1 or losing a lot of weight or making a big lifestyle change.”

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

Federal officials on July 11 proposed Medicare rates that effectively would cut physician pay by about 3% in 2025, touching off a fresh round of protests from medical associations.

The 2025 draft base rate, or conversion factor, is slated to drop to $32.36 from the current level of $33.29, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said.

The American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and other groups on July 10 reiterated calls on Congress to revise the law on Medicare payment for physicians and move away from short-term tweaks.

This proposed cut is mostly due to the 5-year freeze in the physician schedule base rate mandated by the 2015 Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). Congress designed MACRA with an aim of shifting clinicians toward programs that would peg pay increases to quality measures.

Lawmakers have since had to soften the blow of that freeze, acknowledging flaws in MACRA and inflation’s significant toll on medical practices. Yet lawmakers have made temporary fixes, such as a 2.93% increase in current payment that’s set to expire.

“Previous quick fixes have been insufficient — this situation requires a bold, substantial approach,” Bruce A. Scott, MD, the AMA president, said in a statement. “A Band-Aid goes only so far when the patient is in dire need.”

Dr. Scott noted that the Medicare Economic Index — a measure of practice cost inflation — is expected to rise by 3.6% in 2025.

“As a first step, Congress must enact an annual inflationary update to help physician payment rates keep pace with rising practice costs,” Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president, said in a statement released July 10. “Any payment reductions will threaten practices and exacerbate workforce shortages, preventing patients from accessing the primary care, behavioral health care, and other critical preventive services they need.”

Many medical groups, including the AMA, AAFP, and the Medical Group Management Association, are pressing Congress to pass a law that would tie the conversion factor of the physician fee schedule to inflation.

Influential advisory groups also have backed the idea of increasing the conversion factor. For example, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission in March recommended to Congress that it increase the 2025 conversion factor, suggesting a bump of half of the projected increase in the Medicare Economic Index.

Congress seems unlikely to revamp the physician fee schedule this year, with members spending significant time away from Washington ahead of the November election.

That could make it likely that Congress’ next action on Medicare payment rates would be another short-term tweak — instead of long-lasting change.

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

Federal officials on July 11 proposed Medicare rates that effectively would cut physician pay by about 3% in 2025, touching off a fresh round of protests from medical associations.

The 2025 draft base rate, or conversion factor, is slated to drop to $32.36 from the current level of $33.29, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said.

The American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and other groups on July 10 reiterated calls on Congress to revise the law on Medicare payment for physicians and move away from short-term tweaks.

This proposed cut is mostly due to the 5-year freeze in the physician schedule base rate mandated by the 2015 Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). Congress designed MACRA with an aim of shifting clinicians toward programs that would peg pay increases to quality measures.

Lawmakers have since had to soften the blow of that freeze, acknowledging flaws in MACRA and inflation’s significant toll on medical practices. Yet lawmakers have made temporary fixes, such as a 2.93% increase in current payment that’s set to expire.

“Previous quick fixes have been insufficient — this situation requires a bold, substantial approach,” Bruce A. Scott, MD, the AMA president, said in a statement. “A Band-Aid goes only so far when the patient is in dire need.”

Dr. Scott noted that the Medicare Economic Index — a measure of practice cost inflation — is expected to rise by 3.6% in 2025.

“As a first step, Congress must enact an annual inflationary update to help physician payment rates keep pace with rising practice costs,” Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president, said in a statement released July 10. “Any payment reductions will threaten practices and exacerbate workforce shortages, preventing patients from accessing the primary care, behavioral health care, and other critical preventive services they need.”

Many medical groups, including the AMA, AAFP, and the Medical Group Management Association, are pressing Congress to pass a law that would tie the conversion factor of the physician fee schedule to inflation.

Influential advisory groups also have backed the idea of increasing the conversion factor. For example, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission in March recommended to Congress that it increase the 2025 conversion factor, suggesting a bump of half of the projected increase in the Medicare Economic Index.

Congress seems unlikely to revamp the physician fee schedule this year, with members spending significant time away from Washington ahead of the November election.

That could make it likely that Congress’ next action on Medicare payment rates would be another short-term tweak — instead of long-lasting change.

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

Federal officials on July 11 proposed Medicare rates that effectively would cut physician pay by about 3% in 2025, touching off a fresh round of protests from medical associations.

The 2025 draft base rate, or conversion factor, is slated to drop to $32.36 from the current level of $33.29, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said.

The American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and other groups on July 10 reiterated calls on Congress to revise the law on Medicare payment for physicians and move away from short-term tweaks.

This proposed cut is mostly due to the 5-year freeze in the physician schedule base rate mandated by the 2015 Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). Congress designed MACRA with an aim of shifting clinicians toward programs that would peg pay increases to quality measures.

Lawmakers have since had to soften the blow of that freeze, acknowledging flaws in MACRA and inflation’s significant toll on medical practices. Yet lawmakers have made temporary fixes, such as a 2.93% increase in current payment that’s set to expire.

“Previous quick fixes have been insufficient — this situation requires a bold, substantial approach,” Bruce A. Scott, MD, the AMA president, said in a statement. “A Band-Aid goes only so far when the patient is in dire need.”

Dr. Scott noted that the Medicare Economic Index — a measure of practice cost inflation — is expected to rise by 3.6% in 2025.

“As a first step, Congress must enact an annual inflationary update to help physician payment rates keep pace with rising practice costs,” Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president, said in a statement released July 10. “Any payment reductions will threaten practices and exacerbate workforce shortages, preventing patients from accessing the primary care, behavioral health care, and other critical preventive services they need.”

Many medical groups, including the AMA, AAFP, and the Medical Group Management Association, are pressing Congress to pass a law that would tie the conversion factor of the physician fee schedule to inflation.

Influential advisory groups also have backed the idea of increasing the conversion factor. For example, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission in March recommended to Congress that it increase the 2025 conversion factor, suggesting a bump of half of the projected increase in the Medicare Economic Index.

Congress seems unlikely to revamp the physician fee schedule this year, with members spending significant time away from Washington ahead of the November election.

That could make it likely that Congress’ next action on Medicare payment rates would be another short-term tweak — instead of long-lasting change.

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