The number of inpatient hospital-acquired complications (HACs) typically spikes in July, but hospitalists can be instrumental in reducing this annual uptick, according to the lead author of a study on the "July effect" in hospital admissions.

Researcher Timothy Wen, MPH, a medical student at the Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California in Los Angeles, examined patient discharge data collected nationally from 2008 to 2011 and found that July admissions had a 6% increase in the likelihood of HAC occurrence compared with admissions during all other months.

Wen, whose research findings were published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine, links the increase with the arrival of new residents, medical students, and hospital faculty in July. He says the annual staff changes can challenge the efficiency of hospital systems and processes.

Fortunately, hospitalists can help to reduce complications during and beyond this time of transition, Wen says.

“Because of their role,” Wen says, “hospitalists have a unique opportunity to not only utilize their institutional knowledge of the system and their patients but also to train residents in navigating the system with improved communication skills and working with ancillary staff. We believe that an initial step in resolving the outcomes associated with the 'July effect' is to have improved communication between ancillary, trainee, and attending staff. Furthermore, we believe that burden of surveillance during this transition period may require additional support from more senior ancillary and attending staff as the new trainees and faculty become more acquainted with the processes of a new hospital and service.”

HACs are a chronic issue for inpatients, contributing to longer lengths of stay and higher hospital costs. Wen says his study is among the first to “address the disparities in HACs between these time periods” and suggests more research on the impact of HACs is needed.

"HACs represent not only egregious complications of high cost and burden to hospitals and patients, but they are also a surrogate marker of adverse events that are preventable through systemic changes," he says. "We need future studies to continue to identify this disparity and its impacts, as well as research into novel initiatives and training protocols to work on reducing these HACs."

Visit our website for more information on reducing HACs.

The number of inpatient hospital-acquired complications (HACs) typically spikes in July, but hospitalists can be instrumental in reducing this annual uptick, according to the lead author of a study on the "July effect" in hospital admissions.

Researcher Timothy Wen, MPH, a medical student at the Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California in Los Angeles, examined patient discharge data collected nationally from 2008 to 2011 and found that July admissions had a 6% increase in the likelihood of HAC occurrence compared with admissions during all other months.

Wen, whose research findings were published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine, links the increase with the arrival of new residents, medical students, and hospital faculty in July. He says the annual staff changes can challenge the efficiency of hospital systems and processes.

Fortunately, hospitalists can help to reduce complications during and beyond this time of transition, Wen says.

“Because of their role,” Wen says, “hospitalists have a unique opportunity to not only utilize their institutional knowledge of the system and their patients but also to train residents in navigating the system with improved communication skills and working with ancillary staff. We believe that an initial step in resolving the outcomes associated with the 'July effect' is to have improved communication between ancillary, trainee, and attending staff. Furthermore, we believe that burden of surveillance during this transition period may require additional support from more senior ancillary and attending staff as the new trainees and faculty become more acquainted with the processes of a new hospital and service.”

HACs are a chronic issue for inpatients, contributing to longer lengths of stay and higher hospital costs. Wen says his study is among the first to “address the disparities in HACs between these time periods” and suggests more research on the impact of HACs is needed.

"HACs represent not only egregious complications of high cost and burden to hospitals and patients, but they are also a surrogate marker of adverse events that are preventable through systemic changes," he says. "We need future studies to continue to identify this disparity and its impacts, as well as research into novel initiatives and training protocols to work on reducing these HACs."

Visit our website for more information on reducing HACs.

The number of inpatient hospital-acquired complications (HACs) typically spikes in July, but hospitalists can be instrumental in reducing this annual uptick, according to the lead author of a study on the "July effect" in hospital admissions.

Researcher Timothy Wen, MPH, a medical student at the Keck School of Medicine of University of Southern California in Los Angeles, examined patient discharge data collected nationally from 2008 to 2011 and found that July admissions had a 6% increase in the likelihood of HAC occurrence compared with admissions during all other months.

Wen, whose research findings were published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine, links the increase with the arrival of new residents, medical students, and hospital faculty in July. He says the annual staff changes can challenge the efficiency of hospital systems and processes.

Fortunately, hospitalists can help to reduce complications during and beyond this time of transition, Wen says.

“Because of their role,” Wen says, “hospitalists have a unique opportunity to not only utilize their institutional knowledge of the system and their patients but also to train residents in navigating the system with improved communication skills and working with ancillary staff. We believe that an initial step in resolving the outcomes associated with the 'July effect' is to have improved communication between ancillary, trainee, and attending staff. Furthermore, we believe that burden of surveillance during this transition period may require additional support from more senior ancillary and attending staff as the new trainees and faculty become more acquainted with the processes of a new hospital and service.”

HACs are a chronic issue for inpatients, contributing to longer lengths of stay and higher hospital costs. Wen says his study is among the first to “address the disparities in HACs between these time periods” and suggests more research on the impact of HACs is needed.

"HACs represent not only egregious complications of high cost and burden to hospitals and patients, but they are also a surrogate marker of adverse events that are preventable through systemic changes," he says. "We need future studies to continue to identify this disparity and its impacts, as well as research into novel initiatives and training protocols to work on reducing these HACs."

Visit our website for more information on reducing HACs.

CHICAGO – Pancreaticoduodenal and gastroduodenal artery aneurysms should be repaired at diagnosis, according to Dr. Michael Corey, a vascular surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

The reason is “they rupture at small sizes. Most other small splanchnic artery aneurysms” – below 25 mm – “do not grow or rupture over time and can safely undergo surveillance imaging every 3 years,” he said at a meeting hosted by the Society for Vascular Surgery.

The insights come from Dr. Corey’s review of 264 splanchnic artery aneurysms (SAAs) treated at Massachusetts General Hospital from 1994 to 2014 .

Pancreaticoduodenal (PDA) and gastroduodenal (GDA) artery aneurysms were the most likely to cause trouble. Almost all of the 36 in the study were associated with high-grade celiac axis stenosis, and 12 (33%) were symptomatic at presentation, including 7 (19%) that had ruptured at a mean size of 27.4 mm, range 15-48 mm.

Those 7 accounted for more than half of the 13 ruptures in the study. There were also five ruptures among 95 splenic artery aneurysms – the most common aneurysm type in the study – at a mean of 42 mm, and one among 34 hepatic artery aneurysms at 40 mm. Thirty-day morbidity after rupture repair was 54% and mortality 8%.

Pancreaticoduodenal (odds ratio, 14.41; 95% confidence interval, 3.5-59.9; P = .0002) and gastroduodenal artery aneurysms (OR, 6.95; 95% CI, 1.1-45.1; P = .042) were far more predictive of rupture than aneurysm size (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08; P = .0042). The strongest predictor was type 4 Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (OR, 34.09; 95% CI, 2.4-479.8; P = .0089). Calcification, meanwhile, did not predict rupture, growth, or thrombus burden.

Dr. Corey and his colleagues reviewed Massachusetts General’s experience with SAAs because “no strong consensus exists in the literature concerning the indications for treatment; 2 cm is currently the indication for surgical treatment of asymptomatic lesions,” he said.

Two centimeters might be too aggressive in some cases. Among 176 aneurysms put under surveillance for a mean of 36.1 months, the mean aneurysm size was 16.3 mm but ranged up to 40 mm. Even so, none of them ruptured. Just 12 aneurysms grew during surveillance, and only 8 eventually needed intervention. Perhaps most “small asymptomatic lesions do not affect longevity,” Dr. Corey said. The mean aneurysm size was 31.1 mm in the 88 patients repaired within 6 months of diagnosis. Splenic, pancreaticoduodenal, gastroduodenal, and hepatic aneurysms were the most likely to be repaired early, the majority by coil embolization and other endovascular techniques. Thirty-day morbidity for intact repair was 13% and mortality 3%.

Most of the splenic artery aneurysms were asymptomatic at presentation. In the half that were watched, just six grew.

Similarly, 78 celiac artery aneurysms – the second most common in the study – all presented without symptoms. Just 3 of the 60 under surveillance grew over a mean of 43.6 months. “These aneurysms rarely change,” Dr. Corey said.

Most of the 34 hepatic artery aneurysms and 17 superior mesenteric artery (SMA) aneurysms were asymptomatic. Between both groups, 20 aneurysms were put under surveillance; growth was noted in 1, an SMA lesion.

Although there was a shift from open to endovascular repair during the study period, there were no statistically significant differences in morbidity or mortality between the two approaches.

Dr. Corey has no disclosures.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – Pancreaticoduodenal and gastroduodenal artery aneurysms should be repaired at diagnosis, according to Dr. Michael Corey, a vascular surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

The reason is “they rupture at small sizes. Most other small splanchnic artery aneurysms” – below 25 mm – “do not grow or rupture over time and can safely undergo surveillance imaging every 3 years,” he said at a meeting hosted by the Society for Vascular Surgery.

The insights come from Dr. Corey’s review of 264 splanchnic artery aneurysms (SAAs) treated at Massachusetts General Hospital from 1994 to 2014 .

Pancreaticoduodenal (PDA) and gastroduodenal (GDA) artery aneurysms were the most likely to cause trouble. Almost all of the 36 in the study were associated with high-grade celiac axis stenosis, and 12 (33%) were symptomatic at presentation, including 7 (19%) that had ruptured at a mean size of 27.4 mm, range 15-48 mm.

Those 7 accounted for more than half of the 13 ruptures in the study. There were also five ruptures among 95 splenic artery aneurysms – the most common aneurysm type in the study – at a mean of 42 mm, and one among 34 hepatic artery aneurysms at 40 mm. Thirty-day morbidity after rupture repair was 54% and mortality 8%.

Pancreaticoduodenal (odds ratio, 14.41; 95% confidence interval, 3.5-59.9; P = .0002) and gastroduodenal artery aneurysms (OR, 6.95; 95% CI, 1.1-45.1; P = .042) were far more predictive of rupture than aneurysm size (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08; P = .0042). The strongest predictor was type 4 Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (OR, 34.09; 95% CI, 2.4-479.8; P = .0089). Calcification, meanwhile, did not predict rupture, growth, or thrombus burden.

Dr. Corey and his colleagues reviewed Massachusetts General’s experience with SAAs because “no strong consensus exists in the literature concerning the indications for treatment; 2 cm is currently the indication for surgical treatment of asymptomatic lesions,” he said.

Two centimeters might be too aggressive in some cases. Among 176 aneurysms put under surveillance for a mean of 36.1 months, the mean aneurysm size was 16.3 mm but ranged up to 40 mm. Even so, none of them ruptured. Just 12 aneurysms grew during surveillance, and only 8 eventually needed intervention. Perhaps most “small asymptomatic lesions do not affect longevity,” Dr. Corey said. The mean aneurysm size was 31.1 mm in the 88 patients repaired within 6 months of diagnosis. Splenic, pancreaticoduodenal, gastroduodenal, and hepatic aneurysms were the most likely to be repaired early, the majority by coil embolization and other endovascular techniques. Thirty-day morbidity for intact repair was 13% and mortality 3%.

Most of the splenic artery aneurysms were asymptomatic at presentation. In the half that were watched, just six grew.

Similarly, 78 celiac artery aneurysms – the second most common in the study – all presented without symptoms. Just 3 of the 60 under surveillance grew over a mean of 43.6 months. “These aneurysms rarely change,” Dr. Corey said.

Most of the 34 hepatic artery aneurysms and 17 superior mesenteric artery (SMA) aneurysms were asymptomatic. Between both groups, 20 aneurysms were put under surveillance; growth was noted in 1, an SMA lesion.

Although there was a shift from open to endovascular repair during the study period, there were no statistically significant differences in morbidity or mortality between the two approaches.

Dr. Corey has no disclosures.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – Pancreaticoduodenal and gastroduodenal artery aneurysms should be repaired at diagnosis, according to Dr. Michael Corey, a vascular surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

The reason is “they rupture at small sizes. Most other small splanchnic artery aneurysms” – below 25 mm – “do not grow or rupture over time and can safely undergo surveillance imaging every 3 years,” he said at a meeting hosted by the Society for Vascular Surgery.

The insights come from Dr. Corey’s review of 264 splanchnic artery aneurysms (SAAs) treated at Massachusetts General Hospital from 1994 to 2014 .

Pancreaticoduodenal (PDA) and gastroduodenal (GDA) artery aneurysms were the most likely to cause trouble. Almost all of the 36 in the study were associated with high-grade celiac axis stenosis, and 12 (33%) were symptomatic at presentation, including 7 (19%) that had ruptured at a mean size of 27.4 mm, range 15-48 mm.

Those 7 accounted for more than half of the 13 ruptures in the study. There were also five ruptures among 95 splenic artery aneurysms – the most common aneurysm type in the study – at a mean of 42 mm, and one among 34 hepatic artery aneurysms at 40 mm. Thirty-day morbidity after rupture repair was 54% and mortality 8%.

Pancreaticoduodenal (odds ratio, 14.41; 95% confidence interval, 3.5-59.9; P = .0002) and gastroduodenal artery aneurysms (OR, 6.95; 95% CI, 1.1-45.1; P = .042) were far more predictive of rupture than aneurysm size (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08; P = .0042). The strongest predictor was type 4 Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (OR, 34.09; 95% CI, 2.4-479.8; P = .0089). Calcification, meanwhile, did not predict rupture, growth, or thrombus burden.

Dr. Corey and his colleagues reviewed Massachusetts General’s experience with SAAs because “no strong consensus exists in the literature concerning the indications for treatment; 2 cm is currently the indication for surgical treatment of asymptomatic lesions,” he said.

Two centimeters might be too aggressive in some cases. Among 176 aneurysms put under surveillance for a mean of 36.1 months, the mean aneurysm size was 16.3 mm but ranged up to 40 mm. Even so, none of them ruptured. Just 12 aneurysms grew during surveillance, and only 8 eventually needed intervention. Perhaps most “small asymptomatic lesions do not affect longevity,” Dr. Corey said. The mean aneurysm size was 31.1 mm in the 88 patients repaired within 6 months of diagnosis. Splenic, pancreaticoduodenal, gastroduodenal, and hepatic aneurysms were the most likely to be repaired early, the majority by coil embolization and other endovascular techniques. Thirty-day morbidity for intact repair was 13% and mortality 3%.

Most of the splenic artery aneurysms were asymptomatic at presentation. In the half that were watched, just six grew.

Similarly, 78 celiac artery aneurysms – the second most common in the study – all presented without symptoms. Just 3 of the 60 under surveillance grew over a mean of 43.6 months. “These aneurysms rarely change,” Dr. Corey said.

Most of the 34 hepatic artery aneurysms and 17 superior mesenteric artery (SMA) aneurysms were asymptomatic. Between both groups, 20 aneurysms were put under surveillance; growth was noted in 1, an SMA lesion.

Although there was a shift from open to endovascular repair during the study period, there were no statistically significant differences in morbidity or mortality between the two approaches.

Dr. Corey has no disclosures.

[email protected]

Clinical question: Are there long-term benefits to more intensive glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus?

Bottom line: After approximately 10 years of follow-up, this study found 1 fewer cardiovascular event per 116 person-years among a group of patients (97% men) randomized to receive tight glycemic control, but found no reduction in mortality. This result must be balanced against the results from other trials, which saw a mixed bag of benefits and harms with long-term follow-up. It is important to note that even the intensive glycemic control group had a mean hemoglobin A1c of 6.9%, not 6% or 6.5% as some guidelines advocate.

Reference: Hayward RA, Reaven PD, Wiitala WL, et al, for the VADT Investigators. Follow-up of glycemic control and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2015;372(23):2197-2206.

Study design: Cohort (prospective); (LOE: 2b)

Setting: Outpatient (any)

Synopsis: The Veteran's Affairs Diabetes Trial (VADT) originally randomized 1791 veterans with type 2 diabetes mellitus to receive intensive or usual glycemic control, and achieved mean hemoglobin A1C levels of 6.9% and 8.4%, respectively, after a median of 5.6 years. The original trial found a nonsignificant trend toward fewer cardiovascular events in the intensive therapy group, but no change in mortality. Two other large, similar trials reported similar findings, although one found increased mortality in the intensive glycemic control group. Follow-up studies for these 2 other trials have had mixed results, one finding increased mortality and no change in events, with the other finding fewer events but no change in mortality.

The current study linked patients in the original VADT to national disease registries (92% of participants) and also to regular record reviews and surveys (77% agreed to participte). The median follow-up was 9.8 years for cardiovascular events and 11.8 years for assessment of total mortality. They found a small but statistically significant reduction in the primary combined outcome of myocardial infarction , stroke, new or worsening heart failure, cardiovascular death, or amputation (44.1 vs 52.7 per 1000 person-years; P = .04). There was no significant difference between groups in the likelihood of cardiovascular death or all-cause mortality. The greatest contribution to the reduction in cardiovascular events was fewer nonfatal myocardial infarctions.

Mark H. Ebell, MD, MS, is an associate professor at the University of Georgia in Athens, editor-in-chief of Essential Evidence, and deputy editor of the American Family Physician journal. 

Clinical question: Are there long-term benefits to more intensive glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus?

Bottom line: After approximately 10 years of follow-up, this study found 1 fewer cardiovascular event per 116 person-years among a group of patients (97% men) randomized to receive tight glycemic control, but found no reduction in mortality. This result must be balanced against the results from other trials, which saw a mixed bag of benefits and harms with long-term follow-up. It is important to note that even the intensive glycemic control group had a mean hemoglobin A1c of 6.9%, not 6% or 6.5% as some guidelines advocate.

Reference: Hayward RA, Reaven PD, Wiitala WL, et al, for the VADT Investigators. Follow-up of glycemic control and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2015;372(23):2197-2206.

Study design: Cohort (prospective); (LOE: 2b)

Setting: Outpatient (any)

Synopsis: The Veteran's Affairs Diabetes Trial (VADT) originally randomized 1791 veterans with type 2 diabetes mellitus to receive intensive or usual glycemic control, and achieved mean hemoglobin A1C levels of 6.9% and 8.4%, respectively, after a median of 5.6 years. The original trial found a nonsignificant trend toward fewer cardiovascular events in the intensive therapy group, but no change in mortality. Two other large, similar trials reported similar findings, although one found increased mortality in the intensive glycemic control group. Follow-up studies for these 2 other trials have had mixed results, one finding increased mortality and no change in events, with the other finding fewer events but no change in mortality.

The current study linked patients in the original VADT to national disease registries (92% of participants) and also to regular record reviews and surveys (77% agreed to participte). The median follow-up was 9.8 years for cardiovascular events and 11.8 years for assessment of total mortality. They found a small but statistically significant reduction in the primary combined outcome of myocardial infarction , stroke, new or worsening heart failure, cardiovascular death, or amputation (44.1 vs 52.7 per 1000 person-years; P = .04). There was no significant difference between groups in the likelihood of cardiovascular death or all-cause mortality. The greatest contribution to the reduction in cardiovascular events was fewer nonfatal myocardial infarctions.

Mark H. Ebell, MD, MS, is an associate professor at the University of Georgia in Athens, editor-in-chief of Essential Evidence, and deputy editor of the American Family Physician journal. 

Clinical question: Are there long-term benefits to more intensive glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus?

Bottom line: After approximately 10 years of follow-up, this study found 1 fewer cardiovascular event per 116 person-years among a group of patients (97% men) randomized to receive tight glycemic control, but found no reduction in mortality. This result must be balanced against the results from other trials, which saw a mixed bag of benefits and harms with long-term follow-up. It is important to note that even the intensive glycemic control group had a mean hemoglobin A1c of 6.9%, not 6% or 6.5% as some guidelines advocate.

Reference: Hayward RA, Reaven PD, Wiitala WL, et al, for the VADT Investigators. Follow-up of glycemic control and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2015;372(23):2197-2206.

Study design: Cohort (prospective); (LOE: 2b)

Setting: Outpatient (any)

Synopsis: The Veteran's Affairs Diabetes Trial (VADT) originally randomized 1791 veterans with type 2 diabetes mellitus to receive intensive or usual glycemic control, and achieved mean hemoglobin A1C levels of 6.9% and 8.4%, respectively, after a median of 5.6 years. The original trial found a nonsignificant trend toward fewer cardiovascular events in the intensive therapy group, but no change in mortality. Two other large, similar trials reported similar findings, although one found increased mortality in the intensive glycemic control group. Follow-up studies for these 2 other trials have had mixed results, one finding increased mortality and no change in events, with the other finding fewer events but no change in mortality.

The current study linked patients in the original VADT to national disease registries (92% of participants) and also to regular record reviews and surveys (77% agreed to participte). The median follow-up was 9.8 years for cardiovascular events and 11.8 years for assessment of total mortality. They found a small but statistically significant reduction in the primary combined outcome of myocardial infarction , stroke, new or worsening heart failure, cardiovascular death, or amputation (44.1 vs 52.7 per 1000 person-years; P = .04). There was no significant difference between groups in the likelihood of cardiovascular death or all-cause mortality. The greatest contribution to the reduction in cardiovascular events was fewer nonfatal myocardial infarctions.

Mark H. Ebell, MD, MS, is an associate professor at the University of Georgia in Athens, editor-in-chief of Essential Evidence, and deputy editor of the American Family Physician journal. 

Brad came in with his mother for me to treat a small wart on the sole of his left foot. “It doesn’t bother me,” he said.

“I had one of those when I was Brad’s age,” said his mother, Mary Lou. “We neglected it and it really grew! With a thing like that, you have to nip it in the bud.”

We all learn little maxims about how the world works and what to do about it. One of these is that to avoid trouble, you should nip things in the bud.

This sounds like it makes sense. Sometimes it’s actually true. But there are other times when what you’re trying to nip doesn’t have a bud.

If you have a plantar wart on the bottom of your foot and you don’t treat it, here are some things that can happen:

•  It can grow and become painful.

•  It can stay the same for years, never bother you, and go away.

•  New ones can appear elsewhere on the sole.

•  It can disappear tomorrow afternoon.

Which will happen? For the individual case, I have no idea. Like you, I’ve seen ‘em all.

There are reasons other than functional disability to treat plantar warts. For instance, they’re ugly and embarrassing. So if treatment is not too painful or expensive, why not? But sometimes we freeze it – a standard treatment – and it takes forever, visit after visit, and the wart is still there, grinning complacently. Some insurance plans don’t cover treatments unless the wart hurts, so therapy gets too expensive.

That’s when it might make sense to explain to the patient that you can nip some buds off plants to help them grow better, but you really can’t nip the buds off warts, which have neither roots nor buds.

Another maxim we all pick up is that it’s better to be safe than sorry. That sounds like plain common sense. “Can’t you take off that mole?” asks Annie. “I’m sure it’s bigger that it used to be.”

It’s just an ordinary mole, though, and it doesn’t look worrisome. All moles grow – they start out small and get a bit bigger before they stop. Plus, Annie is a young woman, and her mole is on her face. Even if a plastic surgeon takes it off, she’ll have a scar with no wrinkles to hide it in.

I explain this to Annie. “But isn’t it better to be safe than sorry?” she asks.

Well, sometimes maybe. Just not this time.

Ankur has eczema. He is really frustrated. “Doctors keep giving me creams,” he says. “The rash gets a little better,” but then it comes back. “I’d like you to give me a treatment that will kick it in the butt.”

What Ankur wants, of course, is for me to do something that will shove eczema out the door and then lock the door behind it so it can’t come back.

I would love to do that. Only I can’t. Like the many other recurring conditions we treat every day, nothing specific causes eczema, so nothing definitive gets rid of it once and for all.

In other words, eczema has no butt. So you can’t kick it.

The examples I’ve given are common and homely. There are bigger issues, in medicine and in life, to which common-sense maxims seem to apply but sometimes don’t.

The well-known public debates over prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer in older men and routine mammography in younger women attest to how tricky it is to decide whether catching things early is necessarily a good idea. It also shows how the public reacts when data contradict common sense. Of course you should catch cancer early, says the outraged public. Isn’t it always better to be safe than sorry?

No, actually it sometimes isn’t.

We all pick up maxims to live by. We hear them as children without realizing we’re learning them. That makes it hard to accept that not everything is a plant with a bud to be nipped. Or that there are situations when trying to be safe can make you sorrier.

Or that there are indeed butts, big and small. But not everything has one to kick.

Dr. Rockoff practices dermatology in Brookline, Mass., and is a longtime contributor to Dermatology News. He serves on the clinical faculty at Tufts University, Boston, and has taught senior medical students and other trainees for 30 years.

Brad came in with his mother for me to treat a small wart on the sole of his left foot. “It doesn’t bother me,” he said.

“I had one of those when I was Brad’s age,” said his mother, Mary Lou. “We neglected it and it really grew! With a thing like that, you have to nip it in the bud.”

We all learn little maxims about how the world works and what to do about it. One of these is that to avoid trouble, you should nip things in the bud.

This sounds like it makes sense. Sometimes it’s actually true. But there are other times when what you’re trying to nip doesn’t have a bud.

If you have a plantar wart on the bottom of your foot and you don’t treat it, here are some things that can happen:

•  It can grow and become painful.

•  It can stay the same for years, never bother you, and go away.

•  New ones can appear elsewhere on the sole.

•  It can disappear tomorrow afternoon.

Which will happen? For the individual case, I have no idea. Like you, I’ve seen ‘em all.

There are reasons other than functional disability to treat plantar warts. For instance, they’re ugly and embarrassing. So if treatment is not too painful or expensive, why not? But sometimes we freeze it – a standard treatment – and it takes forever, visit after visit, and the wart is still there, grinning complacently. Some insurance plans don’t cover treatments unless the wart hurts, so therapy gets too expensive.

That’s when it might make sense to explain to the patient that you can nip some buds off plants to help them grow better, but you really can’t nip the buds off warts, which have neither roots nor buds.

Another maxim we all pick up is that it’s better to be safe than sorry. That sounds like plain common sense. “Can’t you take off that mole?” asks Annie. “I’m sure it’s bigger that it used to be.”

It’s just an ordinary mole, though, and it doesn’t look worrisome. All moles grow – they start out small and get a bit bigger before they stop. Plus, Annie is a young woman, and her mole is on her face. Even if a plastic surgeon takes it off, she’ll have a scar with no wrinkles to hide it in.

I explain this to Annie. “But isn’t it better to be safe than sorry?” she asks.

Well, sometimes maybe. Just not this time.

Ankur has eczema. He is really frustrated. “Doctors keep giving me creams,” he says. “The rash gets a little better,” but then it comes back. “I’d like you to give me a treatment that will kick it in the butt.”

What Ankur wants, of course, is for me to do something that will shove eczema out the door and then lock the door behind it so it can’t come back.

I would love to do that. Only I can’t. Like the many other recurring conditions we treat every day, nothing specific causes eczema, so nothing definitive gets rid of it once and for all.

In other words, eczema has no butt. So you can’t kick it.

The examples I’ve given are common and homely. There are bigger issues, in medicine and in life, to which common-sense maxims seem to apply but sometimes don’t.

The well-known public debates over prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer in older men and routine mammography in younger women attest to how tricky it is to decide whether catching things early is necessarily a good idea. It also shows how the public reacts when data contradict common sense. Of course you should catch cancer early, says the outraged public. Isn’t it always better to be safe than sorry?

No, actually it sometimes isn’t.

We all pick up maxims to live by. We hear them as children without realizing we’re learning them. That makes it hard to accept that not everything is a plant with a bud to be nipped. Or that there are situations when trying to be safe can make you sorrier.

Or that there are indeed butts, big and small. But not everything has one to kick.

Dr. Rockoff practices dermatology in Brookline, Mass., and is a longtime contributor to Dermatology News. He serves on the clinical faculty at Tufts University, Boston, and has taught senior medical students and other trainees for 30 years.

Brad came in with his mother for me to treat a small wart on the sole of his left foot. “It doesn’t bother me,” he said.

“I had one of those when I was Brad’s age,” said his mother, Mary Lou. “We neglected it and it really grew! With a thing like that, you have to nip it in the bud.”

We all learn little maxims about how the world works and what to do about it. One of these is that to avoid trouble, you should nip things in the bud.

This sounds like it makes sense. Sometimes it’s actually true. But there are other times when what you’re trying to nip doesn’t have a bud.

If you have a plantar wart on the bottom of your foot and you don’t treat it, here are some things that can happen:

•  It can grow and become painful.

•  It can stay the same for years, never bother you, and go away.

•  New ones can appear elsewhere on the sole.

•  It can disappear tomorrow afternoon.

Which will happen? For the individual case, I have no idea. Like you, I’ve seen ‘em all.

There are reasons other than functional disability to treat plantar warts. For instance, they’re ugly and embarrassing. So if treatment is not too painful or expensive, why not? But sometimes we freeze it – a standard treatment – and it takes forever, visit after visit, and the wart is still there, grinning complacently. Some insurance plans don’t cover treatments unless the wart hurts, so therapy gets too expensive.

That’s when it might make sense to explain to the patient that you can nip some buds off plants to help them grow better, but you really can’t nip the buds off warts, which have neither roots nor buds.

Another maxim we all pick up is that it’s better to be safe than sorry. That sounds like plain common sense. “Can’t you take off that mole?” asks Annie. “I’m sure it’s bigger that it used to be.”

It’s just an ordinary mole, though, and it doesn’t look worrisome. All moles grow – they start out small and get a bit bigger before they stop. Plus, Annie is a young woman, and her mole is on her face. Even if a plastic surgeon takes it off, she’ll have a scar with no wrinkles to hide it in.

I explain this to Annie. “But isn’t it better to be safe than sorry?” she asks.

Well, sometimes maybe. Just not this time.

Ankur has eczema. He is really frustrated. “Doctors keep giving me creams,” he says. “The rash gets a little better,” but then it comes back. “I’d like you to give me a treatment that will kick it in the butt.”

What Ankur wants, of course, is for me to do something that will shove eczema out the door and then lock the door behind it so it can’t come back.

I would love to do that. Only I can’t. Like the many other recurring conditions we treat every day, nothing specific causes eczema, so nothing definitive gets rid of it once and for all.

In other words, eczema has no butt. So you can’t kick it.

The examples I’ve given are common and homely. There are bigger issues, in medicine and in life, to which common-sense maxims seem to apply but sometimes don’t.

The well-known public debates over prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer in older men and routine mammography in younger women attest to how tricky it is to decide whether catching things early is necessarily a good idea. It also shows how the public reacts when data contradict common sense. Of course you should catch cancer early, says the outraged public. Isn’t it always better to be safe than sorry?

No, actually it sometimes isn’t.

We all pick up maxims to live by. We hear them as children without realizing we’re learning them. That makes it hard to accept that not everything is a plant with a bud to be nipped. Or that there are situations when trying to be safe can make you sorrier.

Or that there are indeed butts, big and small. But not everything has one to kick.

Dr. Rockoff practices dermatology in Brookline, Mass., and is a longtime contributor to Dermatology News. He serves on the clinical faculty at Tufts University, Boston, and has taught senior medical students and other trainees for 30 years.

On July 1, 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced proposed changes to its controversial two-midnight rule. The changes afford physicians more flexibility to determine patient hospitalization status and place primary patient status auditing authority with Quality Improvement Organizations (QIO), rather than the unpopular Recovery Auditor Contractors (RACs).

The original policy was implemented in October 2013 to reduce the number of long observation stays impacting Medicare beneficiaries, which are not payable under Part A and impact coverage for some types of follow-up care. Under the policy, stays under two midnights are considered outpatient while longer stays are considered inpatient. Physicians must decide at time of admission how to designate a patient and provide adequate documentation for the decision. The changes give physicians the authority to designate shorter stays for inpatients based on medical necessity.

According to CMS actuary data published in the 2016 Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment System proposed payment rule, the two-midnight rule is working. Since fiscal year 2013, observation stays longer than two days are down 11%. It also says a related 0.2% reduction in payment for inpatient services is justified based on an increase in the number of inpatient admissions.

The agency has sought public comment on three separate occasions since the policy began but says no suitable alternatives to the rule—other than full repeal—have been offered. While the American Hospital Association has said the changes are a good first step, it and others contend the rule still leaves too much uncertainty.

“There’s so little objectivity, it makes it hard to understand how this is going to be implemented,” says Dr. Lauren Doctoroff, MD, a hospitalist and medical director for utilization management at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

While the two-midnight rule has helped Dr. Doctoroff's hospital better determine which stays should be considered inpatient and which observation, when it comes to review of short inpatient stays, CMS has not made clear how much influence RACs will continue to play or how QIOs will be different, she says. The RACs have been unpopular because they share in savings recovered on behalf of CMS even when their aggressive audit decisions are overturned, which studies show happens with frequency. Nor do the changes indicate what constitutes adequate documentation.

“There are so many gray areas,” says Dr. Doctoroff, particularly when physicians treat patients with complex social needs, who may not have a stable situation for discharge. “There are some potential benefits, but it’s unclear how it will work and what role the QIOs take relative to RAs, whether it will be more of the same with a different name. It’s not clear if it’s going to be better.”

Visit our website for more information on CMS' two-midnight rule.

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

On July 1, 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced proposed changes to its controversial two-midnight rule. The changes afford physicians more flexibility to determine patient hospitalization status and place primary patient status auditing authority with Quality Improvement Organizations (QIO), rather than the unpopular Recovery Auditor Contractors (RACs).

The original policy was implemented in October 2013 to reduce the number of long observation stays impacting Medicare beneficiaries, which are not payable under Part A and impact coverage for some types of follow-up care. Under the policy, stays under two midnights are considered outpatient while longer stays are considered inpatient. Physicians must decide at time of admission how to designate a patient and provide adequate documentation for the decision. The changes give physicians the authority to designate shorter stays for inpatients based on medical necessity.

According to CMS actuary data published in the 2016 Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment System proposed payment rule, the two-midnight rule is working. Since fiscal year 2013, observation stays longer than two days are down 11%. It also says a related 0.2% reduction in payment for inpatient services is justified based on an increase in the number of inpatient admissions.

The agency has sought public comment on three separate occasions since the policy began but says no suitable alternatives to the rule—other than full repeal—have been offered. While the American Hospital Association has said the changes are a good first step, it and others contend the rule still leaves too much uncertainty.

“There’s so little objectivity, it makes it hard to understand how this is going to be implemented,” says Dr. Lauren Doctoroff, MD, a hospitalist and medical director for utilization management at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

While the two-midnight rule has helped Dr. Doctoroff's hospital better determine which stays should be considered inpatient and which observation, when it comes to review of short inpatient stays, CMS has not made clear how much influence RACs will continue to play or how QIOs will be different, she says. The RACs have been unpopular because they share in savings recovered on behalf of CMS even when their aggressive audit decisions are overturned, which studies show happens with frequency. Nor do the changes indicate what constitutes adequate documentation.

“There are so many gray areas,” says Dr. Doctoroff, particularly when physicians treat patients with complex social needs, who may not have a stable situation for discharge. “There are some potential benefits, but it’s unclear how it will work and what role the QIOs take relative to RAs, whether it will be more of the same with a different name. It’s not clear if it’s going to be better.”

Visit our website for more information on CMS' two-midnight rule.

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

On July 1, 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced proposed changes to its controversial two-midnight rule. The changes afford physicians more flexibility to determine patient hospitalization status and place primary patient status auditing authority with Quality Improvement Organizations (QIO), rather than the unpopular Recovery Auditor Contractors (RACs).

The original policy was implemented in October 2013 to reduce the number of long observation stays impacting Medicare beneficiaries, which are not payable under Part A and impact coverage for some types of follow-up care. Under the policy, stays under two midnights are considered outpatient while longer stays are considered inpatient. Physicians must decide at time of admission how to designate a patient and provide adequate documentation for the decision. The changes give physicians the authority to designate shorter stays for inpatients based on medical necessity.

According to CMS actuary data published in the 2016 Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment System proposed payment rule, the two-midnight rule is working. Since fiscal year 2013, observation stays longer than two days are down 11%. It also says a related 0.2% reduction in payment for inpatient services is justified based on an increase in the number of inpatient admissions.

The agency has sought public comment on three separate occasions since the policy began but says no suitable alternatives to the rule—other than full repeal—have been offered. While the American Hospital Association has said the changes are a good first step, it and others contend the rule still leaves too much uncertainty.

“There’s so little objectivity, it makes it hard to understand how this is going to be implemented,” says Dr. Lauren Doctoroff, MD, a hospitalist and medical director for utilization management at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

While the two-midnight rule has helped Dr. Doctoroff's hospital better determine which stays should be considered inpatient and which observation, when it comes to review of short inpatient stays, CMS has not made clear how much influence RACs will continue to play or how QIOs will be different, she says. The RACs have been unpopular because they share in savings recovered on behalf of CMS even when their aggressive audit decisions are overturned, which studies show happens with frequency. Nor do the changes indicate what constitutes adequate documentation.

“There are so many gray areas,” says Dr. Doctoroff, particularly when physicians treat patients with complex social needs, who may not have a stable situation for discharge. “There are some potential benefits, but it’s unclear how it will work and what role the QIOs take relative to RAs, whether it will be more of the same with a different name. It’s not clear if it’s going to be better.”

Visit our website for more information on CMS' two-midnight rule.

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

Transparency, until recently, was rarely associated with health care. Not anymore. For better and sometimes worse, there is a revolutionary movement toward transparency in all facets of health care: transparency of costs, outcomes, quality, service, and reputation. Full transparency now has come to medical records in the form of OpenNotes. This is a patient-centered initiative that allows patients full access to their chart including all their providers’ notes.

Patients always have had the right to see their record. Ordinarily though, they would be required to go to the medical records office, fill out paperwork, and request copies of their chart. They would have to supply a reason and often pay a fee. OpenNotes changes that. Open patient charts are free and easy to access, usually digitally. OpenNotes programs are still rare, and before we go any further, it’s important to examine what we’ve learned about them.

In 2010, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania, and Harborview Medical Center in Seattle invited 105 primary care physicians to open their notes to nearly 14,000 patients. The results were overwhelmingly (and to me, surprisingly) positive: More than 85% of patients accessed their notes at least once. Nearly 100% of patients wanted the program to continue. Patients reported a better understanding of their medical issues, better medication adherence, increased adoption of healthy habits, and less anxiety about their health. I would have expected more confusion and anxiety among the patients.

What about the physicians? According to the initiative, whereas one in three patients thought they should have unfettered access to their physicians’ notes, only 1 in 10 physicians did. That’s understandable. The physicians in the pilot shared many of the same concerns you and I have, namely that OpenNotes would lead to an increased workload to explain esoteric notes to patients and to allay anxieties.

Yet, this extra workload didn’t occur. Only 3% of physicians reported spending more time answering patients’ questions, although one-fifth did report that they changed the language they used when writing notes, primarily to avoid offending patients. Every physician in the initiative said he or she would continue using OpenNotes. Surprised? So was I.

Even the usually conservative SERMO physician audience responded in an unexpected manner. According to a poll conducted this June, SERMO asked 2,300 physicians if patients should have access to their medical records (including physician notes). Forty-nine percent said “only on a case-by-case basis,” 34% said “yes, always,” and 17% said “no, never.”

So, are OpenNotes a success? Let’s take a closer look at some of the challenges. First, we physicians use language that will confuse patients at best and lead them to incorrect conclusions at worst. “Acne necrotica?” Not as bad as it sounds. Or consider, “differential diagnosis includes neuroendocrine tumor.” It doesn’t mean you have it, but some patients will believe they do. Will we have to dumb down our charts then to appease them? Won’t this degrade note quality, one of the primary objectives we are trying to avoid? It’s unclear.

The purpose of a patient note is to inform other providers and to remind ourselves of the critical information needed to care for a patient. It must be pithy and honest. It often reflects our inchoate thoughts as much as our diagnoses. It also must include the sundry requirements we know and love that are needed only to bill for the visit. These are not characteristics that make for a good patient read.

Indeed, the benefits of transparency are not limitless. In some instances, more transparency is worse. Imagine if all your emails and texts were transparent to everyone. Or if everything you’ve ever said about your mother-in-law was viewable by her. Clearly, bad transparency, bad transparency. Not sharing everything doesn’t mean we are dishonest or duplicitous. It means we are civil. It doesn’t mean we don’t care; it means we do care. We care about our friends and family. We care about our patients and the best way to make them well.

Unless we make it clear to patients that the notes they are viewing are not written for them, I’m worried simply opening charts could damage the doctor-patient relationship as much as it fosters it. Interestingly, there are companies trying to build a technical solution for this conundrum. Others are advocating for standardization of pathology and lab reports that are patient friendly. I’ll research these topics and let you know what I find out in a future column.

Perhaps I shouldn’t have been surprised by the positive results from the OpenNotes initiative. After all, for the last several years, I have given patients their actual pathology report for every biopsy I’ve done (which numbers in the many thousands). I have had fewer than five follow-up questions from patients that I can remember. Pretty much all were legitimate, as I recall, including a wrong site error in a report.

Today, more than 5 million patients have access to their providers’ notes on OpenNotes. That number will grow. Our biggest risk is to not be involved. “Just say no” didn’t work for Nancy Reagan; it won’t do our cause any good either.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego, and a volunteer clinical assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Benabio is @dermdoc on Twitter.

Transparency, until recently, was rarely associated with health care. Not anymore. For better and sometimes worse, there is a revolutionary movement toward transparency in all facets of health care: transparency of costs, outcomes, quality, service, and reputation. Full transparency now has come to medical records in the form of OpenNotes. This is a patient-centered initiative that allows patients full access to their chart including all their providers’ notes.

Patients always have had the right to see their record. Ordinarily though, they would be required to go to the medical records office, fill out paperwork, and request copies of their chart. They would have to supply a reason and often pay a fee. OpenNotes changes that. Open patient charts are free and easy to access, usually digitally. OpenNotes programs are still rare, and before we go any further, it’s important to examine what we’ve learned about them.

In 2010, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania, and Harborview Medical Center in Seattle invited 105 primary care physicians to open their notes to nearly 14,000 patients. The results were overwhelmingly (and to me, surprisingly) positive: More than 85% of patients accessed their notes at least once. Nearly 100% of patients wanted the program to continue. Patients reported a better understanding of their medical issues, better medication adherence, increased adoption of healthy habits, and less anxiety about their health. I would have expected more confusion and anxiety among the patients.

What about the physicians? According to the initiative, whereas one in three patients thought they should have unfettered access to their physicians’ notes, only 1 in 10 physicians did. That’s understandable. The physicians in the pilot shared many of the same concerns you and I have, namely that OpenNotes would lead to an increased workload to explain esoteric notes to patients and to allay anxieties.

Yet, this extra workload didn’t occur. Only 3% of physicians reported spending more time answering patients’ questions, although one-fifth did report that they changed the language they used when writing notes, primarily to avoid offending patients. Every physician in the initiative said he or she would continue using OpenNotes. Surprised? So was I.

Even the usually conservative SERMO physician audience responded in an unexpected manner. According to a poll conducted this June, SERMO asked 2,300 physicians if patients should have access to their medical records (including physician notes). Forty-nine percent said “only on a case-by-case basis,” 34% said “yes, always,” and 17% said “no, never.”

So, are OpenNotes a success? Let’s take a closer look at some of the challenges. First, we physicians use language that will confuse patients at best and lead them to incorrect conclusions at worst. “Acne necrotica?” Not as bad as it sounds. Or consider, “differential diagnosis includes neuroendocrine tumor.” It doesn’t mean you have it, but some patients will believe they do. Will we have to dumb down our charts then to appease them? Won’t this degrade note quality, one of the primary objectives we are trying to avoid? It’s unclear.

The purpose of a patient note is to inform other providers and to remind ourselves of the critical information needed to care for a patient. It must be pithy and honest. It often reflects our inchoate thoughts as much as our diagnoses. It also must include the sundry requirements we know and love that are needed only to bill for the visit. These are not characteristics that make for a good patient read.

Indeed, the benefits of transparency are not limitless. In some instances, more transparency is worse. Imagine if all your emails and texts were transparent to everyone. Or if everything you’ve ever said about your mother-in-law was viewable by her. Clearly, bad transparency, bad transparency. Not sharing everything doesn’t mean we are dishonest or duplicitous. It means we are civil. It doesn’t mean we don’t care; it means we do care. We care about our friends and family. We care about our patients and the best way to make them well.

Unless we make it clear to patients that the notes they are viewing are not written for them, I’m worried simply opening charts could damage the doctor-patient relationship as much as it fosters it. Interestingly, there are companies trying to build a technical solution for this conundrum. Others are advocating for standardization of pathology and lab reports that are patient friendly. I’ll research these topics and let you know what I find out in a future column.

Perhaps I shouldn’t have been surprised by the positive results from the OpenNotes initiative. After all, for the last several years, I have given patients their actual pathology report for every biopsy I’ve done (which numbers in the many thousands). I have had fewer than five follow-up questions from patients that I can remember. Pretty much all were legitimate, as I recall, including a wrong site error in a report.

Today, more than 5 million patients have access to their providers’ notes on OpenNotes. That number will grow. Our biggest risk is to not be involved. “Just say no” didn’t work for Nancy Reagan; it won’t do our cause any good either.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego, and a volunteer clinical assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Benabio is @dermdoc on Twitter.

Transparency, until recently, was rarely associated with health care. Not anymore. For better and sometimes worse, there is a revolutionary movement toward transparency in all facets of health care: transparency of costs, outcomes, quality, service, and reputation. Full transparency now has come to medical records in the form of OpenNotes. This is a patient-centered initiative that allows patients full access to their chart including all their providers’ notes.

Patients always have had the right to see their record. Ordinarily though, they would be required to go to the medical records office, fill out paperwork, and request copies of their chart. They would have to supply a reason and often pay a fee. OpenNotes changes that. Open patient charts are free and easy to access, usually digitally. OpenNotes programs are still rare, and before we go any further, it’s important to examine what we’ve learned about them.

In 2010, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania, and Harborview Medical Center in Seattle invited 105 primary care physicians to open their notes to nearly 14,000 patients. The results were overwhelmingly (and to me, surprisingly) positive: More than 85% of patients accessed their notes at least once. Nearly 100% of patients wanted the program to continue. Patients reported a better understanding of their medical issues, better medication adherence, increased adoption of healthy habits, and less anxiety about their health. I would have expected more confusion and anxiety among the patients.

What about the physicians? According to the initiative, whereas one in three patients thought they should have unfettered access to their physicians’ notes, only 1 in 10 physicians did. That’s understandable. The physicians in the pilot shared many of the same concerns you and I have, namely that OpenNotes would lead to an increased workload to explain esoteric notes to patients and to allay anxieties.

Yet, this extra workload didn’t occur. Only 3% of physicians reported spending more time answering patients’ questions, although one-fifth did report that they changed the language they used when writing notes, primarily to avoid offending patients. Every physician in the initiative said he or she would continue using OpenNotes. Surprised? So was I.

Even the usually conservative SERMO physician audience responded in an unexpected manner. According to a poll conducted this June, SERMO asked 2,300 physicians if patients should have access to their medical records (including physician notes). Forty-nine percent said “only on a case-by-case basis,” 34% said “yes, always,” and 17% said “no, never.”

So, are OpenNotes a success? Let’s take a closer look at some of the challenges. First, we physicians use language that will confuse patients at best and lead them to incorrect conclusions at worst. “Acne necrotica?” Not as bad as it sounds. Or consider, “differential diagnosis includes neuroendocrine tumor.” It doesn’t mean you have it, but some patients will believe they do. Will we have to dumb down our charts then to appease them? Won’t this degrade note quality, one of the primary objectives we are trying to avoid? It’s unclear.

The purpose of a patient note is to inform other providers and to remind ourselves of the critical information needed to care for a patient. It must be pithy and honest. It often reflects our inchoate thoughts as much as our diagnoses. It also must include the sundry requirements we know and love that are needed only to bill for the visit. These are not characteristics that make for a good patient read.

Indeed, the benefits of transparency are not limitless. In some instances, more transparency is worse. Imagine if all your emails and texts were transparent to everyone. Or if everything you’ve ever said about your mother-in-law was viewable by her. Clearly, bad transparency, bad transparency. Not sharing everything doesn’t mean we are dishonest or duplicitous. It means we are civil. It doesn’t mean we don’t care; it means we do care. We care about our friends and family. We care about our patients and the best way to make them well.

Unless we make it clear to patients that the notes they are viewing are not written for them, I’m worried simply opening charts could damage the doctor-patient relationship as much as it fosters it. Interestingly, there are companies trying to build a technical solution for this conundrum. Others are advocating for standardization of pathology and lab reports that are patient friendly. I’ll research these topics and let you know what I find out in a future column.

Perhaps I shouldn’t have been surprised by the positive results from the OpenNotes initiative. After all, for the last several years, I have given patients their actual pathology report for every biopsy I’ve done (which numbers in the many thousands). I have had fewer than five follow-up questions from patients that I can remember. Pretty much all were legitimate, as I recall, including a wrong site error in a report.

Today, more than 5 million patients have access to their providers’ notes on OpenNotes. That number will grow. Our biggest risk is to not be involved. “Just say no” didn’t work for Nancy Reagan; it won’t do our cause any good either.

Dr. Benabio is a partner physician in the department of dermatology of the Southern California Permanente Group in San Diego, and a volunteer clinical assistant professor at the University of California, San Diego. Dr. Benabio is @dermdoc on Twitter.

In the previous two editions of this column, I have written about the new Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) and the changes it will bring to Medicare physician payment beginning in January 2019 with the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). In June’s column, three of the four MIPS performance categories were outlined. Specifically, those include the Quality, Resource Use, and Electronic Health Record Meaningful Use components and encompass the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), Value-Based Modifier (VBM), Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), and Electronic Health Record Meaningful Use (EHR-MU) programs with which Fellows are hopefully familiar. As promised, this month I will discuss the final performance category component, namely the Clinical Practice Improvement Activities (CPIA) as well as the Alternative Payment Models program (APMs). Lastly, I wish to bring to the attention of Fellows a new web-based resource developed by the ACS Division of Advocacy and Health Policy to assist them in avoiding current law Medicare penalties.

The CPIA are designed to assess and credit surgeons according to their effort toward improving their clinical practice OR their preparation toward participating in the APMs. The menu of specific, recognized activities will be established in collaboration with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the providers to whom the activities will be applicable. Many of the specifics are yet to be determined and will be part of the rule-making process in coming years. However, the MACRA legislation specifies that the CPIA must be applicable to all specialties and be attainable for small practices and professionals in rural and underserved areas. To support the efforts of surgeons and other providers in small or rural practice, Congress set aside $20 million dollars for each year, 2016-2020, for technical assistance to support the efforts of practices with 15 or fewer professionals to improve MIPS performance or transition to APMs.

The new law takes concerted steps to incentivize and encourage the development of and participation in APMs. As with the CPIA outlined above, the details of APMs are not yet fully clear and will be established going forward. However, in general, these programs will base payment on quality measures, not volume or intensity, and will include an element of financial risk for providers. For those surgeons who receive a significant share of their revenue from an APM, an annual 5% bonus will be available for each of the years 2019-2024. To qualify for that bonus surgeons must receive 25% of their Medicare revenue from an APM in the years 2019 and 2020, with the requirement subsequently increasing to 50% in 2021 and ultimately to 75% beginning in 2023. Providers may qualify based on a combination of private APMs and Medicare APMs as well.

In recognition of the lack of APMs in many areas or applicability for many specialties, MACRA prioritizes development of models for small practices, models that are specialty specific, and model development in conjunction with private payers as well as Medicaid-based options, all with the ultimate goal of encouraging the development of new and innovative payment models. The legislative language in MACRA is broad enough that it may allow for creation of a model based on the ACS’ Clinical Affinity Group (CAG) concept whereby providers are grouped together based on the patients or conditions that they treat, not their specialty designation.

Surgeons who meet a threshold of payment received from a qualified APM will be exempted from participation in MIPS to include most EHR-MU requirements and also receive the 5% bonus as described above. Those who participate in an APM but fail to meet the threshold necessary to receive that bonus will receive credit for such in the CPIA portion of their MIPS composite score.

Finally, even though the permanent repeal of the SGR found in MACRA represents the successful culmination of long-standing, combined advocacy efforts of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) and other medical associations toward meaningful, future Medicare physician payment reform, Fellows should be well aware that the three current law Medicare quality programs, namely the PQRS, EHR-MU, and VBM and their corresponding requirements as well as their associated penalties remain in effect until January 2019.

Surgeons who do not successfully participate in the PQRS, EHR-MU, and VBM face significant penalties on future Medicare payments. Specifically, failure to meet the requirements imposed by these three programs in 2015 could result in total penalties of up to 9% in Medicare payments in 2017.

To assist Fellows in navigating the complexities of complying with current law quality program requirements and thus avoid Medicare penalties, the ACS Division of Advocacy and Health Policy has developed a new online interactive flowchart which can be found at [WEB ADDRESS]. Fellows may wish to refer to and bookmark this page as an ongoing reference in order to familiarize themselves with current law requirements, facilitate their individual compliance with same, and thus successfully avoid penalties. As always, Fellows with questions may contact the DAHP at 202-337-2701.

Until next month ….

Dr. Bailey is a pediatric surgeon and Medical Director, Advocacy for the Division of Advocacy and Health Policy in the ACS offices in Washington, D.C.

In the previous two editions of this column, I have written about the new Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) and the changes it will bring to Medicare physician payment beginning in January 2019 with the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). In June’s column, three of the four MIPS performance categories were outlined. Specifically, those include the Quality, Resource Use, and Electronic Health Record Meaningful Use components and encompass the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), Value-Based Modifier (VBM), Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), and Electronic Health Record Meaningful Use (EHR-MU) programs with which Fellows are hopefully familiar. As promised, this month I will discuss the final performance category component, namely the Clinical Practice Improvement Activities (CPIA) as well as the Alternative Payment Models program (APMs). Lastly, I wish to bring to the attention of Fellows a new web-based resource developed by the ACS Division of Advocacy and Health Policy to assist them in avoiding current law Medicare penalties.

The CPIA are designed to assess and credit surgeons according to their effort toward improving their clinical practice OR their preparation toward participating in the APMs. The menu of specific, recognized activities will be established in collaboration with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the providers to whom the activities will be applicable. Many of the specifics are yet to be determined and will be part of the rule-making process in coming years. However, the MACRA legislation specifies that the CPIA must be applicable to all specialties and be attainable for small practices and professionals in rural and underserved areas. To support the efforts of surgeons and other providers in small or rural practice, Congress set aside $20 million dollars for each year, 2016-2020, for technical assistance to support the efforts of practices with 15 or fewer professionals to improve MIPS performance or transition to APMs.

The new law takes concerted steps to incentivize and encourage the development of and participation in APMs. As with the CPIA outlined above, the details of APMs are not yet fully clear and will be established going forward. However, in general, these programs will base payment on quality measures, not volume or intensity, and will include an element of financial risk for providers. For those surgeons who receive a significant share of their revenue from an APM, an annual 5% bonus will be available for each of the years 2019-2024. To qualify for that bonus surgeons must receive 25% of their Medicare revenue from an APM in the years 2019 and 2020, with the requirement subsequently increasing to 50% in 2021 and ultimately to 75% beginning in 2023. Providers may qualify based on a combination of private APMs and Medicare APMs as well.

In recognition of the lack of APMs in many areas or applicability for many specialties, MACRA prioritizes development of models for small practices, models that are specialty specific, and model development in conjunction with private payers as well as Medicaid-based options, all with the ultimate goal of encouraging the development of new and innovative payment models. The legislative language in MACRA is broad enough that it may allow for creation of a model based on the ACS’ Clinical Affinity Group (CAG) concept whereby providers are grouped together based on the patients or conditions that they treat, not their specialty designation.

Surgeons who meet a threshold of payment received from a qualified APM will be exempted from participation in MIPS to include most EHR-MU requirements and also receive the 5% bonus as described above. Those who participate in an APM but fail to meet the threshold necessary to receive that bonus will receive credit for such in the CPIA portion of their MIPS composite score.

Finally, even though the permanent repeal of the SGR found in MACRA represents the successful culmination of long-standing, combined advocacy efforts of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) and other medical associations toward meaningful, future Medicare physician payment reform, Fellows should be well aware that the three current law Medicare quality programs, namely the PQRS, EHR-MU, and VBM and their corresponding requirements as well as their associated penalties remain in effect until January 2019.

Surgeons who do not successfully participate in the PQRS, EHR-MU, and VBM face significant penalties on future Medicare payments. Specifically, failure to meet the requirements imposed by these three programs in 2015 could result in total penalties of up to 9% in Medicare payments in 2017.

To assist Fellows in navigating the complexities of complying with current law quality program requirements and thus avoid Medicare penalties, the ACS Division of Advocacy and Health Policy has developed a new online interactive flowchart which can be found at [WEB ADDRESS]. Fellows may wish to refer to and bookmark this page as an ongoing reference in order to familiarize themselves with current law requirements, facilitate their individual compliance with same, and thus successfully avoid penalties. As always, Fellows with questions may contact the DAHP at 202-337-2701.

Until next month ….

Dr. Bailey is a pediatric surgeon and Medical Director, Advocacy for the Division of Advocacy and Health Policy in the ACS offices in Washington, D.C.

In the previous two editions of this column, I have written about the new Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) and the changes it will bring to Medicare physician payment beginning in January 2019 with the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). In June’s column, three of the four MIPS performance categories were outlined. Specifically, those include the Quality, Resource Use, and Electronic Health Record Meaningful Use components and encompass the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), Value-Based Modifier (VBM), Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), and Electronic Health Record Meaningful Use (EHR-MU) programs with which Fellows are hopefully familiar. As promised, this month I will discuss the final performance category component, namely the Clinical Practice Improvement Activities (CPIA) as well as the Alternative Payment Models program (APMs). Lastly, I wish to bring to the attention of Fellows a new web-based resource developed by the ACS Division of Advocacy and Health Policy to assist them in avoiding current law Medicare penalties.

The CPIA are designed to assess and credit surgeons according to their effort toward improving their clinical practice OR their preparation toward participating in the APMs. The menu of specific, recognized activities will be established in collaboration with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the providers to whom the activities will be applicable. Many of the specifics are yet to be determined and will be part of the rule-making process in coming years. However, the MACRA legislation specifies that the CPIA must be applicable to all specialties and be attainable for small practices and professionals in rural and underserved areas. To support the efforts of surgeons and other providers in small or rural practice, Congress set aside $20 million dollars for each year, 2016-2020, for technical assistance to support the efforts of practices with 15 or fewer professionals to improve MIPS performance or transition to APMs.

The new law takes concerted steps to incentivize and encourage the development of and participation in APMs. As with the CPIA outlined above, the details of APMs are not yet fully clear and will be established going forward. However, in general, these programs will base payment on quality measures, not volume or intensity, and will include an element of financial risk for providers. For those surgeons who receive a significant share of their revenue from an APM, an annual 5% bonus will be available for each of the years 2019-2024. To qualify for that bonus surgeons must receive 25% of their Medicare revenue from an APM in the years 2019 and 2020, with the requirement subsequently increasing to 50% in 2021 and ultimately to 75% beginning in 2023. Providers may qualify based on a combination of private APMs and Medicare APMs as well.

In recognition of the lack of APMs in many areas or applicability for many specialties, MACRA prioritizes development of models for small practices, models that are specialty specific, and model development in conjunction with private payers as well as Medicaid-based options, all with the ultimate goal of encouraging the development of new and innovative payment models. The legislative language in MACRA is broad enough that it may allow for creation of a model based on the ACS’ Clinical Affinity Group (CAG) concept whereby providers are grouped together based on the patients or conditions that they treat, not their specialty designation.

Surgeons who meet a threshold of payment received from a qualified APM will be exempted from participation in MIPS to include most EHR-MU requirements and also receive the 5% bonus as described above. Those who participate in an APM but fail to meet the threshold necessary to receive that bonus will receive credit for such in the CPIA portion of their MIPS composite score.

Finally, even though the permanent repeal of the SGR found in MACRA represents the successful culmination of long-standing, combined advocacy efforts of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) and other medical associations toward meaningful, future Medicare physician payment reform, Fellows should be well aware that the three current law Medicare quality programs, namely the PQRS, EHR-MU, and VBM and their corresponding requirements as well as their associated penalties remain in effect until January 2019.

Surgeons who do not successfully participate in the PQRS, EHR-MU, and VBM face significant penalties on future Medicare payments. Specifically, failure to meet the requirements imposed by these three programs in 2015 could result in total penalties of up to 9% in Medicare payments in 2017.

To assist Fellows in navigating the complexities of complying with current law quality program requirements and thus avoid Medicare penalties, the ACS Division of Advocacy and Health Policy has developed a new online interactive flowchart which can be found at [WEB ADDRESS]. Fellows may wish to refer to and bookmark this page as an ongoing reference in order to familiarize themselves with current law requirements, facilitate their individual compliance with same, and thus successfully avoid penalties. As always, Fellows with questions may contact the DAHP at 202-337-2701.

Until next month ….

Dr. Bailey is a pediatric surgeon and Medical Director, Advocacy for the Division of Advocacy and Health Policy in the ACS offices in Washington, D.C.

Hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors should now be considered for patients who are over age 64 years, have diffuse aggressive lymphoma, and are receiving curative chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone, and rituximab), particularly those who have comorbidities.

This is one of several recommendations noted in the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s updated practice guidelines, published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, on the use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) to prevent or treat neutropenia and its complications in adults and children receiving chemotherapy.

This “moderately strong” recommendation is based on a single randomized clinical trial that found pegfilgrastim significantly reduced the risk of febrile neutropenia in this patient population, according to the guidelines (J. Clin. Oncol. 2015 July 13 [doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.62.3488]).

The updated guideline incorporates new evidence from 66 randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses published since its last update in 2006, said cochair Dr. Thomas J. Smith of the Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, and his associates on the update committee.

In addition to pegfilgrastim and filgrastim, the guideline now addresses the use of tbo-filgrastim, filgrastim-sndz, and other biosimilars as they become available. These new agents are effective at preventing chemotherapy-related febrile neutropenia, so the choice of agent depends on convenience, cost, and clinical factors, and in some cases may be dictated by the patient’s treatment schedule. Certain off-label uses of pegfilgrastim can now be considered, such as giving it on the same day as chemotherapy if that is the only feasible timing for some patients.

CSFs should only be used to enable dose-dense chemotherapy regimens “if supported by convincing efficacy data or within an appropriately designed clinical trial” – for example, to support treatment of urothelial cancer or high-risk breast cancer targeted with high-dose-intensity methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin.

In contrast, the use of CSFs to enable dose-dense chemotherapy for Hodgkin lymphoma is not recommended at this time because the current data supporting such use are limited and conflicting. Similarly, the current evidence strongly argues against giving CSFs to enable dose-dense chemotherapy for other lymphomas, lung cancer, ovarian cancer, osteosarcoma, or sarcoma.

The guideline update was supported by the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Smith reported stock or other ownership in United Healthcare; his associates reported ties to numerous industry sources.

The full guideline and supplementary material, including slide sets and clinical tools, are available at www.asco.org/guidelines/wbcgf.

Hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors should now be considered for patients who are over age 64 years, have diffuse aggressive lymphoma, and are receiving curative chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone, and rituximab), particularly those who have comorbidities.

This is one of several recommendations noted in the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s updated practice guidelines, published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, on the use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) to prevent or treat neutropenia and its complications in adults and children receiving chemotherapy.

This “moderately strong” recommendation is based on a single randomized clinical trial that found pegfilgrastim significantly reduced the risk of febrile neutropenia in this patient population, according to the guidelines (J. Clin. Oncol. 2015 July 13 [doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.62.3488]).

The updated guideline incorporates new evidence from 66 randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses published since its last update in 2006, said cochair Dr. Thomas J. Smith of the Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, and his associates on the update committee.

In addition to pegfilgrastim and filgrastim, the guideline now addresses the use of tbo-filgrastim, filgrastim-sndz, and other biosimilars as they become available. These new agents are effective at preventing chemotherapy-related febrile neutropenia, so the choice of agent depends on convenience, cost, and clinical factors, and in some cases may be dictated by the patient’s treatment schedule. Certain off-label uses of pegfilgrastim can now be considered, such as giving it on the same day as chemotherapy if that is the only feasible timing for some patients.

CSFs should only be used to enable dose-dense chemotherapy regimens “if supported by convincing efficacy data or within an appropriately designed clinical trial” – for example, to support treatment of urothelial cancer or high-risk breast cancer targeted with high-dose-intensity methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin.

In contrast, the use of CSFs to enable dose-dense chemotherapy for Hodgkin lymphoma is not recommended at this time because the current data supporting such use are limited and conflicting. Similarly, the current evidence strongly argues against giving CSFs to enable dose-dense chemotherapy for other lymphomas, lung cancer, ovarian cancer, osteosarcoma, or sarcoma.

The guideline update was supported by the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Smith reported stock or other ownership in United Healthcare; his associates reported ties to numerous industry sources.

The full guideline and supplementary material, including slide sets and clinical tools, are available at www.asco.org/guidelines/wbcgf.

Hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors should now be considered for patients who are over age 64 years, have diffuse aggressive lymphoma, and are receiving curative chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone, and rituximab), particularly those who have comorbidities.

This is one of several recommendations noted in the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s updated practice guidelines, published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, on the use of hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) to prevent or treat neutropenia and its complications in adults and children receiving chemotherapy.

This “moderately strong” recommendation is based on a single randomized clinical trial that found pegfilgrastim significantly reduced the risk of febrile neutropenia in this patient population, according to the guidelines (J. Clin. Oncol. 2015 July 13 [doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.62.3488]).

The updated guideline incorporates new evidence from 66 randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses published since its last update in 2006, said cochair Dr. Thomas J. Smith of the Johns Hopkins Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, and his associates on the update committee.

In addition to pegfilgrastim and filgrastim, the guideline now addresses the use of tbo-filgrastim, filgrastim-sndz, and other biosimilars as they become available. These new agents are effective at preventing chemotherapy-related febrile neutropenia, so the choice of agent depends on convenience, cost, and clinical factors, and in some cases may be dictated by the patient’s treatment schedule. Certain off-label uses of pegfilgrastim can now be considered, such as giving it on the same day as chemotherapy if that is the only feasible timing for some patients.

CSFs should only be used to enable dose-dense chemotherapy regimens “if supported by convincing efficacy data or within an appropriately designed clinical trial” – for example, to support treatment of urothelial cancer or high-risk breast cancer targeted with high-dose-intensity methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin.

In contrast, the use of CSFs to enable dose-dense chemotherapy for Hodgkin lymphoma is not recommended at this time because the current data supporting such use are limited and conflicting. Similarly, the current evidence strongly argues against giving CSFs to enable dose-dense chemotherapy for other lymphomas, lung cancer, ovarian cancer, osteosarcoma, or sarcoma.

The guideline update was supported by the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Smith reported stock or other ownership in United Healthcare; his associates reported ties to numerous industry sources.

The full guideline and supplementary material, including slide sets and clinical tools, are available at www.asco.org/guidelines/wbcgf.

PARIS – Antithrombotic therapy with bivalirudin for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction may have been unfairly tarnished as having a high stent thrombosis rate, according to a large, prospective, observational cohort study.

A new analysis from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR) showed similarly low stent thrombosis rates within 30 days following primary PCI for STEMI regardless of whether the antithrombotic regimen involved bivalirudin (Angiomax), heparin only, or a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, Dr. Per Grimfjard reported at the annual congress of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

The SCAAR analysis captured all STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI in Sweden from 2007 through mid-2014. These data reflect real-world interventional practice in Sweden and elsewhere, where bivalirudin is typically administered in a prolonged infusion to protect against early stent thrombosis. In contrast, the randomized trials that linked bivalirudin to high stent thrombosis rates featured protocols in which the drug was stopped immediately after the procedure, noted Dr. Grimfjard, an interventional cardiologist at Uppsala (Sweden) University.

“These are nationwide Swedish numbers, and they are complete. We think the numbers are reassuring in that respect,” he said.

Session chair Dr. Andreas Baumbach said the Swedish data are consistent with his own experience in using bivalirudin in primary PCI for STEMI.

“The headline last year was that bivalirudin has a high stent thrombosis rate. It made the newspapers everywhere. But we never saw that, and we always thought that the difference might be in how we used the drug. There’s a new headline now, that this high stent thrombosis rate is not seen in clinical practice. The practice differs from the randomized trials, and the outcomes differ as well,” observed Dr. Baumbach, professor of interventional cardiology at the University of Bristol (England).

In SCAAR, the 30-day rate of definite, angiographically proven stent thrombosis was 0.84% in 16,860 bivalirudin-treated patients, 0.94% in 3,182 who got heparin only, and 0.83% in 11,216 glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor recipients. These numeric differences weren’t statistically significant.

All-cause mortality 1 year post-PCI was 9.1% in patients with no stent thrombosis, 16.1% in those who experienced stent thrombosis within 1 day post PCI, and 23.0% in those whose stent thrombosis occurred on days 2-30. Dr. Grimfjard speculated that the explanation for the numerically higher 1-year all-cause mortality rate in patients whose stent thrombosis occurred on days 2-30 as opposed to day 0-1 is probably that they were more likely to have left the hospital when stent thrombosis occurred. That would translate to a longer time to repeat revascularization, hence a larger MI, more heart failure and arrhythmia, and thus a higher long-term risk of death.

Several audience members commented that they weren’t sure what to make of the observational Swedish data because of the looming presence of several potential confounders. For one, clinical practice trends changed considerably during the 7-year time frame of the study, as evidenced by the fact that the use of drug-eluting stents was far more common in bivalirudin-treated patients than in the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor group. Also, Swedish cardiologists who put their STEMI patients on bivalirudin were more likely to utilize the more modern radial artery access in performing primary PCI; their practice may have differed from their colleagues’ in other, unrecorded ways as well, it was noted.

Dr. Grimfjard reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

PARIS – Antithrombotic therapy with bivalirudin for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction may have been unfairly tarnished as having a high stent thrombosis rate, according to a large, prospective, observational cohort study.

A new analysis from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR) showed similarly low stent thrombosis rates within 30 days following primary PCI for STEMI regardless of whether the antithrombotic regimen involved bivalirudin (Angiomax), heparin only, or a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, Dr. Per Grimfjard reported at the annual congress of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

The SCAAR analysis captured all STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI in Sweden from 2007 through mid-2014. These data reflect real-world interventional practice in Sweden and elsewhere, where bivalirudin is typically administered in a prolonged infusion to protect against early stent thrombosis. In contrast, the randomized trials that linked bivalirudin to high stent thrombosis rates featured protocols in which the drug was stopped immediately after the procedure, noted Dr. Grimfjard, an interventional cardiologist at Uppsala (Sweden) University.

“These are nationwide Swedish numbers, and they are complete. We think the numbers are reassuring in that respect,” he said.

Session chair Dr. Andreas Baumbach said the Swedish data are consistent with his own experience in using bivalirudin in primary PCI for STEMI.

“The headline last year was that bivalirudin has a high stent thrombosis rate. It made the newspapers everywhere. But we never saw that, and we always thought that the difference might be in how we used the drug. There’s a new headline now, that this high stent thrombosis rate is not seen in clinical practice. The practice differs from the randomized trials, and the outcomes differ as well,” observed Dr. Baumbach, professor of interventional cardiology at the University of Bristol (England).

In SCAAR, the 30-day rate of definite, angiographically proven stent thrombosis was 0.84% in 16,860 bivalirudin-treated patients, 0.94% in 3,182 who got heparin only, and 0.83% in 11,216 glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor recipients. These numeric differences weren’t statistically significant.

All-cause mortality 1 year post-PCI was 9.1% in patients with no stent thrombosis, 16.1% in those who experienced stent thrombosis within 1 day post PCI, and 23.0% in those whose stent thrombosis occurred on days 2-30. Dr. Grimfjard speculated that the explanation for the numerically higher 1-year all-cause mortality rate in patients whose stent thrombosis occurred on days 2-30 as opposed to day 0-1 is probably that they were more likely to have left the hospital when stent thrombosis occurred. That would translate to a longer time to repeat revascularization, hence a larger MI, more heart failure and arrhythmia, and thus a higher long-term risk of death.

Several audience members commented that they weren’t sure what to make of the observational Swedish data because of the looming presence of several potential confounders. For one, clinical practice trends changed considerably during the 7-year time frame of the study, as evidenced by the fact that the use of drug-eluting stents was far more common in bivalirudin-treated patients than in the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor group. Also, Swedish cardiologists who put their STEMI patients on bivalirudin were more likely to utilize the more modern radial artery access in performing primary PCI; their practice may have differed from their colleagues’ in other, unrecorded ways as well, it was noted.

Dr. Grimfjard reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

PARIS – Antithrombotic therapy with bivalirudin for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction may have been unfairly tarnished as having a high stent thrombosis rate, according to a large, prospective, observational cohort study.

A new analysis from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR) showed similarly low stent thrombosis rates within 30 days following primary PCI for STEMI regardless of whether the antithrombotic regimen involved bivalirudin (Angiomax), heparin only, or a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, Dr. Per Grimfjard reported at the annual congress of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

The SCAAR analysis captured all STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI in Sweden from 2007 through mid-2014. These data reflect real-world interventional practice in Sweden and elsewhere, where bivalirudin is typically administered in a prolonged infusion to protect against early stent thrombosis. In contrast, the randomized trials that linked bivalirudin to high stent thrombosis rates featured protocols in which the drug was stopped immediately after the procedure, noted Dr. Grimfjard, an interventional cardiologist at Uppsala (Sweden) University.

“These are nationwide Swedish numbers, and they are complete. We think the numbers are reassuring in that respect,” he said.

Session chair Dr. Andreas Baumbach said the Swedish data are consistent with his own experience in using bivalirudin in primary PCI for STEMI.

“The headline last year was that bivalirudin has a high stent thrombosis rate. It made the newspapers everywhere. But we never saw that, and we always thought that the difference might be in how we used the drug. There’s a new headline now, that this high stent thrombosis rate is not seen in clinical practice. The practice differs from the randomized trials, and the outcomes differ as well,” observed Dr. Baumbach, professor of interventional cardiology at the University of Bristol (England).

In SCAAR, the 30-day rate of definite, angiographically proven stent thrombosis was 0.84% in 16,860 bivalirudin-treated patients, 0.94% in 3,182 who got heparin only, and 0.83% in 11,216 glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor recipients. These numeric differences weren’t statistically significant.

All-cause mortality 1 year post-PCI was 9.1% in patients with no stent thrombosis, 16.1% in those who experienced stent thrombosis within 1 day post PCI, and 23.0% in those whose stent thrombosis occurred on days 2-30. Dr. Grimfjard speculated that the explanation for the numerically higher 1-year all-cause mortality rate in patients whose stent thrombosis occurred on days 2-30 as opposed to day 0-1 is probably that they were more likely to have left the hospital when stent thrombosis occurred. That would translate to a longer time to repeat revascularization, hence a larger MI, more heart failure and arrhythmia, and thus a higher long-term risk of death.

Several audience members commented that they weren’t sure what to make of the observational Swedish data because of the looming presence of several potential confounders. For one, clinical practice trends changed considerably during the 7-year time frame of the study, as evidenced by the fact that the use of drug-eluting stents was far more common in bivalirudin-treated patients than in the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor group. Also, Swedish cardiologists who put their STEMI patients on bivalirudin were more likely to utilize the more modern radial artery access in performing primary PCI; their practice may have differed from their colleagues’ in other, unrecorded ways as well, it was noted.

Dr. Grimfjard reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, which was conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

Adult lymphoma survivors who were treated with autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation had a greater than sixfold increased risk of left ventricular systolic dysfunction compared with controls, according to a study published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Among 274 adult survivors of Hodgkin or non-Hodgkin lymphoma, 16% had left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD): 11% had overt heart failure (HF) and 5% had asymptomatic LVSD, defined as a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 50%.Heart symptoms were significantly associated with exposure to doxorubicin at a cumulative dose of 300 mg/m² or more and with cardiac radiation therapy of more than 30 Gy. Recognizing these patient risk factors allows for more intensive follow-up with the goal of “identification and early treatment of asymptomatic LVSD [which] may prevent the development of HF,” wrote Dr. Klaus Murbraech of Oslo University Hospital and his colleagues (J. Clin. Oncol. 2015 July 13 [doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.60.8125]).

The investigators observed no association between lower-dose cardiac radiation therapy and LVSD. There was only a marginally significant association between the presence of two or more traditional cardiovascular disease risk factors and LVSD.

The cross-sectional multicenter cohort study is the first to assess the prevalence of LVSD, according to Dr. Murbraech and his colleagues. The study included adult survivors of Hodgkin or non-Hodgkin lymphoma, median age 56 years, who underwent autologous stem-cell transplants in Norway from 1987 to 2008. The median observation time was 13 years (range, 4-34 years). The control group consisted of initially healthy patients in an echocardiographic follow-up study. Controls were matched to patients based on age, sex, systolic blood pressure, and body mass index.

The study was supported by the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority and Extrastiftelsen. Dr. Murbraech reported having no disclosures.

Adult lymphoma survivors who were treated with autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation had a greater than sixfold increased risk of left ventricular systolic dysfunction compared with controls, according to a study published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Among 274 adult survivors of Hodgkin or non-Hodgkin lymphoma, 16% had left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD): 11% had overt heart failure (HF) and 5% had asymptomatic LVSD, defined as a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 50%.Heart symptoms were significantly associated with exposure to doxorubicin at a cumulative dose of 300 mg/m² or more and with cardiac radiation therapy of more than 30 Gy. Recognizing these patient risk factors allows for more intensive follow-up with the goal of “identification and early treatment of asymptomatic LVSD [which] may prevent the development of HF,” wrote Dr. Klaus Murbraech of Oslo University Hospital and his colleagues (J. Clin. Oncol. 2015 July 13 [doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.60.8125]).

The investigators observed no association between lower-dose cardiac radiation therapy and LVSD. There was only a marginally significant association between the presence of two or more traditional cardiovascular disease risk factors and LVSD.

The cross-sectional multicenter cohort study is the first to assess the prevalence of LVSD, according to Dr. Murbraech and his colleagues. The study included adult survivors of Hodgkin or non-Hodgkin lymphoma, median age 56 years, who underwent autologous stem-cell transplants in Norway from 1987 to 2008. The median observation time was 13 years (range, 4-34 years). The control group consisted of initially healthy patients in an echocardiographic follow-up study. Controls were matched to patients based on age, sex, systolic blood pressure, and body mass index.

The study was supported by the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority and Extrastiftelsen. Dr. Murbraech reported having no disclosures.

Adult lymphoma survivors who were treated with autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation had a greater than sixfold increased risk of left ventricular systolic dysfunction compared with controls, according to a study published online in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Among 274 adult survivors of Hodgkin or non-Hodgkin lymphoma, 16% had left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD): 11% had overt heart failure (HF) and 5% had asymptomatic LVSD, defined as a left ventricular ejection fraction of less than 50%.Heart symptoms were significantly associated with exposure to doxorubicin at a cumulative dose of 300 mg/m² or more and with cardiac radiation therapy of more than 30 Gy. Recognizing these patient risk factors allows for more intensive follow-up with the goal of “identification and early treatment of asymptomatic LVSD [which] may prevent the development of HF,” wrote Dr. Klaus Murbraech of Oslo University Hospital and his colleagues (J. Clin. Oncol. 2015 July 13 [doi:10.1200/JCO.2015.60.8125]).

The investigators observed no association between lower-dose cardiac radiation therapy and LVSD. There was only a marginally significant association between the presence of two or more traditional cardiovascular disease risk factors and LVSD.

The cross-sectional multicenter cohort study is the first to assess the prevalence of LVSD, according to Dr. Murbraech and his colleagues. The study included adult survivors of Hodgkin or non-Hodgkin lymphoma, median age 56 years, who underwent autologous stem-cell transplants in Norway from 1987 to 2008. The median observation time was 13 years (range, 4-34 years). The control group consisted of initially healthy patients in an echocardiographic follow-up study. Controls were matched to patients based on age, sex, systolic blood pressure, and body mass index.

The study was supported by the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority and Extrastiftelsen. Dr. Murbraech reported having no disclosures.