Cardiology News

Researchers may use artificial intelligence (AI) language models such as ChatGPT to write and revise scientific manuscripts, according to a new announcement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. These tools should not be listed as authors, and researchers must denote how AI-assisted technologies were used, the committee said.

These new guidelines are the latest effort for medical journals to define policies for using these large-scale language models (LLMs) in scientific publication. While these AI-assisted tools can help with tasks such as writing, analyzing data, catching mistakes, and much more, they are also prone to errors, noted Casey Greene, PhD, a professor of biomedical informatics at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. It is also not totally clear how information is stored and processed in these kinds of tools, and who has access to that information, he noted.

At the same time, experts argue that these AI tools could have a positive impact on the field by limiting some of the linguistic disparities in scientific publishing as well as alleviating the burden of some monotonous or mechanical tasks that come along with manuscript writing.

What experts can agree on, though, is that the use of AI tools is here to stay. “This is going to become a common tool,” Dr. Greene said. “I don’t think there’s a way out of that at this point.”
 

A change in medical publishing

OpenAI released ChatGPT in November 2022. In its own words, ChatGPT is “a deep learning model that has been trained on a massive amount of text data to understand and generate humanlike text.” Enter a question or a prompt, and it will respond. For example, when asked how the AI tool can be used in scientific publishing, ChatGPT responded:

“ChatGPT can aid scientific publishing by generating ideas, clarifying concepts, conducting preliminary literature reviews, providing proofreading and editing suggestions, and assisting with outlining and organizing scientific papers. However, it should be used as a supportive tool alongside domain expertise and validation from trusted scientific sources.”

Just a few months after ChatGPT became available, researchers began using this tool in their own work. One individual, Som Biswas, MD, a radiologist at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, reportedly used ChatGPT to author 16 scientific articles in just 4 months, according to the Daily Beast. Five of these articles have been published in four different journals. Dr. Biswas declined to be interviewed for this article.

There were also reports of papers with ChatGPT as one of the listed authors, which sparked backlash. In response, JAMA, Nature, and Science all published editorials in January outlining their policies for using ChatGPT and other large language models in the scientific authoring process. Editors from the journals of the American College of Cardiology and the American College of Rheumatology also updated their policies to reflect the influence of AI authoring tools.

The consensus is that AI has no place on the author byline.

“We think that’s not appropriate, because coauthorship means that you are taking responsibility for the analysis and the generation of data that are included in a manuscript. A machine that is dictated by AI can’t take responsibility,” said Daniel Solomon, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and the editor in chief of the ACR journal Arthritis & Rheumatology.
 

Issues with AI

One of the big concerns around using AI in writing is that it can generate text that seems plausible but is untrue or not supported by data. For example, Dr. Greene and colleague Milton Pividori, PhD, also of the University of Colorado, were writing a journal article about new software they developed that uses a large language model to revise scientific manuscripts.

“We used the same software to revise that article and at one point, it added a line that noted that the large language model had been fine-tuned on a data set of manuscripts from within the same field. This makes a lot of sense, and is absolutely something you could do, but was not something that we did,” Dr. Greene said. “Without a really careful review of the content, it becomes possible to invent things that were not actually done.”

In another case, ChatGPT falsely stated that a prominent law professor had been accused of sexual assault, citing a Washington Post article that did not exist.

“We live in a society where we are extremely concerned about fake news,” Dr. Pividori added, “and [these kinds of errors] could certainly exacerbate that in the scientific community, which is very concerning because science informs public policy.”

Another issue is the lack of transparency around how large language models like ChatGPT process and store data used to make queries.

“We have no idea how they are recording all the prompts and things that we input into ChatGPT and their systems,” Dr. Pividori said.

OpenAI recently addressed some privacy concerns by allowing users to turn off their chat history with the AI chatbot, so conversations cannot be used to train or improve the company’s models. But Dr. Greene noted that the terms of service “still remain pretty nebulous.”

Dr. Solomon is also concerned with researchers using these AI tools in authoring without knowing how they work. “The thing we are really concerned about is that fact that [LLMs] are a bit of a black box – people don’t really understand the methodologies,” he said.
 

A positive tool?

But despite these concerns, many think that these types of AI-assisted tools could have a positive impact on medical publishing, particularly for researchers for whom English is not their first language, noted Catherine Gao, MD, a pulmonary and critical care instructor at Northwestern University, Chicago. She recently led research comparing scientific abstracts written by ChatGPT and real abstracts and discovered that reviewers found it “surprisingly difficult” to differentiate the two.

“The majority of research is published in English,” she said in an email. “Responsible use of LLMs can potentially reduce the burden of writing for busy scientists and improve equity for those who are not native English speakers.”

Dr. Pividori agreed, adding that as a non-native English speaker, he spends much more time working on the structure and grammar of sentences when authoring a manuscript, compared with people who speak English as a first language. He noted that these tools can also be used to automate some of the more monotonous tasks that come along with writing manuscripts and allow researchers to focus on the more creative aspects.

In the future, “I want to focus more on the things that only a human can do and let these tools do all the rest of it,” he said.
 

New rules

But despite how individual researchers feel about LLMs, they agree that these AI tools are here to stay.

“I think that we should anticipate that they will become part of the medical research establishment over time, when we figure out how to use them appropriately,” Dr. Solomon said.

While the debate of how to best use AI in medical publications will continue, journal editors agree that all authors of a manuscript are solely responsible for content in articles that used AI-assisted technology.

“Authors should carefully review and edit the result because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased,” the ICMJE guidelines state. “Authors should be able to assert that there is no plagiarism in their paper, including in text and images produced by the AI.” This includes appropriate attribution of all cited materials.

The committee also recommends that authors write in both the cover letter and submitted work how AI was used in the manuscript writing process. Recently updated guidelines from the World Association of Medical Editors recommend that all prompts used to generate new text or analytical work should be provided in submitted work. Dr. Greene also noted that if authors used an AI tool to revise their work, they can include a version of the manuscript untouched by LLMs.

It is similar to a preprint, he said, but rather than publishing a version of a paper prior to peer review, someone is showing a version of a manuscript before it was reviewed and revised by AI. “This type of practice could be a path that lets us benefit from these models,” he said, “without having the drawbacks that many are concerned about.”

Dr. Solomon has financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, CorEvitas, and Moderna. Both Dr. Greene and Dr. Pividori are inventors in the U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/486,706 that the University of Colorado has filed for the “Publishing Infrastructure For AI-Assisted Academic Authoring” invention with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Dr. Greene and Dr. Pividori also received a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to improve their AI-based manuscript revision tool. Dr. Gao reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers may use artificial intelligence (AI) language models such as ChatGPT to write and revise scientific manuscripts, according to a new announcement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. These tools should not be listed as authors, and researchers must denote how AI-assisted technologies were used, the committee said.

These new guidelines are the latest effort for medical journals to define policies for using these large-scale language models (LLMs) in scientific publication. While these AI-assisted tools can help with tasks such as writing, analyzing data, catching mistakes, and much more, they are also prone to errors, noted Casey Greene, PhD, a professor of biomedical informatics at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. It is also not totally clear how information is stored and processed in these kinds of tools, and who has access to that information, he noted.

At the same time, experts argue that these AI tools could have a positive impact on the field by limiting some of the linguistic disparities in scientific publishing as well as alleviating the burden of some monotonous or mechanical tasks that come along with manuscript writing.

What experts can agree on, though, is that the use of AI tools is here to stay. “This is going to become a common tool,” Dr. Greene said. “I don’t think there’s a way out of that at this point.”
 

A change in medical publishing

OpenAI released ChatGPT in November 2022. In its own words, ChatGPT is “a deep learning model that has been trained on a massive amount of text data to understand and generate humanlike text.” Enter a question or a prompt, and it will respond. For example, when asked how the AI tool can be used in scientific publishing, ChatGPT responded:

“ChatGPT can aid scientific publishing by generating ideas, clarifying concepts, conducting preliminary literature reviews, providing proofreading and editing suggestions, and assisting with outlining and organizing scientific papers. However, it should be used as a supportive tool alongside domain expertise and validation from trusted scientific sources.”

Just a few months after ChatGPT became available, researchers began using this tool in their own work. One individual, Som Biswas, MD, a radiologist at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, reportedly used ChatGPT to author 16 scientific articles in just 4 months, according to the Daily Beast. Five of these articles have been published in four different journals. Dr. Biswas declined to be interviewed for this article.

There were also reports of papers with ChatGPT as one of the listed authors, which sparked backlash. In response, JAMA, Nature, and Science all published editorials in January outlining their policies for using ChatGPT and other large language models in the scientific authoring process. Editors from the journals of the American College of Cardiology and the American College of Rheumatology also updated their policies to reflect the influence of AI authoring tools.

The consensus is that AI has no place on the author byline.

“We think that’s not appropriate, because coauthorship means that you are taking responsibility for the analysis and the generation of data that are included in a manuscript. A machine that is dictated by AI can’t take responsibility,” said Daniel Solomon, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and the editor in chief of the ACR journal Arthritis & Rheumatology.
 

Issues with AI

One of the big concerns around using AI in writing is that it can generate text that seems plausible but is untrue or not supported by data. For example, Dr. Greene and colleague Milton Pividori, PhD, also of the University of Colorado, were writing a journal article about new software they developed that uses a large language model to revise scientific manuscripts.

“We used the same software to revise that article and at one point, it added a line that noted that the large language model had been fine-tuned on a data set of manuscripts from within the same field. This makes a lot of sense, and is absolutely something you could do, but was not something that we did,” Dr. Greene said. “Without a really careful review of the content, it becomes possible to invent things that were not actually done.”

In another case, ChatGPT falsely stated that a prominent law professor had been accused of sexual assault, citing a Washington Post article that did not exist.

“We live in a society where we are extremely concerned about fake news,” Dr. Pividori added, “and [these kinds of errors] could certainly exacerbate that in the scientific community, which is very concerning because science informs public policy.”

Another issue is the lack of transparency around how large language models like ChatGPT process and store data used to make queries.

“We have no idea how they are recording all the prompts and things that we input into ChatGPT and their systems,” Dr. Pividori said.

OpenAI recently addressed some privacy concerns by allowing users to turn off their chat history with the AI chatbot, so conversations cannot be used to train or improve the company’s models. But Dr. Greene noted that the terms of service “still remain pretty nebulous.”

Dr. Solomon is also concerned with researchers using these AI tools in authoring without knowing how they work. “The thing we are really concerned about is that fact that [LLMs] are a bit of a black box – people don’t really understand the methodologies,” he said.
 

A positive tool?

But despite these concerns, many think that these types of AI-assisted tools could have a positive impact on medical publishing, particularly for researchers for whom English is not their first language, noted Catherine Gao, MD, a pulmonary and critical care instructor at Northwestern University, Chicago. She recently led research comparing scientific abstracts written by ChatGPT and real abstracts and discovered that reviewers found it “surprisingly difficult” to differentiate the two.

“The majority of research is published in English,” she said in an email. “Responsible use of LLMs can potentially reduce the burden of writing for busy scientists and improve equity for those who are not native English speakers.”

Dr. Pividori agreed, adding that as a non-native English speaker, he spends much more time working on the structure and grammar of sentences when authoring a manuscript, compared with people who speak English as a first language. He noted that these tools can also be used to automate some of the more monotonous tasks that come along with writing manuscripts and allow researchers to focus on the more creative aspects.

In the future, “I want to focus more on the things that only a human can do and let these tools do all the rest of it,” he said.
 

New rules

But despite how individual researchers feel about LLMs, they agree that these AI tools are here to stay.

“I think that we should anticipate that they will become part of the medical research establishment over time, when we figure out how to use them appropriately,” Dr. Solomon said.

While the debate of how to best use AI in medical publications will continue, journal editors agree that all authors of a manuscript are solely responsible for content in articles that used AI-assisted technology.

“Authors should carefully review and edit the result because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased,” the ICMJE guidelines state. “Authors should be able to assert that there is no plagiarism in their paper, including in text and images produced by the AI.” This includes appropriate attribution of all cited materials.

The committee also recommends that authors write in both the cover letter and submitted work how AI was used in the manuscript writing process. Recently updated guidelines from the World Association of Medical Editors recommend that all prompts used to generate new text or analytical work should be provided in submitted work. Dr. Greene also noted that if authors used an AI tool to revise their work, they can include a version of the manuscript untouched by LLMs.

It is similar to a preprint, he said, but rather than publishing a version of a paper prior to peer review, someone is showing a version of a manuscript before it was reviewed and revised by AI. “This type of practice could be a path that lets us benefit from these models,” he said, “without having the drawbacks that many are concerned about.”

Dr. Solomon has financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, CorEvitas, and Moderna. Both Dr. Greene and Dr. Pividori are inventors in the U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/486,706 that the University of Colorado has filed for the “Publishing Infrastructure For AI-Assisted Academic Authoring” invention with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Dr. Greene and Dr. Pividori also received a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to improve their AI-based manuscript revision tool. Dr. Gao reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers may use artificial intelligence (AI) language models such as ChatGPT to write and revise scientific manuscripts, according to a new announcement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. These tools should not be listed as authors, and researchers must denote how AI-assisted technologies were used, the committee said.

These new guidelines are the latest effort for medical journals to define policies for using these large-scale language models (LLMs) in scientific publication. While these AI-assisted tools can help with tasks such as writing, analyzing data, catching mistakes, and much more, they are also prone to errors, noted Casey Greene, PhD, a professor of biomedical informatics at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. It is also not totally clear how information is stored and processed in these kinds of tools, and who has access to that information, he noted.

At the same time, experts argue that these AI tools could have a positive impact on the field by limiting some of the linguistic disparities in scientific publishing as well as alleviating the burden of some monotonous or mechanical tasks that come along with manuscript writing.

What experts can agree on, though, is that the use of AI tools is here to stay. “This is going to become a common tool,” Dr. Greene said. “I don’t think there’s a way out of that at this point.”
 

A change in medical publishing

OpenAI released ChatGPT in November 2022. In its own words, ChatGPT is “a deep learning model that has been trained on a massive amount of text data to understand and generate humanlike text.” Enter a question or a prompt, and it will respond. For example, when asked how the AI tool can be used in scientific publishing, ChatGPT responded:

“ChatGPT can aid scientific publishing by generating ideas, clarifying concepts, conducting preliminary literature reviews, providing proofreading and editing suggestions, and assisting with outlining and organizing scientific papers. However, it should be used as a supportive tool alongside domain expertise and validation from trusted scientific sources.”

Just a few months after ChatGPT became available, researchers began using this tool in their own work. One individual, Som Biswas, MD, a radiologist at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, reportedly used ChatGPT to author 16 scientific articles in just 4 months, according to the Daily Beast. Five of these articles have been published in four different journals. Dr. Biswas declined to be interviewed for this article.

There were also reports of papers with ChatGPT as one of the listed authors, which sparked backlash. In response, JAMA, Nature, and Science all published editorials in January outlining their policies for using ChatGPT and other large language models in the scientific authoring process. Editors from the journals of the American College of Cardiology and the American College of Rheumatology also updated their policies to reflect the influence of AI authoring tools.

The consensus is that AI has no place on the author byline.

“We think that’s not appropriate, because coauthorship means that you are taking responsibility for the analysis and the generation of data that are included in a manuscript. A machine that is dictated by AI can’t take responsibility,” said Daniel Solomon, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and the editor in chief of the ACR journal Arthritis & Rheumatology.
 

Issues with AI

One of the big concerns around using AI in writing is that it can generate text that seems plausible but is untrue or not supported by data. For example, Dr. Greene and colleague Milton Pividori, PhD, also of the University of Colorado, were writing a journal article about new software they developed that uses a large language model to revise scientific manuscripts.

“We used the same software to revise that article and at one point, it added a line that noted that the large language model had been fine-tuned on a data set of manuscripts from within the same field. This makes a lot of sense, and is absolutely something you could do, but was not something that we did,” Dr. Greene said. “Without a really careful review of the content, it becomes possible to invent things that were not actually done.”

In another case, ChatGPT falsely stated that a prominent law professor had been accused of sexual assault, citing a Washington Post article that did not exist.

“We live in a society where we are extremely concerned about fake news,” Dr. Pividori added, “and [these kinds of errors] could certainly exacerbate that in the scientific community, which is very concerning because science informs public policy.”

Another issue is the lack of transparency around how large language models like ChatGPT process and store data used to make queries.

“We have no idea how they are recording all the prompts and things that we input into ChatGPT and their systems,” Dr. Pividori said.

OpenAI recently addressed some privacy concerns by allowing users to turn off their chat history with the AI chatbot, so conversations cannot be used to train or improve the company’s models. But Dr. Greene noted that the terms of service “still remain pretty nebulous.”

Dr. Solomon is also concerned with researchers using these AI tools in authoring without knowing how they work. “The thing we are really concerned about is that fact that [LLMs] are a bit of a black box – people don’t really understand the methodologies,” he said.
 

A positive tool?

But despite these concerns, many think that these types of AI-assisted tools could have a positive impact on medical publishing, particularly for researchers for whom English is not their first language, noted Catherine Gao, MD, a pulmonary and critical care instructor at Northwestern University, Chicago. She recently led research comparing scientific abstracts written by ChatGPT and real abstracts and discovered that reviewers found it “surprisingly difficult” to differentiate the two.

“The majority of research is published in English,” she said in an email. “Responsible use of LLMs can potentially reduce the burden of writing for busy scientists and improve equity for those who are not native English speakers.”

Dr. Pividori agreed, adding that as a non-native English speaker, he spends much more time working on the structure and grammar of sentences when authoring a manuscript, compared with people who speak English as a first language. He noted that these tools can also be used to automate some of the more monotonous tasks that come along with writing manuscripts and allow researchers to focus on the more creative aspects.

In the future, “I want to focus more on the things that only a human can do and let these tools do all the rest of it,” he said.
 

New rules

But despite how individual researchers feel about LLMs, they agree that these AI tools are here to stay.

“I think that we should anticipate that they will become part of the medical research establishment over time, when we figure out how to use them appropriately,” Dr. Solomon said.

While the debate of how to best use AI in medical publications will continue, journal editors agree that all authors of a manuscript are solely responsible for content in articles that used AI-assisted technology.

“Authors should carefully review and edit the result because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased,” the ICMJE guidelines state. “Authors should be able to assert that there is no plagiarism in their paper, including in text and images produced by the AI.” This includes appropriate attribution of all cited materials.

The committee also recommends that authors write in both the cover letter and submitted work how AI was used in the manuscript writing process. Recently updated guidelines from the World Association of Medical Editors recommend that all prompts used to generate new text or analytical work should be provided in submitted work. Dr. Greene also noted that if authors used an AI tool to revise their work, they can include a version of the manuscript untouched by LLMs.

It is similar to a preprint, he said, but rather than publishing a version of a paper prior to peer review, someone is showing a version of a manuscript before it was reviewed and revised by AI. “This type of practice could be a path that lets us benefit from these models,” he said, “without having the drawbacks that many are concerned about.”

Dr. Solomon has financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen, CorEvitas, and Moderna. Both Dr. Greene and Dr. Pividori are inventors in the U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/486,706 that the University of Colorado has filed for the “Publishing Infrastructure For AI-Assisted Academic Authoring” invention with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Dr. Greene and Dr. Pividori also received a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to improve their AI-based manuscript revision tool. Dr. Gao reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Although not quite meeting its primary endpoint, a new trial (TESLA) has added to evidence suggesting that patients with large ischemic strokes who have a significant amount of brain tissue damage may still benefit from thrombectomy. 

And a new meta-analysis (MAGNA) of previous studies in a similar population has provided more detailed estimates of the treatment benefit of thrombectomy in these patients. 

The TESLA trial, which included patients with large-core infarcts (ASPECTS score 2-5) within 24 hours of symptom onset, showed encouraging trends towards a benefit with thrombectomy for the primary outcome of 90-day utility-weighted scores on the modified Rankin scale (mRS), but this did not reach the prespecified Bayesian superiority threshold.

Several secondary efficacy endpoints also showed suggestions of benefits with thrombectomy.

“The interventional group had higher mean or average utility-weighted mRS scores than the control group which means that their functional recovery at 90 days was trending for better outcome and less disability,” lead TESLA investigator, Osama Zaidat, MD, neuroscience & stroke director at Mercy St. Vincent Medical Center, Toledo, Ohio, said in an interview. “They also showed better neurological improvement and a higher chance of achieving a good outcome (mRS 0-3).”

These patients with large-core infarct strokes were not included in the initial trials of endovascular therapy in patients presenting in the late time window, up to 24 hours, as it was thought they would not benefit. However, three recent trials (RESCUE-Japan LIMIT; ANGEL ASPECT; and SELECT 2) have shown that patients with large core infarcts can still benefit from endovascular thrombectomy.

While these three previous trials used sophisticated imaging techniques (MRI or CT perfusion) to select patients, and restricted patients included to those with an ASPECTS score of 3-5, the TESLA study had a more pragmatic design, using just noncontrast CT scan evaluation without advanced imaging to select patients, and extending the inclusion criteria to patients with an ASPECTS score of 2.

“Noncontrast CT scans are available at all stroke centers so this study is more practical, highly generalizable, and more applicable globally,” Dr. Zaidat commented.

“However, our results suggest that when using noncontrast CT only to select patients, the gain or treatment effect of thrombectomy seems to be smaller than when using sophisticated advanced imaging to make the decision to go for thrombectomy or not as in the other trials,” he added.

The TESLA trial results were presented at the recent European Stroke Organisation Conference, held in Munich.

The study included 300 stroke patients with anterior circulation large‐vessel occlusion (NIHSS of 6 or more) with a large‐core infarction (investigator read ASPECTS Score 2-5), selected on the basis of noncontrast CT scan, who were randomized to undergo intra-arterial thrombectomy or best medical management (control) up to 24 hours from last known well.

The trial had a Bayesian probabilities design, with a primary endpoint of the 90-day utility-weighted mRS (uw-mRS), a relatively new patient-centered outcome used in stroke trials, which includes a quality-of-life measurement. Utilities represent preferences for mRS health states and range from 0 (death) to 1 (perfect health), so in contrast to the traditional mRS scores, a higher uw-mRS score is better.

The 90-day uw-MRS scores were 2.93 in the thrombectomy group vs. 2.27 in the control group.  

The Bayesian probability of thrombectomy superiority was 0.957, which Dr. Zaidat said was “similar” to a P value of .043, but this was less than the prespecified superiority probability of > .975 to declare efficacy.

A separate analysis in a population of patients selected by core-lab read noncontrast CT scan, showed a Bayesian probability of benefit with thrombectomy of 0.98, “similar” to one-sided P value of .02. 

In terms of secondary endpoints, there were also some encouraging trends, including a suggestion of benefit in the 90-day mRS ordinal shift (odds ratio 1.40; P = .06). 

The number of patients achieving functional independence (mRS 0-2) was 14% in the thrombectomy groups vs. 9% in the control group (P = .09); and a good functional outcome (mRS 0-3) was achieved in 30% of thrombectomy patients vs. 20% of those in the control group (P = .03).  

Major neurological improvement (NIHSS scale of 0-2 or improvement of 8 points or more) occurred in 26% of thrombectomy patients vs. 13% of controls (P = .0008).

Quality of life, measured by the EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level survey, also showed a trend towards improvement in the thrombectomy group with mean scores of 53 vs. 46 (P = .058).  

In terms of safety, all-cause mortality was similar in the two groups (35% thrombectomy and 33% control) and symptomatic intracerebral hemmorhage (ICH) occurred in 3.97% of thrombectomy vs. 1.34% of control patients (relative risk, 2.96).

“Cost-effective analysis and additional subgroup studies will provide more insight about the training needs to read the CT scan and if there is any value to treat patients with an ASPECTS score of 2,” Dr. Zaidat concluded.

“Larger pooled analysis will also be very useful in understanding the threshold of brain volume with irreversible damage beyond which thrombectomy wouldn’t be helpful,” he added.
 

Meta-analysis of previous studies: MAGNA

Another presentation at the ESOC meeting reported an individual patient data meta-analysis (MAGNA) of the three previous trials suggesting benefit of thrombectomy in patients with large-core ischemic strokes of the anterior circulation up to 24 hours of last known well.

The RESCUE Japan Limit trial was conducted in Japan; the SELECT-2 trial in North America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand; and the ANGEL ASPECT trial in China.

In total, the meta-analysis included 1,009 patients, half of whom received thrombectomy and half received medical management only.

Results showed that in the whole population in the three trials, the use of thrombectomy improved functional outcomes, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.78 (P < .001).

Functional independence (mRS 0-2) was also increased (23% vs. 9%; adjusted risk ratio, 2.62; P < .001); as was independent ambulation (mRS, 0-3; 41% vs. 24%; aRR, 1.76; P < .001).

But early neurological worsening was more frequent with thrombectomy (aRR 1.42, 1.09-1.84, P = .010).

No difference in mortality was identified between thrombectomy (27%) and medical management (28%) or in rates of symptomatic ICH (1.8% thrombectomy vs. 1.6% medical management). 

“The results from the previously published large-core trials and from this pooled dataset provide unequivocal evidence on the efficacy and safety of endovascular thrombectomy in patients with large-core infarcts,” lead author of the MAGNA meta-analysis, Amrou Sarraj, MD, professor of neurology at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, affiliate of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, concluded.

“The benefit persists across the spectrum of age, clinical severity, and time, with clear benefit up to an estimated ischemic core volume of 150 mL,” he added. “We have great hopes that these results will lead to more patients being treated and achieving improved functional outcomes.”

On how the TESLA results fit in with the previous three trials, Dr. Sarraj pointed out to this news organization that the TESLA trial was conducted in the United States and enrolled patients based on ASPECTS 2-5 on noncontrast CT.

“The primary outcome for intention-to-treat analysis did not reach the prespecified threshold for efficacy, but the results were largely in the same direction as shown in SELECT2, ANGEL ASPECT, and RESCUE Japan Limit,” he said. “These findings further emphasize the efficacy and safety of thrombectomy in patients with large ischemic core, at the same time reinforcing the need to provide results from pooled data from all large-core trials.”

He noted that results from two further trials of thrombectomy in large core strokes, TENSION and LASTE – both of which have now been stopped early because of the positive findings from the previous studies – are expected soon, and the MAGNA meta-analysis will be updated to include data from all six trials. 

“This will increase the accuracy of the estimation of the treatment effect and will give even more power to look further into the details related to subgroups and selection imaging modalities,” Dr. Sarraj added.

The research team hopes that this joint effort will eventually set the pathway for selection algorithms and treatment boundaries in patients with large-vessel occlusion.

TESLA was an investigator-initiated study funded by unrestricted grants from Cerenovus, Penumbra, Medtronic, Stryker, and Genentech. Dr. Zaidat is a consultant for Stryker, Cerenovus, Penumbra, and Medtronic.

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

Although not quite meeting its primary endpoint, a new trial (TESLA) has added to evidence suggesting that patients with large ischemic strokes who have a significant amount of brain tissue damage may still benefit from thrombectomy. 

And a new meta-analysis (MAGNA) of previous studies in a similar population has provided more detailed estimates of the treatment benefit of thrombectomy in these patients. 

The TESLA trial, which included patients with large-core infarcts (ASPECTS score 2-5) within 24 hours of symptom onset, showed encouraging trends towards a benefit with thrombectomy for the primary outcome of 90-day utility-weighted scores on the modified Rankin scale (mRS), but this did not reach the prespecified Bayesian superiority threshold.

Several secondary efficacy endpoints also showed suggestions of benefits with thrombectomy.

“The interventional group had higher mean or average utility-weighted mRS scores than the control group which means that their functional recovery at 90 days was trending for better outcome and less disability,” lead TESLA investigator, Osama Zaidat, MD, neuroscience & stroke director at Mercy St. Vincent Medical Center, Toledo, Ohio, said in an interview. “They also showed better neurological improvement and a higher chance of achieving a good outcome (mRS 0-3).”

These patients with large-core infarct strokes were not included in the initial trials of endovascular therapy in patients presenting in the late time window, up to 24 hours, as it was thought they would not benefit. However, three recent trials (RESCUE-Japan LIMIT; ANGEL ASPECT; and SELECT 2) have shown that patients with large core infarcts can still benefit from endovascular thrombectomy.

While these three previous trials used sophisticated imaging techniques (MRI or CT perfusion) to select patients, and restricted patients included to those with an ASPECTS score of 3-5, the TESLA study had a more pragmatic design, using just noncontrast CT scan evaluation without advanced imaging to select patients, and extending the inclusion criteria to patients with an ASPECTS score of 2.

“Noncontrast CT scans are available at all stroke centers so this study is more practical, highly generalizable, and more applicable globally,” Dr. Zaidat commented.

“However, our results suggest that when using noncontrast CT only to select patients, the gain or treatment effect of thrombectomy seems to be smaller than when using sophisticated advanced imaging to make the decision to go for thrombectomy or not as in the other trials,” he added.

The TESLA trial results were presented at the recent European Stroke Organisation Conference, held in Munich.

The study included 300 stroke patients with anterior circulation large‐vessel occlusion (NIHSS of 6 or more) with a large‐core infarction (investigator read ASPECTS Score 2-5), selected on the basis of noncontrast CT scan, who were randomized to undergo intra-arterial thrombectomy or best medical management (control) up to 24 hours from last known well.

The trial had a Bayesian probabilities design, with a primary endpoint of the 90-day utility-weighted mRS (uw-mRS), a relatively new patient-centered outcome used in stroke trials, which includes a quality-of-life measurement. Utilities represent preferences for mRS health states and range from 0 (death) to 1 (perfect health), so in contrast to the traditional mRS scores, a higher uw-mRS score is better.

The 90-day uw-MRS scores were 2.93 in the thrombectomy group vs. 2.27 in the control group.  

The Bayesian probability of thrombectomy superiority was 0.957, which Dr. Zaidat said was “similar” to a P value of .043, but this was less than the prespecified superiority probability of > .975 to declare efficacy.

A separate analysis in a population of patients selected by core-lab read noncontrast CT scan, showed a Bayesian probability of benefit with thrombectomy of 0.98, “similar” to one-sided P value of .02. 

In terms of secondary endpoints, there were also some encouraging trends, including a suggestion of benefit in the 90-day mRS ordinal shift (odds ratio 1.40; P = .06). 

The number of patients achieving functional independence (mRS 0-2) was 14% in the thrombectomy groups vs. 9% in the control group (P = .09); and a good functional outcome (mRS 0-3) was achieved in 30% of thrombectomy patients vs. 20% of those in the control group (P = .03).  

Major neurological improvement (NIHSS scale of 0-2 or improvement of 8 points or more) occurred in 26% of thrombectomy patients vs. 13% of controls (P = .0008).

Quality of life, measured by the EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level survey, also showed a trend towards improvement in the thrombectomy group with mean scores of 53 vs. 46 (P = .058).  

In terms of safety, all-cause mortality was similar in the two groups (35% thrombectomy and 33% control) and symptomatic intracerebral hemmorhage (ICH) occurred in 3.97% of thrombectomy vs. 1.34% of control patients (relative risk, 2.96).

“Cost-effective analysis and additional subgroup studies will provide more insight about the training needs to read the CT scan and if there is any value to treat patients with an ASPECTS score of 2,” Dr. Zaidat concluded.

“Larger pooled analysis will also be very useful in understanding the threshold of brain volume with irreversible damage beyond which thrombectomy wouldn’t be helpful,” he added.
 

Meta-analysis of previous studies: MAGNA

Another presentation at the ESOC meeting reported an individual patient data meta-analysis (MAGNA) of the three previous trials suggesting benefit of thrombectomy in patients with large-core ischemic strokes of the anterior circulation up to 24 hours of last known well.

The RESCUE Japan Limit trial was conducted in Japan; the SELECT-2 trial in North America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand; and the ANGEL ASPECT trial in China.

In total, the meta-analysis included 1,009 patients, half of whom received thrombectomy and half received medical management only.

Results showed that in the whole population in the three trials, the use of thrombectomy improved functional outcomes, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.78 (P < .001).

Functional independence (mRS 0-2) was also increased (23% vs. 9%; adjusted risk ratio, 2.62; P < .001); as was independent ambulation (mRS, 0-3; 41% vs. 24%; aRR, 1.76; P < .001).

But early neurological worsening was more frequent with thrombectomy (aRR 1.42, 1.09-1.84, P = .010).

No difference in mortality was identified between thrombectomy (27%) and medical management (28%) or in rates of symptomatic ICH (1.8% thrombectomy vs. 1.6% medical management). 

“The results from the previously published large-core trials and from this pooled dataset provide unequivocal evidence on the efficacy and safety of endovascular thrombectomy in patients with large-core infarcts,” lead author of the MAGNA meta-analysis, Amrou Sarraj, MD, professor of neurology at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, affiliate of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, concluded.

“The benefit persists across the spectrum of age, clinical severity, and time, with clear benefit up to an estimated ischemic core volume of 150 mL,” he added. “We have great hopes that these results will lead to more patients being treated and achieving improved functional outcomes.”

On how the TESLA results fit in with the previous three trials, Dr. Sarraj pointed out to this news organization that the TESLA trial was conducted in the United States and enrolled patients based on ASPECTS 2-5 on noncontrast CT.

“The primary outcome for intention-to-treat analysis did not reach the prespecified threshold for efficacy, but the results were largely in the same direction as shown in SELECT2, ANGEL ASPECT, and RESCUE Japan Limit,” he said. “These findings further emphasize the efficacy and safety of thrombectomy in patients with large ischemic core, at the same time reinforcing the need to provide results from pooled data from all large-core trials.”

He noted that results from two further trials of thrombectomy in large core strokes, TENSION and LASTE – both of which have now been stopped early because of the positive findings from the previous studies – are expected soon, and the MAGNA meta-analysis will be updated to include data from all six trials. 

“This will increase the accuracy of the estimation of the treatment effect and will give even more power to look further into the details related to subgroups and selection imaging modalities,” Dr. Sarraj added.

The research team hopes that this joint effort will eventually set the pathway for selection algorithms and treatment boundaries in patients with large-vessel occlusion.

TESLA was an investigator-initiated study funded by unrestricted grants from Cerenovus, Penumbra, Medtronic, Stryker, and Genentech. Dr. Zaidat is a consultant for Stryker, Cerenovus, Penumbra, and Medtronic.

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

Although not quite meeting its primary endpoint, a new trial (TESLA) has added to evidence suggesting that patients with large ischemic strokes who have a significant amount of brain tissue damage may still benefit from thrombectomy. 

And a new meta-analysis (MAGNA) of previous studies in a similar population has provided more detailed estimates of the treatment benefit of thrombectomy in these patients. 

The TESLA trial, which included patients with large-core infarcts (ASPECTS score 2-5) within 24 hours of symptom onset, showed encouraging trends towards a benefit with thrombectomy for the primary outcome of 90-day utility-weighted scores on the modified Rankin scale (mRS), but this did not reach the prespecified Bayesian superiority threshold.

Several secondary efficacy endpoints also showed suggestions of benefits with thrombectomy.

“The interventional group had higher mean or average utility-weighted mRS scores than the control group which means that their functional recovery at 90 days was trending for better outcome and less disability,” lead TESLA investigator, Osama Zaidat, MD, neuroscience & stroke director at Mercy St. Vincent Medical Center, Toledo, Ohio, said in an interview. “They also showed better neurological improvement and a higher chance of achieving a good outcome (mRS 0-3).”

These patients with large-core infarct strokes were not included in the initial trials of endovascular therapy in patients presenting in the late time window, up to 24 hours, as it was thought they would not benefit. However, three recent trials (RESCUE-Japan LIMIT; ANGEL ASPECT; and SELECT 2) have shown that patients with large core infarcts can still benefit from endovascular thrombectomy.

While these three previous trials used sophisticated imaging techniques (MRI or CT perfusion) to select patients, and restricted patients included to those with an ASPECTS score of 3-5, the TESLA study had a more pragmatic design, using just noncontrast CT scan evaluation without advanced imaging to select patients, and extending the inclusion criteria to patients with an ASPECTS score of 2.

“Noncontrast CT scans are available at all stroke centers so this study is more practical, highly generalizable, and more applicable globally,” Dr. Zaidat commented.

“However, our results suggest that when using noncontrast CT only to select patients, the gain or treatment effect of thrombectomy seems to be smaller than when using sophisticated advanced imaging to make the decision to go for thrombectomy or not as in the other trials,” he added.

The TESLA trial results were presented at the recent European Stroke Organisation Conference, held in Munich.

The study included 300 stroke patients with anterior circulation large‐vessel occlusion (NIHSS of 6 or more) with a large‐core infarction (investigator read ASPECTS Score 2-5), selected on the basis of noncontrast CT scan, who were randomized to undergo intra-arterial thrombectomy or best medical management (control) up to 24 hours from last known well.

The trial had a Bayesian probabilities design, with a primary endpoint of the 90-day utility-weighted mRS (uw-mRS), a relatively new patient-centered outcome used in stroke trials, which includes a quality-of-life measurement. Utilities represent preferences for mRS health states and range from 0 (death) to 1 (perfect health), so in contrast to the traditional mRS scores, a higher uw-mRS score is better.

The 90-day uw-MRS scores were 2.93 in the thrombectomy group vs. 2.27 in the control group.  

The Bayesian probability of thrombectomy superiority was 0.957, which Dr. Zaidat said was “similar” to a P value of .043, but this was less than the prespecified superiority probability of > .975 to declare efficacy.

A separate analysis in a population of patients selected by core-lab read noncontrast CT scan, showed a Bayesian probability of benefit with thrombectomy of 0.98, “similar” to one-sided P value of .02. 

In terms of secondary endpoints, there were also some encouraging trends, including a suggestion of benefit in the 90-day mRS ordinal shift (odds ratio 1.40; P = .06). 

The number of patients achieving functional independence (mRS 0-2) was 14% in the thrombectomy groups vs. 9% in the control group (P = .09); and a good functional outcome (mRS 0-3) was achieved in 30% of thrombectomy patients vs. 20% of those in the control group (P = .03).  

Major neurological improvement (NIHSS scale of 0-2 or improvement of 8 points or more) occurred in 26% of thrombectomy patients vs. 13% of controls (P = .0008).

Quality of life, measured by the EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level survey, also showed a trend towards improvement in the thrombectomy group with mean scores of 53 vs. 46 (P = .058).  

In terms of safety, all-cause mortality was similar in the two groups (35% thrombectomy and 33% control) and symptomatic intracerebral hemmorhage (ICH) occurred in 3.97% of thrombectomy vs. 1.34% of control patients (relative risk, 2.96).

“Cost-effective analysis and additional subgroup studies will provide more insight about the training needs to read the CT scan and if there is any value to treat patients with an ASPECTS score of 2,” Dr. Zaidat concluded.

“Larger pooled analysis will also be very useful in understanding the threshold of brain volume with irreversible damage beyond which thrombectomy wouldn’t be helpful,” he added.
 

Meta-analysis of previous studies: MAGNA

Another presentation at the ESOC meeting reported an individual patient data meta-analysis (MAGNA) of the three previous trials suggesting benefit of thrombectomy in patients with large-core ischemic strokes of the anterior circulation up to 24 hours of last known well.

The RESCUE Japan Limit trial was conducted in Japan; the SELECT-2 trial in North America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand; and the ANGEL ASPECT trial in China.

In total, the meta-analysis included 1,009 patients, half of whom received thrombectomy and half received medical management only.

Results showed that in the whole population in the three trials, the use of thrombectomy improved functional outcomes, with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.78 (P < .001).

Functional independence (mRS 0-2) was also increased (23% vs. 9%; adjusted risk ratio, 2.62; P < .001); as was independent ambulation (mRS, 0-3; 41% vs. 24%; aRR, 1.76; P < .001).

But early neurological worsening was more frequent with thrombectomy (aRR 1.42, 1.09-1.84, P = .010).

No difference in mortality was identified between thrombectomy (27%) and medical management (28%) or in rates of symptomatic ICH (1.8% thrombectomy vs. 1.6% medical management). 

“The results from the previously published large-core trials and from this pooled dataset provide unequivocal evidence on the efficacy and safety of endovascular thrombectomy in patients with large-core infarcts,” lead author of the MAGNA meta-analysis, Amrou Sarraj, MD, professor of neurology at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, affiliate of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, concluded.

“The benefit persists across the spectrum of age, clinical severity, and time, with clear benefit up to an estimated ischemic core volume of 150 mL,” he added. “We have great hopes that these results will lead to more patients being treated and achieving improved functional outcomes.”

On how the TESLA results fit in with the previous three trials, Dr. Sarraj pointed out to this news organization that the TESLA trial was conducted in the United States and enrolled patients based on ASPECTS 2-5 on noncontrast CT.

“The primary outcome for intention-to-treat analysis did not reach the prespecified threshold for efficacy, but the results were largely in the same direction as shown in SELECT2, ANGEL ASPECT, and RESCUE Japan Limit,” he said. “These findings further emphasize the efficacy and safety of thrombectomy in patients with large ischemic core, at the same time reinforcing the need to provide results from pooled data from all large-core trials.”

He noted that results from two further trials of thrombectomy in large core strokes, TENSION and LASTE – both of which have now been stopped early because of the positive findings from the previous studies – are expected soon, and the MAGNA meta-analysis will be updated to include data from all six trials. 

“This will increase the accuracy of the estimation of the treatment effect and will give even more power to look further into the details related to subgroups and selection imaging modalities,” Dr. Sarraj added.

The research team hopes that this joint effort will eventually set the pathway for selection algorithms and treatment boundaries in patients with large-vessel occlusion.

TESLA was an investigator-initiated study funded by unrestricted grants from Cerenovus, Penumbra, Medtronic, Stryker, and Genentech. Dr. Zaidat is a consultant for Stryker, Cerenovus, Penumbra, and Medtronic.

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

A new guide offers recommendations for the nonsurgical management of major hemorrhage, which is a challenging clinical problem.

Major hemorrhage is a significant cause of death and can occur in a myriad of clinical settings.

“In Ontario, we’ve been collecting quality metrics on major hemorrhages to try and make sure that a higher percentage of patients gets the best possible care when they are experiencing significant bleeding,” author Jeannie Callum, MD, professor and director of transfusion medicine at Kingston (Ont.) Health Sciences Centre and Queen’s University, also in Kingston, said in an interview. “There were some gaps, so this is our effort to get open, clear information out to the emergency doctors, intensive care unit doctors, the surgeons, and everyone else involved in managing major hemorrhage, to help close these gaps.”

The guide was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Fast care essential

The guide aims to provide answers, based on the latest research, to questions such as when to activate a massive hemorrhage protocol (MHP), which patients should receive tranexamic acid (TXA), which blood products should be transfused before laboratory results are available, how to monitor the effects of blood transfusion, and when fibrinogen concentrate or prothrombin complex concentrate should be given.

Not all recommendations will be followed, Dr. Callum said, especially in rural hospitals with limited resources. But the guide is adaptable, and rural hospitals can create protocols that are customized to their unique circumstances.

Care must be “perfect and fast” in the first hour of major injury, said Dr. Callum. “You need to get a proclotting drug in that first hour if you have a traumatic or postpartum bleed. You have to make sure your clotting factors never fail you throughout your resuscitation. You have to be fast with the transfusion. You have to monitor for the complications of the transfusion, electrolyte disturbances, and the patient’s temperature dropping. It’s a complicated situation that needs a multidisciplinary team.”

Bleeding affects everybody in medicine, from family doctors in smaller institutions who work in emergency departments to obstetricians and surgeons, she added.

“For people under the age of 45, trauma is the most common cause of death. When people die of trauma, they die of bleeding. So many people experience these extreme bleeds. We believe that some of them might be preventable with faster, more standardized, more aggressive care. That’s why we wrote this review,” said Dr. Callum.
 

Administer TXA quickly  

The first recommendation is to ensure that every hospital has a massive hemorrhage protocol. Such a protocol is vital for the emergency department, operating room, and obstetric unit. “Making sure you’ve got a protocol that is updated every 3 years and adjusted to the local hospital context is essential,” said Dr. Callum.

Smaller hospitals will have to adjust their protocols according to the capabilities of their sites. “Some smaller hospitals do not have platelets in stock and get their platelets from another hospital, so you need to adjust your protocol to what you are able to do. Not every hospital can control bleeding in a trauma patient, so your protocol would be to stabilize and call a helicopter. Make sure all of this is detailed so that implementing it becomes automatic,” said Dr. Callum.

An MHP should be activated for patients with uncontrolled hemorrhage who meet the clinical criteria of the local hospital and are expected to need blood product support and red blood cells.

“Lots of people bleed, but not everybody is bleeding enough that they need a code transfusion,” said Dr. Callum. Most patients with gastrointestinal bleeds caused by NSAID use can be managed with uncrossed matched blood from the local blood bank. “But in patients who need the full code transfusion because they are going to need plasma, clotting factor replacement, and many other drugs, that is when the MHP should be activated. Don’t activate it when you don’t need it, because doing so activates the whole hospital and diverts care away from other patients.”

TXA should be administered as soon as possible after onset of hemorrhage in most patients, with the exception of gastrointestinal hemorrhage, where a benefit has not been shown.

TXA has been a major advance in treating massive bleeding, Dr. Callum said. “TXA was invented by a Japanese husband-and-wife research team. We know that it reduces the death rate in trauma and in postpartum hemorrhage, and it reduces the chance of major bleeding with major surgical procedures. We give it routinely in surgical procedures. If a patient gets TXA within 60 minutes of injury, it dramatically reduces the death rate. And it costs $10 per patient. It’s cheap, it’s easy, it has no side effects. It’s just amazing.”

Future research must address several unanswered questions, said Dr. Callum. These questions include whether prehospital transfusion improves patient outcomes, whether whole blood has a role in the early management of major hemorrhage, and what role factor concentrates play in patients with major bleeding.
 

‘Optimal recommendations’

Commenting on the document, Bourke Tillmann, MD, PhD, trauma team leader at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and the Ross Tilley Burn Center in Toronto, said: “Overall, I think it is a good overview of MHPs as an approach to major hemorrhage.”

The review also is timely, since Ontario released its MHP guidelines in 2021, he added. “I would have liked to see more about the treatment aspects than just an overview of an MHP. But if you are the person overseeing the emergency department or running the blood bank, these protocols are incredibly useful and incredibly important.”

“This report is a nice and thoughtful overview of best practices in many areas, especially trauma, and makes recommendations that are optimal, although they are not necessarily practical in all centers,” Eric L. Legome, MD, professor and chair of emergency medicine at Mount Sinai West and Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, said in an interview.

“If you’re in a small rural hospital with one lab technician, trying to do all of these things, it will not be possible. These are optimal recommendations that people can use to the best of their ability, but they are not standard of care, because some places will not be able to provide this level of care,” he added. “This paper provides practical, reasonable advice that should be looked at as you are trying to implement transfusion policies and processes, with the understanding that it is not necessarily applicable or practical for very small hospitals in very rural centers that might not have access to these types of products and tools, but it’s a reasonable and nicely written paper.”

No outside funding for the guideline was reported. Dr. Callum has received research funding from Canadian Blood Services and Octapharma. She sits on the nominating committee with the Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies and on the data safety monitoring boards for the Tranexamic Acid for Subdural Hematoma trial and the Fibrinogen Replacement in Trauma trial. Dr. Tillmann and Dr. Legome reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new guide offers recommendations for the nonsurgical management of major hemorrhage, which is a challenging clinical problem.

Major hemorrhage is a significant cause of death and can occur in a myriad of clinical settings.

“In Ontario, we’ve been collecting quality metrics on major hemorrhages to try and make sure that a higher percentage of patients gets the best possible care when they are experiencing significant bleeding,” author Jeannie Callum, MD, professor and director of transfusion medicine at Kingston (Ont.) Health Sciences Centre and Queen’s University, also in Kingston, said in an interview. “There were some gaps, so this is our effort to get open, clear information out to the emergency doctors, intensive care unit doctors, the surgeons, and everyone else involved in managing major hemorrhage, to help close these gaps.”

The guide was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Fast care essential

The guide aims to provide answers, based on the latest research, to questions such as when to activate a massive hemorrhage protocol (MHP), which patients should receive tranexamic acid (TXA), which blood products should be transfused before laboratory results are available, how to monitor the effects of blood transfusion, and when fibrinogen concentrate or prothrombin complex concentrate should be given.

Not all recommendations will be followed, Dr. Callum said, especially in rural hospitals with limited resources. But the guide is adaptable, and rural hospitals can create protocols that are customized to their unique circumstances.

Care must be “perfect and fast” in the first hour of major injury, said Dr. Callum. “You need to get a proclotting drug in that first hour if you have a traumatic or postpartum bleed. You have to make sure your clotting factors never fail you throughout your resuscitation. You have to be fast with the transfusion. You have to monitor for the complications of the transfusion, electrolyte disturbances, and the patient’s temperature dropping. It’s a complicated situation that needs a multidisciplinary team.”

Bleeding affects everybody in medicine, from family doctors in smaller institutions who work in emergency departments to obstetricians and surgeons, she added.

“For people under the age of 45, trauma is the most common cause of death. When people die of trauma, they die of bleeding. So many people experience these extreme bleeds. We believe that some of them might be preventable with faster, more standardized, more aggressive care. That’s why we wrote this review,” said Dr. Callum.
 

Administer TXA quickly  

The first recommendation is to ensure that every hospital has a massive hemorrhage protocol. Such a protocol is vital for the emergency department, operating room, and obstetric unit. “Making sure you’ve got a protocol that is updated every 3 years and adjusted to the local hospital context is essential,” said Dr. Callum.

Smaller hospitals will have to adjust their protocols according to the capabilities of their sites. “Some smaller hospitals do not have platelets in stock and get their platelets from another hospital, so you need to adjust your protocol to what you are able to do. Not every hospital can control bleeding in a trauma patient, so your protocol would be to stabilize and call a helicopter. Make sure all of this is detailed so that implementing it becomes automatic,” said Dr. Callum.

An MHP should be activated for patients with uncontrolled hemorrhage who meet the clinical criteria of the local hospital and are expected to need blood product support and red blood cells.

“Lots of people bleed, but not everybody is bleeding enough that they need a code transfusion,” said Dr. Callum. Most patients with gastrointestinal bleeds caused by NSAID use can be managed with uncrossed matched blood from the local blood bank. “But in patients who need the full code transfusion because they are going to need plasma, clotting factor replacement, and many other drugs, that is when the MHP should be activated. Don’t activate it when you don’t need it, because doing so activates the whole hospital and diverts care away from other patients.”

TXA should be administered as soon as possible after onset of hemorrhage in most patients, with the exception of gastrointestinal hemorrhage, where a benefit has not been shown.

TXA has been a major advance in treating massive bleeding, Dr. Callum said. “TXA was invented by a Japanese husband-and-wife research team. We know that it reduces the death rate in trauma and in postpartum hemorrhage, and it reduces the chance of major bleeding with major surgical procedures. We give it routinely in surgical procedures. If a patient gets TXA within 60 minutes of injury, it dramatically reduces the death rate. And it costs $10 per patient. It’s cheap, it’s easy, it has no side effects. It’s just amazing.”

Future research must address several unanswered questions, said Dr. Callum. These questions include whether prehospital transfusion improves patient outcomes, whether whole blood has a role in the early management of major hemorrhage, and what role factor concentrates play in patients with major bleeding.
 

‘Optimal recommendations’

Commenting on the document, Bourke Tillmann, MD, PhD, trauma team leader at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and the Ross Tilley Burn Center in Toronto, said: “Overall, I think it is a good overview of MHPs as an approach to major hemorrhage.”

The review also is timely, since Ontario released its MHP guidelines in 2021, he added. “I would have liked to see more about the treatment aspects than just an overview of an MHP. But if you are the person overseeing the emergency department or running the blood bank, these protocols are incredibly useful and incredibly important.”

“This report is a nice and thoughtful overview of best practices in many areas, especially trauma, and makes recommendations that are optimal, although they are not necessarily practical in all centers,” Eric L. Legome, MD, professor and chair of emergency medicine at Mount Sinai West and Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, said in an interview.

“If you’re in a small rural hospital with one lab technician, trying to do all of these things, it will not be possible. These are optimal recommendations that people can use to the best of their ability, but they are not standard of care, because some places will not be able to provide this level of care,” he added. “This paper provides practical, reasonable advice that should be looked at as you are trying to implement transfusion policies and processes, with the understanding that it is not necessarily applicable or practical for very small hospitals in very rural centers that might not have access to these types of products and tools, but it’s a reasonable and nicely written paper.”

No outside funding for the guideline was reported. Dr. Callum has received research funding from Canadian Blood Services and Octapharma. She sits on the nominating committee with the Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies and on the data safety monitoring boards for the Tranexamic Acid for Subdural Hematoma trial and the Fibrinogen Replacement in Trauma trial. Dr. Tillmann and Dr. Legome reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new guide offers recommendations for the nonsurgical management of major hemorrhage, which is a challenging clinical problem.

Major hemorrhage is a significant cause of death and can occur in a myriad of clinical settings.

“In Ontario, we’ve been collecting quality metrics on major hemorrhages to try and make sure that a higher percentage of patients gets the best possible care when they are experiencing significant bleeding,” author Jeannie Callum, MD, professor and director of transfusion medicine at Kingston (Ont.) Health Sciences Centre and Queen’s University, also in Kingston, said in an interview. “There were some gaps, so this is our effort to get open, clear information out to the emergency doctors, intensive care unit doctors, the surgeons, and everyone else involved in managing major hemorrhage, to help close these gaps.”

The guide was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
 

Fast care essential

The guide aims to provide answers, based on the latest research, to questions such as when to activate a massive hemorrhage protocol (MHP), which patients should receive tranexamic acid (TXA), which blood products should be transfused before laboratory results are available, how to monitor the effects of blood transfusion, and when fibrinogen concentrate or prothrombin complex concentrate should be given.

Not all recommendations will be followed, Dr. Callum said, especially in rural hospitals with limited resources. But the guide is adaptable, and rural hospitals can create protocols that are customized to their unique circumstances.

Care must be “perfect and fast” in the first hour of major injury, said Dr. Callum. “You need to get a proclotting drug in that first hour if you have a traumatic or postpartum bleed. You have to make sure your clotting factors never fail you throughout your resuscitation. You have to be fast with the transfusion. You have to monitor for the complications of the transfusion, electrolyte disturbances, and the patient’s temperature dropping. It’s a complicated situation that needs a multidisciplinary team.”

Bleeding affects everybody in medicine, from family doctors in smaller institutions who work in emergency departments to obstetricians and surgeons, she added.

“For people under the age of 45, trauma is the most common cause of death. When people die of trauma, they die of bleeding. So many people experience these extreme bleeds. We believe that some of them might be preventable with faster, more standardized, more aggressive care. That’s why we wrote this review,” said Dr. Callum.
 

Administer TXA quickly  

The first recommendation is to ensure that every hospital has a massive hemorrhage protocol. Such a protocol is vital for the emergency department, operating room, and obstetric unit. “Making sure you’ve got a protocol that is updated every 3 years and adjusted to the local hospital context is essential,” said Dr. Callum.

Smaller hospitals will have to adjust their protocols according to the capabilities of their sites. “Some smaller hospitals do not have platelets in stock and get their platelets from another hospital, so you need to adjust your protocol to what you are able to do. Not every hospital can control bleeding in a trauma patient, so your protocol would be to stabilize and call a helicopter. Make sure all of this is detailed so that implementing it becomes automatic,” said Dr. Callum.

An MHP should be activated for patients with uncontrolled hemorrhage who meet the clinical criteria of the local hospital and are expected to need blood product support and red blood cells.

“Lots of people bleed, but not everybody is bleeding enough that they need a code transfusion,” said Dr. Callum. Most patients with gastrointestinal bleeds caused by NSAID use can be managed with uncrossed matched blood from the local blood bank. “But in patients who need the full code transfusion because they are going to need plasma, clotting factor replacement, and many other drugs, that is when the MHP should be activated. Don’t activate it when you don’t need it, because doing so activates the whole hospital and diverts care away from other patients.”

TXA should be administered as soon as possible after onset of hemorrhage in most patients, with the exception of gastrointestinal hemorrhage, where a benefit has not been shown.

TXA has been a major advance in treating massive bleeding, Dr. Callum said. “TXA was invented by a Japanese husband-and-wife research team. We know that it reduces the death rate in trauma and in postpartum hemorrhage, and it reduces the chance of major bleeding with major surgical procedures. We give it routinely in surgical procedures. If a patient gets TXA within 60 minutes of injury, it dramatically reduces the death rate. And it costs $10 per patient. It’s cheap, it’s easy, it has no side effects. It’s just amazing.”

Future research must address several unanswered questions, said Dr. Callum. These questions include whether prehospital transfusion improves patient outcomes, whether whole blood has a role in the early management of major hemorrhage, and what role factor concentrates play in patients with major bleeding.
 

‘Optimal recommendations’

Commenting on the document, Bourke Tillmann, MD, PhD, trauma team leader at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and the Ross Tilley Burn Center in Toronto, said: “Overall, I think it is a good overview of MHPs as an approach to major hemorrhage.”

The review also is timely, since Ontario released its MHP guidelines in 2021, he added. “I would have liked to see more about the treatment aspects than just an overview of an MHP. But if you are the person overseeing the emergency department or running the blood bank, these protocols are incredibly useful and incredibly important.”

“This report is a nice and thoughtful overview of best practices in many areas, especially trauma, and makes recommendations that are optimal, although they are not necessarily practical in all centers,” Eric L. Legome, MD, professor and chair of emergency medicine at Mount Sinai West and Mount Sinai Morningside, New York, said in an interview.

“If you’re in a small rural hospital with one lab technician, trying to do all of these things, it will not be possible. These are optimal recommendations that people can use to the best of their ability, but they are not standard of care, because some places will not be able to provide this level of care,” he added. “This paper provides practical, reasonable advice that should be looked at as you are trying to implement transfusion policies and processes, with the understanding that it is not necessarily applicable or practical for very small hospitals in very rural centers that might not have access to these types of products and tools, but it’s a reasonable and nicely written paper.”

No outside funding for the guideline was reported. Dr. Callum has received research funding from Canadian Blood Services and Octapharma. She sits on the nominating committee with the Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies and on the data safety monitoring boards for the Tranexamic Acid for Subdural Hematoma trial and the Fibrinogen Replacement in Trauma trial. Dr. Tillmann and Dr. Legome reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

An early predictor of cardiovascular disease (CVD) has been found in youth with bipolar disorder (BD), in new findings that may explain the “excessive and premature mortality” related to heart disease in this patient population.

The investigators found that higher reactive hyperemia index (RHI) scores, a measure of endothelial function, were tied to mood severity in patients with higher mania, but not depression scores. These findings persisted even after accounting for medications, obesity, and other cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs).

“From a clinical perspective, these findings highlight the potential value of integrating vascular health in the assessment and management of youth with BD, and from a scientific perspective, these findings call for additional research focused on shared biological mechanisms linking vascular health and mood symptoms of BD,” senior investigator Benjamin Goldstein, MD, PhD, full professor of psychiatry, pharmacology, and psychological clinical science, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

The study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

‘Excessively present’

BD is associated with “excessive and premature cardiovascular mortality” and CVD is “excessively present” in BD, exceeding what can be explained by traditional cardiovascular risk factors, psychiatric medications, and substance use, the researchers noted.

“In adults, more severe mood symptoms increase the risk of future CVD. Our focus on endothelial function rose due to the fact that CVD is rare in youth, whereas endothelial dysfunction – considered a precursor of CVD – can be assessed in youth,” said Dr. Goldstein, who holds the RBC Investments Chair in children’s mental health and developmental psychopathology at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, where he is director of the Centre for Youth Bipolar Disorder.

For this reason, he and his colleagues were “interested in researching whether endothelial dysfunction is associated with mood symptoms in youth with BD.” Ultimately, the motivation was to “inspire new therapeutic opportunities that may improve both cardiovascular and mental health simultaneously.”

To investigate the question, the researchers studied 209 youth aged 13-20 years (n = 114 with BD and 94 healthy controls [HCs]).

In the BD group, there were 34 BD-euthymia, 36 BD-depressed, and 44 BD-hypomanic/mixed; and within the groups who had depression or hypomania/mixed features, 72 were experiencing clinically significant depression. 

Participants had to be free of chronic inflammatory illness, use of medications that might be addressing traditional CVRFs, recent infectious diseases, or neurologic conditions.

Participants’ bipolar symptoms, psychosocial functioning, and family history were assessed. In addition, they were asked about treatment, physical and/or sexual abuse, smoking status, and socioeconomic status. Height, weight, waist circumference, blood pressure, and blood tests to assess CVRFs, including C-reactive protein (CRP), were also assessed. RHI was measured via pulse amplitude tonometry, with lower values indicating poorer endothelial function.
 

Positive affect beneficial?

Compared with HCs, there were fewer White participants in the BD group (78% vs. 55%; P < .001). The BD group also had higher Tanner stage development scores (stage 5: 65% vs. 35%; P = .03; V = 0.21), higher body mass index (BMI, 24.4 ± 4.6 vs. 22.0 ± 4.2; P < .001; d = 0.53), and higher CRP (1.94 ± 3.99 vs. 0.76 ± 0.86; P = .009; d = –0.40).

After controlling for age, sex, and BMI (F_3,202 = 4.47; P = .005; n_p²  = 0.06), the researchers found significant between-group differences in RHI.

Post hoc pairwise comparisons showed RHI to be significantly lower in the BD-depressed versus the HC group (P = .04; d = 0.4). Moreover, the BD-hypomanic/mixed group had significantly higher RHI, compared with the other BD groups and the HC group.

RHI was associated with higher mania scores (beta, 0.26; P = .006), but there was no similar significant association with depression mood scores (beta, 0.01; P = .90).

The mood state differences in RHI and the RHI-mania association remained significant in sensitivity analyses examining the effect of current medication use as well as CVRFs, including lipids, CRP, and blood pressure on RHI.

“We found that youth with BD experiencing a depressive episode had lower endothelial function, whereas youth with BD experiencing a hypomanic/mixed episode had higher endothelial function, as compared to healthy youth,” Dr. Goldstein said.

There are several mechanisms potentially underlying the association between endothelial function and hypomania, the investigators noted. For example, positive affect is associated with increased endothelial function in normative samples, so hypomanic symptoms, including elation, may have similar beneficial associations, although those benefits likely do not extend to mania, which has been associated with cardiovascular risk.

They also point to several limitations in the study. The cross-sectional design “precludes making inferences regarding the temporal relationship between RHI and mood.” Moreover, the study focused only on hypomania, so “we cannot draw conclusions about mania.” In addition, the HC group had a “significantly higher proportion” of White participants, and a lower Tanner stage, so it “may not be a representative control sample.”

Nevertheless, the researchers concluded that the study “adds to the existing evidence for the potential value of integrating cardiovascular-related therapeutic approaches in BD,” noting that further research is needed to elucidate the mechanisms of the association.
 

Observable changes in youth

In a comment, Jess G Fiedorowicz, MD, PhD, head and chief, department of mental health, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, noted that individuals with BD “have a much higher risk of CVD, which tends to develop earlier and shortens life expectancy by more than a decade.” 

This cardiovascular risk “appears to be acquired over the long-term course of illness and proportionate to the persistence and severity of mood symptoms, which implies that mood syndromes, such as depression and mania, themselves may induce changes in the body relevant to CVD,” said Dr. Fiedorowicz, who is also a professor in the department of psychiatry and senior research chair in adult psychiatry at the Brain and Mind Research Institute, University of Ottawa, and was not involved with the study.

The study “adds to a growing body of evidence that mood syndromes may enact physiological changes that may be relevant to risk of CVD. One important aspect of this study is that this can even be observed in young sample,” he said.

This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and a Miner’s Lamp Innovation Fund from the University of Toronto. Dr. Goldstein and coauthors declare no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fiedorowicz receives an honorarium from Elsevier for his work as editor-in-chief of the Journal of Psychosomatic Research.

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

An early predictor of cardiovascular disease (CVD) has been found in youth with bipolar disorder (BD), in new findings that may explain the “excessive and premature mortality” related to heart disease in this patient population.

The investigators found that higher reactive hyperemia index (RHI) scores, a measure of endothelial function, were tied to mood severity in patients with higher mania, but not depression scores. These findings persisted even after accounting for medications, obesity, and other cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs).

“From a clinical perspective, these findings highlight the potential value of integrating vascular health in the assessment and management of youth with BD, and from a scientific perspective, these findings call for additional research focused on shared biological mechanisms linking vascular health and mood symptoms of BD,” senior investigator Benjamin Goldstein, MD, PhD, full professor of psychiatry, pharmacology, and psychological clinical science, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

The study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

‘Excessively present’

BD is associated with “excessive and premature cardiovascular mortality” and CVD is “excessively present” in BD, exceeding what can be explained by traditional cardiovascular risk factors, psychiatric medications, and substance use, the researchers noted.

“In adults, more severe mood symptoms increase the risk of future CVD. Our focus on endothelial function rose due to the fact that CVD is rare in youth, whereas endothelial dysfunction – considered a precursor of CVD – can be assessed in youth,” said Dr. Goldstein, who holds the RBC Investments Chair in children’s mental health and developmental psychopathology at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, where he is director of the Centre for Youth Bipolar Disorder.

For this reason, he and his colleagues were “interested in researching whether endothelial dysfunction is associated with mood symptoms in youth with BD.” Ultimately, the motivation was to “inspire new therapeutic opportunities that may improve both cardiovascular and mental health simultaneously.”

To investigate the question, the researchers studied 209 youth aged 13-20 years (n = 114 with BD and 94 healthy controls [HCs]).

In the BD group, there were 34 BD-euthymia, 36 BD-depressed, and 44 BD-hypomanic/mixed; and within the groups who had depression or hypomania/mixed features, 72 were experiencing clinically significant depression. 

Participants had to be free of chronic inflammatory illness, use of medications that might be addressing traditional CVRFs, recent infectious diseases, or neurologic conditions.

Participants’ bipolar symptoms, psychosocial functioning, and family history were assessed. In addition, they were asked about treatment, physical and/or sexual abuse, smoking status, and socioeconomic status. Height, weight, waist circumference, blood pressure, and blood tests to assess CVRFs, including C-reactive protein (CRP), were also assessed. RHI was measured via pulse amplitude tonometry, with lower values indicating poorer endothelial function.
 

Positive affect beneficial?

Compared with HCs, there were fewer White participants in the BD group (78% vs. 55%; P < .001). The BD group also had higher Tanner stage development scores (stage 5: 65% vs. 35%; P = .03; V = 0.21), higher body mass index (BMI, 24.4 ± 4.6 vs. 22.0 ± 4.2; P < .001; d = 0.53), and higher CRP (1.94 ± 3.99 vs. 0.76 ± 0.86; P = .009; d = –0.40).

After controlling for age, sex, and BMI (F_3,202 = 4.47; P = .005; n_p²  = 0.06), the researchers found significant between-group differences in RHI.

Post hoc pairwise comparisons showed RHI to be significantly lower in the BD-depressed versus the HC group (P = .04; d = 0.4). Moreover, the BD-hypomanic/mixed group had significantly higher RHI, compared with the other BD groups and the HC group.

RHI was associated with higher mania scores (beta, 0.26; P = .006), but there was no similar significant association with depression mood scores (beta, 0.01; P = .90).

The mood state differences in RHI and the RHI-mania association remained significant in sensitivity analyses examining the effect of current medication use as well as CVRFs, including lipids, CRP, and blood pressure on RHI.

“We found that youth with BD experiencing a depressive episode had lower endothelial function, whereas youth with BD experiencing a hypomanic/mixed episode had higher endothelial function, as compared to healthy youth,” Dr. Goldstein said.

There are several mechanisms potentially underlying the association between endothelial function and hypomania, the investigators noted. For example, positive affect is associated with increased endothelial function in normative samples, so hypomanic symptoms, including elation, may have similar beneficial associations, although those benefits likely do not extend to mania, which has been associated with cardiovascular risk.

They also point to several limitations in the study. The cross-sectional design “precludes making inferences regarding the temporal relationship between RHI and mood.” Moreover, the study focused only on hypomania, so “we cannot draw conclusions about mania.” In addition, the HC group had a “significantly higher proportion” of White participants, and a lower Tanner stage, so it “may not be a representative control sample.”

Nevertheless, the researchers concluded that the study “adds to the existing evidence for the potential value of integrating cardiovascular-related therapeutic approaches in BD,” noting that further research is needed to elucidate the mechanisms of the association.
 

Observable changes in youth

In a comment, Jess G Fiedorowicz, MD, PhD, head and chief, department of mental health, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, noted that individuals with BD “have a much higher risk of CVD, which tends to develop earlier and shortens life expectancy by more than a decade.” 

This cardiovascular risk “appears to be acquired over the long-term course of illness and proportionate to the persistence and severity of mood symptoms, which implies that mood syndromes, such as depression and mania, themselves may induce changes in the body relevant to CVD,” said Dr. Fiedorowicz, who is also a professor in the department of psychiatry and senior research chair in adult psychiatry at the Brain and Mind Research Institute, University of Ottawa, and was not involved with the study.

The study “adds to a growing body of evidence that mood syndromes may enact physiological changes that may be relevant to risk of CVD. One important aspect of this study is that this can even be observed in young sample,” he said.

This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and a Miner’s Lamp Innovation Fund from the University of Toronto. Dr. Goldstein and coauthors declare no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fiedorowicz receives an honorarium from Elsevier for his work as editor-in-chief of the Journal of Psychosomatic Research.

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

An early predictor of cardiovascular disease (CVD) has been found in youth with bipolar disorder (BD), in new findings that may explain the “excessive and premature mortality” related to heart disease in this patient population.

The investigators found that higher reactive hyperemia index (RHI) scores, a measure of endothelial function, were tied to mood severity in patients with higher mania, but not depression scores. These findings persisted even after accounting for medications, obesity, and other cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs).

“From a clinical perspective, these findings highlight the potential value of integrating vascular health in the assessment and management of youth with BD, and from a scientific perspective, these findings call for additional research focused on shared biological mechanisms linking vascular health and mood symptoms of BD,” senior investigator Benjamin Goldstein, MD, PhD, full professor of psychiatry, pharmacology, and psychological clinical science, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

The study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

‘Excessively present’

BD is associated with “excessive and premature cardiovascular mortality” and CVD is “excessively present” in BD, exceeding what can be explained by traditional cardiovascular risk factors, psychiatric medications, and substance use, the researchers noted.

“In adults, more severe mood symptoms increase the risk of future CVD. Our focus on endothelial function rose due to the fact that CVD is rare in youth, whereas endothelial dysfunction – considered a precursor of CVD – can be assessed in youth,” said Dr. Goldstein, who holds the RBC Investments Chair in children’s mental health and developmental psychopathology at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, where he is director of the Centre for Youth Bipolar Disorder.

For this reason, he and his colleagues were “interested in researching whether endothelial dysfunction is associated with mood symptoms in youth with BD.” Ultimately, the motivation was to “inspire new therapeutic opportunities that may improve both cardiovascular and mental health simultaneously.”

To investigate the question, the researchers studied 209 youth aged 13-20 years (n = 114 with BD and 94 healthy controls [HCs]).

In the BD group, there were 34 BD-euthymia, 36 BD-depressed, and 44 BD-hypomanic/mixed; and within the groups who had depression or hypomania/mixed features, 72 were experiencing clinically significant depression. 

Participants had to be free of chronic inflammatory illness, use of medications that might be addressing traditional CVRFs, recent infectious diseases, or neurologic conditions.

Participants’ bipolar symptoms, psychosocial functioning, and family history were assessed. In addition, they were asked about treatment, physical and/or sexual abuse, smoking status, and socioeconomic status. Height, weight, waist circumference, blood pressure, and blood tests to assess CVRFs, including C-reactive protein (CRP), were also assessed. RHI was measured via pulse amplitude tonometry, with lower values indicating poorer endothelial function.
 

Positive affect beneficial?

Compared with HCs, there were fewer White participants in the BD group (78% vs. 55%; P < .001). The BD group also had higher Tanner stage development scores (stage 5: 65% vs. 35%; P = .03; V = 0.21), higher body mass index (BMI, 24.4 ± 4.6 vs. 22.0 ± 4.2; P < .001; d = 0.53), and higher CRP (1.94 ± 3.99 vs. 0.76 ± 0.86; P = .009; d = –0.40).

After controlling for age, sex, and BMI (F_3,202 = 4.47; P = .005; n_p²  = 0.06), the researchers found significant between-group differences in RHI.

Post hoc pairwise comparisons showed RHI to be significantly lower in the BD-depressed versus the HC group (P = .04; d = 0.4). Moreover, the BD-hypomanic/mixed group had significantly higher RHI, compared with the other BD groups and the HC group.

RHI was associated with higher mania scores (beta, 0.26; P = .006), but there was no similar significant association with depression mood scores (beta, 0.01; P = .90).

The mood state differences in RHI and the RHI-mania association remained significant in sensitivity analyses examining the effect of current medication use as well as CVRFs, including lipids, CRP, and blood pressure on RHI.

“We found that youth with BD experiencing a depressive episode had lower endothelial function, whereas youth with BD experiencing a hypomanic/mixed episode had higher endothelial function, as compared to healthy youth,” Dr. Goldstein said.

There are several mechanisms potentially underlying the association between endothelial function and hypomania, the investigators noted. For example, positive affect is associated with increased endothelial function in normative samples, so hypomanic symptoms, including elation, may have similar beneficial associations, although those benefits likely do not extend to mania, which has been associated with cardiovascular risk.

They also point to several limitations in the study. The cross-sectional design “precludes making inferences regarding the temporal relationship between RHI and mood.” Moreover, the study focused only on hypomania, so “we cannot draw conclusions about mania.” In addition, the HC group had a “significantly higher proportion” of White participants, and a lower Tanner stage, so it “may not be a representative control sample.”

Nevertheless, the researchers concluded that the study “adds to the existing evidence for the potential value of integrating cardiovascular-related therapeutic approaches in BD,” noting that further research is needed to elucidate the mechanisms of the association.
 

Observable changes in youth

In a comment, Jess G Fiedorowicz, MD, PhD, head and chief, department of mental health, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, noted that individuals with BD “have a much higher risk of CVD, which tends to develop earlier and shortens life expectancy by more than a decade.” 

This cardiovascular risk “appears to be acquired over the long-term course of illness and proportionate to the persistence and severity of mood symptoms, which implies that mood syndromes, such as depression and mania, themselves may induce changes in the body relevant to CVD,” said Dr. Fiedorowicz, who is also a professor in the department of psychiatry and senior research chair in adult psychiatry at the Brain and Mind Research Institute, University of Ottawa, and was not involved with the study.

The study “adds to a growing body of evidence that mood syndromes may enact physiological changes that may be relevant to risk of CVD. One important aspect of this study is that this can even be observed in young sample,” he said.

This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and a Miner’s Lamp Innovation Fund from the University of Toronto. Dr. Goldstein and coauthors declare no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fiedorowicz receives an honorarium from Elsevier for his work as editor-in-chief of the Journal of Psychosomatic Research.

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

Heart transplantation using the new strategy of donation after circulatory death (DCD) resulted in similar 6-month survival among recipients as the traditional method of using hearts donated after brain death (DBD) in the first randomized trial comparing the two approaches.

“This randomized trial showing recipient survival with DCD to be similar to DBD should lead to DCD becoming the standard of care alongside DBD,” lead author Jacob Schroder, MD, surgical director, heart transplantation program, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.

“This should enable many more heart transplants to take place and for us to be able to cast the net further and wider for donors,” he said.

The trial was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Dr. Schroder estimated that only around one-fifth of the 120 U.S. heart transplant centers currently carry out DCD transplants, but he is hopeful that the publication of this study will encourage more transplant centers to do these DCD procedures.

“The problem is there are many low-volume heart transplant centers, which may not be keen to do DCD transplants as they are a bit more complicated and expensive than DBD heart transplants,” he said. “But we need to look at the big picture of how many lives can be saved by increasing the number of heart transplant procedures and the money saved by getting more patients off the waiting list.”

The authors explain that heart transplantation has traditionally been limited to the use of hearts obtained from donors after brain death, which allows in situ assessment of cardiac function and of the suitability for transplantation of the donor allograft before surgical procurement.

But because the need for heart transplants far exceeds the availability of suitable donors, the use of DCD hearts has been investigated and this approach is now being pursued in many countries. In the DCD approach, the heart will have stopped beating in the donor, and perfusion techniques are used to restart the organ.

There are two different approaches to restarting the heart in DCD. The first approach involves the heart being removed from the donor and reanimated, preserved, assessed, and transported with the use of a portable extracorporeal perfusion and preservation system (Organ Care System, TransMedics). The second involves restarting the heart in the donor’s body for evaluation before removal and transportation under the traditional cold storage method used for donations after brain death.

The current trial was designed to compare clinical outcomes in patients who had received a heart from a circulatory death donor using the portable extracorporeal perfusion method for DCD transplantation, with outcomes from the traditional method of heart transplantation using organs donated after brain death.

For the randomized, noninferiority trial, adult candidates for heart transplantation were assigned to receive a heart after the circulatory death of the donor or a heart from a donor after brain death if that heart was available first (circulatory-death group) or to receive only a heart that had been preserved with the use of traditional cold storage after the brain death of the donor (brain-death group).

The primary end point was the risk-adjusted survival at 6 months in the as-treated circulatory-death group, as compared with the brain-death group. The primary safety end point was serious adverse events associated with the heart graft at 30 days after transplantation.

A total of 180 patients underwent transplantation, 90 of whom received a heart donated after circulatory death and 90 who received a heart donated after brain death. A total of 166 transplant recipients were included in the as-treated primary analysis (80 who received a heart from a circulatory-death donor and 86 who received a heart from a brain-death donor).

The risk-adjusted 6-month survival in the as-treated population was 94% among recipients of a heart from a circulatory-death donor, as compared with 90% among recipients of a heart from a brain-death donor (P < .001 for noninferiority).

There were no substantial between-group differences in the mean per-patient number of serious adverse events associated with the heart graft at 30 days after transplantation.

Of 101 hearts from circulatory-death donors that were preserved with the use of the perfusion system, 90 were successfully transplanted according to the criteria for lactate trend and overall contractility of the donor heart, which resulted in overall utilization percentage of 89%.

More patients who received a heart from a circulatory-death donor had moderate or severe primary graft dysfunction (22%) than those who received a heart from a brain-death donor (10%). However, graft failure that resulted in retransplantation occurred in two (2.3%) patients who received a heart from a brain-death donor versus zero patients who received a heart from a circulatory-death donor.

The researchers note that the higher incidence of primary graft dysfunction in the circulatory-death group is expected, given the period of warm ischemia that occurs in this approach. But they point out that this did not affect patient or graft survival at 30 days or 1 year.

“Primary graft dysfunction is when the heart doesn’t fully work immediately after transplant and some mechanical support is needed,” Dr. Schroder commented to this news organization. “This occurred more often in the DCD group, but this mechanical support is only temporary, and generally only needed for a day or two.

“It looks like it might take the heart a little longer to start fully functioning after DCD, but our results show this doesn’t seem to affect recipient survival.”

He added: “We’ve started to become more comfortable with DCD. Sometimes it may take a little longer to get the heart working properly on its own, but the rate of mechanical support is now much lower than when we first started doing these procedures. And cardiac MRI on the recipient patients before discharge have shown that the DCD hearts are not more damaged than those from DBD donors.”

The authors also report that there were six donor hearts in the DCD group for which there were protocol deviations of functional warm ischemic time greater than 30 minutes or continuously rising lactate levels and these hearts did not show primary graft dysfunction.

On this observation, Dr. Schroder said: “I think we need to do more work on understanding the ischemic time limits. The current 30 minutes time limit was estimated in animal studies. We need to look more closely at data from actual DCD transplants. While 30 minutes may be too long for a heart from an older donor, the heart from a younger donor may be fine for a longer period of ischemic time as it will be healthier.”


 

“Exciting” results

In an editorial, Nancy K. Sweitzer, MD, PhD, vice chair of clinical research, department of medicine, and director of clinical research, division of cardiology, Washington University in St. Louis, describes the results of the current study as “exciting,” adding that, “They clearly show the feasibility and safety of transplantation of hearts from circulatory-death donors.”

However, Dr. Sweitzer points out that the sickest patients in the study – those who were United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) status 1 and 2 – were more likely to receive a DBD heart and the more stable patients (UNOS 3-6) were more likely to receive a DCD heart.

“This imbalance undoubtedly contributed to the success of the trial in meeting its noninferiority end point. Whether transplantation of hearts from circulatory-death donors is truly safe in our sickest patients with heart failure is not clear,” she says.

However, she concludes, “Although caution and continuous evaluation of data are warranted, the increased use of hearts from circulatory-death donors appears to be safe in the hands of experienced transplantation teams and will launch an exciting phase of learning and improvement.”

“A safely expanded pool of heart donors has the potential to increase fairness and equity in heart transplantation, allowing more persons with heart failure to have access to this lifesaving therapy,” she adds. “Organ donors and transplantation teams will save increasing numbers of lives with this most precious gift.”

The current study was supported by TransMedics. Dr. Schroder reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Heart transplantation using the new strategy of donation after circulatory death (DCD) resulted in similar 6-month survival among recipients as the traditional method of using hearts donated after brain death (DBD) in the first randomized trial comparing the two approaches.

“This randomized trial showing recipient survival with DCD to be similar to DBD should lead to DCD becoming the standard of care alongside DBD,” lead author Jacob Schroder, MD, surgical director, heart transplantation program, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.

“This should enable many more heart transplants to take place and for us to be able to cast the net further and wider for donors,” he said.

The trial was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Dr. Schroder estimated that only around one-fifth of the 120 U.S. heart transplant centers currently carry out DCD transplants, but he is hopeful that the publication of this study will encourage more transplant centers to do these DCD procedures.

“The problem is there are many low-volume heart transplant centers, which may not be keen to do DCD transplants as they are a bit more complicated and expensive than DBD heart transplants,” he said. “But we need to look at the big picture of how many lives can be saved by increasing the number of heart transplant procedures and the money saved by getting more patients off the waiting list.”

The authors explain that heart transplantation has traditionally been limited to the use of hearts obtained from donors after brain death, which allows in situ assessment of cardiac function and of the suitability for transplantation of the donor allograft before surgical procurement.

But because the need for heart transplants far exceeds the availability of suitable donors, the use of DCD hearts has been investigated and this approach is now being pursued in many countries. In the DCD approach, the heart will have stopped beating in the donor, and perfusion techniques are used to restart the organ.

There are two different approaches to restarting the heart in DCD. The first approach involves the heart being removed from the donor and reanimated, preserved, assessed, and transported with the use of a portable extracorporeal perfusion and preservation system (Organ Care System, TransMedics). The second involves restarting the heart in the donor’s body for evaluation before removal and transportation under the traditional cold storage method used for donations after brain death.

The current trial was designed to compare clinical outcomes in patients who had received a heart from a circulatory death donor using the portable extracorporeal perfusion method for DCD transplantation, with outcomes from the traditional method of heart transplantation using organs donated after brain death.

For the randomized, noninferiority trial, adult candidates for heart transplantation were assigned to receive a heart after the circulatory death of the donor or a heart from a donor after brain death if that heart was available first (circulatory-death group) or to receive only a heart that had been preserved with the use of traditional cold storage after the brain death of the donor (brain-death group).

The primary end point was the risk-adjusted survival at 6 months in the as-treated circulatory-death group, as compared with the brain-death group. The primary safety end point was serious adverse events associated with the heart graft at 30 days after transplantation.

A total of 180 patients underwent transplantation, 90 of whom received a heart donated after circulatory death and 90 who received a heart donated after brain death. A total of 166 transplant recipients were included in the as-treated primary analysis (80 who received a heart from a circulatory-death donor and 86 who received a heart from a brain-death donor).

The risk-adjusted 6-month survival in the as-treated population was 94% among recipients of a heart from a circulatory-death donor, as compared with 90% among recipients of a heart from a brain-death donor (P < .001 for noninferiority).

There were no substantial between-group differences in the mean per-patient number of serious adverse events associated with the heart graft at 30 days after transplantation.

Of 101 hearts from circulatory-death donors that were preserved with the use of the perfusion system, 90 were successfully transplanted according to the criteria for lactate trend and overall contractility of the donor heart, which resulted in overall utilization percentage of 89%.

More patients who received a heart from a circulatory-death donor had moderate or severe primary graft dysfunction (22%) than those who received a heart from a brain-death donor (10%). However, graft failure that resulted in retransplantation occurred in two (2.3%) patients who received a heart from a brain-death donor versus zero patients who received a heart from a circulatory-death donor.

The researchers note that the higher incidence of primary graft dysfunction in the circulatory-death group is expected, given the period of warm ischemia that occurs in this approach. But they point out that this did not affect patient or graft survival at 30 days or 1 year.

“Primary graft dysfunction is when the heart doesn’t fully work immediately after transplant and some mechanical support is needed,” Dr. Schroder commented to this news organization. “This occurred more often in the DCD group, but this mechanical support is only temporary, and generally only needed for a day or two.

“It looks like it might take the heart a little longer to start fully functioning after DCD, but our results show this doesn’t seem to affect recipient survival.”

He added: “We’ve started to become more comfortable with DCD. Sometimes it may take a little longer to get the heart working properly on its own, but the rate of mechanical support is now much lower than when we first started doing these procedures. And cardiac MRI on the recipient patients before discharge have shown that the DCD hearts are not more damaged than those from DBD donors.”

The authors also report that there were six donor hearts in the DCD group for which there were protocol deviations of functional warm ischemic time greater than 30 minutes or continuously rising lactate levels and these hearts did not show primary graft dysfunction.

On this observation, Dr. Schroder said: “I think we need to do more work on understanding the ischemic time limits. The current 30 minutes time limit was estimated in animal studies. We need to look more closely at data from actual DCD transplants. While 30 minutes may be too long for a heart from an older donor, the heart from a younger donor may be fine for a longer period of ischemic time as it will be healthier.”


 

“Exciting” results

In an editorial, Nancy K. Sweitzer, MD, PhD, vice chair of clinical research, department of medicine, and director of clinical research, division of cardiology, Washington University in St. Louis, describes the results of the current study as “exciting,” adding that, “They clearly show the feasibility and safety of transplantation of hearts from circulatory-death donors.”

However, Dr. Sweitzer points out that the sickest patients in the study – those who were United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) status 1 and 2 – were more likely to receive a DBD heart and the more stable patients (UNOS 3-6) were more likely to receive a DCD heart.

“This imbalance undoubtedly contributed to the success of the trial in meeting its noninferiority end point. Whether transplantation of hearts from circulatory-death donors is truly safe in our sickest patients with heart failure is not clear,” she says.

However, she concludes, “Although caution and continuous evaluation of data are warranted, the increased use of hearts from circulatory-death donors appears to be safe in the hands of experienced transplantation teams and will launch an exciting phase of learning and improvement.”

“A safely expanded pool of heart donors has the potential to increase fairness and equity in heart transplantation, allowing more persons with heart failure to have access to this lifesaving therapy,” she adds. “Organ donors and transplantation teams will save increasing numbers of lives with this most precious gift.”

The current study was supported by TransMedics. Dr. Schroder reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Heart transplantation using the new strategy of donation after circulatory death (DCD) resulted in similar 6-month survival among recipients as the traditional method of using hearts donated after brain death (DBD) in the first randomized trial comparing the two approaches.

“This randomized trial showing recipient survival with DCD to be similar to DBD should lead to DCD becoming the standard of care alongside DBD,” lead author Jacob Schroder, MD, surgical director, heart transplantation program, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said in an interview.

“This should enable many more heart transplants to take place and for us to be able to cast the net further and wider for donors,” he said.

The trial was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Dr. Schroder estimated that only around one-fifth of the 120 U.S. heart transplant centers currently carry out DCD transplants, but he is hopeful that the publication of this study will encourage more transplant centers to do these DCD procedures.

“The problem is there are many low-volume heart transplant centers, which may not be keen to do DCD transplants as they are a bit more complicated and expensive than DBD heart transplants,” he said. “But we need to look at the big picture of how many lives can be saved by increasing the number of heart transplant procedures and the money saved by getting more patients off the waiting list.”

The authors explain that heart transplantation has traditionally been limited to the use of hearts obtained from donors after brain death, which allows in situ assessment of cardiac function and of the suitability for transplantation of the donor allograft before surgical procurement.

But because the need for heart transplants far exceeds the availability of suitable donors, the use of DCD hearts has been investigated and this approach is now being pursued in many countries. In the DCD approach, the heart will have stopped beating in the donor, and perfusion techniques are used to restart the organ.

There are two different approaches to restarting the heart in DCD. The first approach involves the heart being removed from the donor and reanimated, preserved, assessed, and transported with the use of a portable extracorporeal perfusion and preservation system (Organ Care System, TransMedics). The second involves restarting the heart in the donor’s body for evaluation before removal and transportation under the traditional cold storage method used for donations after brain death.

The current trial was designed to compare clinical outcomes in patients who had received a heart from a circulatory death donor using the portable extracorporeal perfusion method for DCD transplantation, with outcomes from the traditional method of heart transplantation using organs donated after brain death.

For the randomized, noninferiority trial, adult candidates for heart transplantation were assigned to receive a heart after the circulatory death of the donor or a heart from a donor after brain death if that heart was available first (circulatory-death group) or to receive only a heart that had been preserved with the use of traditional cold storage after the brain death of the donor (brain-death group).

The primary end point was the risk-adjusted survival at 6 months in the as-treated circulatory-death group, as compared with the brain-death group. The primary safety end point was serious adverse events associated with the heart graft at 30 days after transplantation.

A total of 180 patients underwent transplantation, 90 of whom received a heart donated after circulatory death and 90 who received a heart donated after brain death. A total of 166 transplant recipients were included in the as-treated primary analysis (80 who received a heart from a circulatory-death donor and 86 who received a heart from a brain-death donor).

The risk-adjusted 6-month survival in the as-treated population was 94% among recipients of a heart from a circulatory-death donor, as compared with 90% among recipients of a heart from a brain-death donor (P < .001 for noninferiority).

There were no substantial between-group differences in the mean per-patient number of serious adverse events associated with the heart graft at 30 days after transplantation.

Of 101 hearts from circulatory-death donors that were preserved with the use of the perfusion system, 90 were successfully transplanted according to the criteria for lactate trend and overall contractility of the donor heart, which resulted in overall utilization percentage of 89%.

More patients who received a heart from a circulatory-death donor had moderate or severe primary graft dysfunction (22%) than those who received a heart from a brain-death donor (10%). However, graft failure that resulted in retransplantation occurred in two (2.3%) patients who received a heart from a brain-death donor versus zero patients who received a heart from a circulatory-death donor.

The researchers note that the higher incidence of primary graft dysfunction in the circulatory-death group is expected, given the period of warm ischemia that occurs in this approach. But they point out that this did not affect patient or graft survival at 30 days or 1 year.

“Primary graft dysfunction is when the heart doesn’t fully work immediately after transplant and some mechanical support is needed,” Dr. Schroder commented to this news organization. “This occurred more often in the DCD group, but this mechanical support is only temporary, and generally only needed for a day or two.

“It looks like it might take the heart a little longer to start fully functioning after DCD, but our results show this doesn’t seem to affect recipient survival.”

He added: “We’ve started to become more comfortable with DCD. Sometimes it may take a little longer to get the heart working properly on its own, but the rate of mechanical support is now much lower than when we first started doing these procedures. And cardiac MRI on the recipient patients before discharge have shown that the DCD hearts are not more damaged than those from DBD donors.”

The authors also report that there were six donor hearts in the DCD group for which there were protocol deviations of functional warm ischemic time greater than 30 minutes or continuously rising lactate levels and these hearts did not show primary graft dysfunction.

On this observation, Dr. Schroder said: “I think we need to do more work on understanding the ischemic time limits. The current 30 minutes time limit was estimated in animal studies. We need to look more closely at data from actual DCD transplants. While 30 minutes may be too long for a heart from an older donor, the heart from a younger donor may be fine for a longer period of ischemic time as it will be healthier.”


 

“Exciting” results

In an editorial, Nancy K. Sweitzer, MD, PhD, vice chair of clinical research, department of medicine, and director of clinical research, division of cardiology, Washington University in St. Louis, describes the results of the current study as “exciting,” adding that, “They clearly show the feasibility and safety of transplantation of hearts from circulatory-death donors.”

However, Dr. Sweitzer points out that the sickest patients in the study – those who were United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) status 1 and 2 – were more likely to receive a DBD heart and the more stable patients (UNOS 3-6) were more likely to receive a DCD heart.

“This imbalance undoubtedly contributed to the success of the trial in meeting its noninferiority end point. Whether transplantation of hearts from circulatory-death donors is truly safe in our sickest patients with heart failure is not clear,” she says.

However, she concludes, “Although caution and continuous evaluation of data are warranted, the increased use of hearts from circulatory-death donors appears to be safe in the hands of experienced transplantation teams and will launch an exciting phase of learning and improvement.”

“A safely expanded pool of heart donors has the potential to increase fairness and equity in heart transplantation, allowing more persons with heart failure to have access to this lifesaving therapy,” she adds. “Organ donors and transplantation teams will save increasing numbers of lives with this most precious gift.”

The current study was supported by TransMedics. Dr. Schroder reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

The ways in which artificial intelligence (AI) may transform the future of medicine is making headlines across the globe. But chances are, you’re already using AI in your practice every day – you may just not realize it.
 

And whether you recognize the presence of AI or not, the technology could be putting you in danger of a lawsuit, legal experts say.

The use of AI in your daily practice can come with hidden liabilities, say legal experts, and as hospitals and medical groups deploy AI into more areas of health care, new liability exposures may be on the horizon.

“For physicians, AI has also not yet drastically changed or improved the way care is provided or consumed,” said Michael LeTang, chief nursing informatics officer and vice president of risk management and patient safety at Healthcare Risk Advisors, part of TDC Group. “Consequently, it may seem like AI is not present in their work streams, but in reality, it has been utilized in health care for several years. As AI technologies continue to develop and become more sophisticated, we can expect them to play an increasingly significant role in health care.”

Today, most AI applications in health care use narrow AI, which is designed to complete a single task without human assistance, as opposed to artificial general intelligence (AGI), which pertains to human-level reasoning and problem solving across a broad spectrum. Here are some ways doctors are using AI throughout the day – sometimes being aware of its assistance, and sometimes being unaware:

• Many doctors use electronic health records (EHRs) with integrated AI that include computerized clinical decision support tools designed to reduce the risk of diagnostic error and to integrate decision-making in the medication ordering function.
• Cardiologists, pathologists, and dermatologists use AI in the interpretation of vast amounts of images, tracings, and complex patterns.
• Surgeons are using AI-enhanced surgical robotics for orthopedic surgeries, such as joint replacement and spine surgery.
• A growing number of doctors are using ChatGPT to assist in drafting prior authorization letters for insurers. Experts say more doctors are also experimenting with ChatGPT to support medical decision-making.
• Within oncology, physicians use machine learning techniques in the form of computer-aided detection systems for early breast cancer detection.
• AI algorithms are often used by health systems for workflow, staffing optimization, population management, and care coordination.
• Some systems within EHRs use AI to indicate high-risk patients.
• Physicians are using AI applications for the early recognition of sepsis, including EHR-integrated decision tools, such as the Hospital Corporation of America Healthcare’s Sepsis Prediction and Optimization Therapy and the Sepsis Early Risk Assessment algorithm.
• About 30% of radiologists use AI in their practice to analyze x-rays and CT scans.
• Epic Systems recently announced a partnership with Microsoft to integrate ChatGPT into MyChart, Epic’s patient portal system. Pilot hospitals will utilize ChatGPT to automatically generate responses to patient-generated questions sent via the portal.

The growth of AI in health care has been enormous, and it’s only going to continue, said Ravi B. Parikh, MD, an assistant professor in the department of medical ethics and health policy and medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“What’s really critical is that physicians, clinicians, and nurses using AI are provided with the tools to understand how artificial intelligence works and, most importantly, understand that they are still accountable for making the ultimate decision,” Mr. LeTang said, “The information is not always going to be the right thing to do or the most accurate thing to do. They’re still liable for making a bad decision, even if AI is driving that.”
 

What are the top AI legal dangers of today?

A pressing legal risk is becoming too reliant on the suggestions that AI-based systems provide, which can lead to poor care decisions, said Kenneth Rashbaum, a New York–based cybersecurity attorney with more than 25 years of experience in medical malpractice defense.

This can occur, for example, when using clinical support systems that leverage AI, machine learning, or statistical pattern recognition. Today, clinical support systems are commonly administered through EHRs and other computerized clinical workflows. In general, such systems match a patient’s characteristics to a computerized clinical knowledge base. An assessment or recommendation is then presented to the physician for a decision.

“If the clinician blindly accepts it without considering whether it’s appropriate for this patient at this time with this presentation, the clinician may bear some responsibility if there is an untoward result,” Mr. Rashbaum said.

“A common claim even in the days before the EMR [electronic medical record] and AI, was that the clinician did not take all available information into account in rendering treatment, including history of past and present condition, as reflected in the records, communication with past and other present treating clinicians, lab and radiology results, discussions with the patient, and physical examination findings,” he said. “So, if the clinician relied upon the support prompt to the exclusion of these other sources of information, that could be a very strong argument for the plaintiff.”

Chatbots, such OpenAI’s ChatGPT, are another form of AI raising legal red flags. ChatGPT, trained on a massive set of text data, can carry out conversations, write code, draft emails, and answer any question posed. The chatbot has gained considerable credibility for accurately diagnosing rare conditions in seconds, and it recently passed the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination.

It’s unclear how many doctors are signing onto the ChatGPT website daily, but physicians are actively using the chatbot, particularly for assistance with prior authorization letters and to support decision-making processes in their practices, said Mr. LeTang.

When physicians ask ChatGPT a question, however, they should be mindful that ChatGPT could “hallucinate,” a term that refers to a generated response that sounds plausible but is factually incorrect or is unrelated to the context, explains Harvey Castro, MD, an emergency physician, ChatGPT health care expert, and author of the 2023 book “ChatGPT and Healthcare: Unlocking the Potential of Patient Empowerment.”

Acting on ChatGPT’s response without vetting the information places doctors at serious risk of a lawsuit, he said.

“Sometimes, the response is half true and half false,” he said. “Say, I go outside my specialty of emergency medicine and ask it about a pediatric surgical procedure. It could give me a response that sounds medically correct, but then I ask a pediatric cardiologist, and he says, ‘We don’t even do this. This doesn’t even exist!’ Physicians really have to make sure they are vetting the information provided.”

In response to ChatGPT’s growing usage by health care professionals, hospitals and practices are quickly implementing guidelines, policies, and restrictions that caution physicians about the accuracy of ChatGPT-generated information, adds Mr. LeTang.

Emerging best practices include avoiding the input of patient health information, personally identifiable information, or any data that could be commercially valuable or considered the intellectual property of a hospital or health system, he said.

“Another crucial guideline is not to rely solely on ChatGPT as a definitive source for clinical decision-making; physicians must exercise their professional judgment,” he said. “If best practices are not adhered to, the associated risks are present today. However, these risks may become more significant as AI technologies continue to evolve and become increasingly integrated into health care.”

The potential for misdiagnosis by AI systems and the risk of unnecessary procedures if physicians do not thoroughly evaluate and validate AI predictions are other dangers.

As an example, Mr. LeTang described a case in which a physician documents in the EHR that a patient has presented to the emergency department with chest pains and other signs of a heart attack, and an AI algorithm predicts that the patient is experiencing an active myocardial infarction. If the physician then sends the patient for stenting or an angioplasty without other concrete evidence or tests to confirm the diagnosis, the doctor could later face a misdiagnosis complaint if the costly procedures were unnecessary.

“That’s one of the risks of using artificial intelligence,” he said. “A large percentage of malpractice claims is failure to diagnose, delayed diagnosis, or inaccurate diagnosis. What falls in the category of failure to diagnose is sending a patient for an unnecessary procedure or having an adverse event or bad outcome because of the failure to diagnose.”

So far, no AI lawsuits have been filed, but they may make an appearance soon, said Sue Boisvert, senior patient safety risk manager at The Doctors Company, a national medical liability insurer.

“There are hundreds of AI programs currently in use in health care,” she said. “At some point, a provider will make a decision that is contrary to what the AI recommended. The AI may be wrong, or the provider may be wrong. Either way, the provider will neglect to document their clinical reasoning, a patient will be harmed, and we will have the first AI claim.”
 

Upcoming AI legal risks to watch for

Lawsuits that allege biased patient care by physicians on the basis of algorithmic bias may also be forthcoming, analysts warn.

Much has been written about algorithmic bias that compounds and worsens inequities in socioeconomic status, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender in health systems. In 2019, a groundbreaking article in Science shed light on commonly used algorithms that are considered racially biased and how health care professionals often use such information to make medical decisions.

No claims involving AI bias have come down the pipeline yet, but it’s an area to watch, said Ms. Boisvert. She noted a website that highlights complaints and accusations of AI bias, including in health care.

“We need to be sure the training of the AI is appropriate, current, and broad enough so that there is no bias in the AI when it’s participating in the decision-making,” said Ms. Boisvert. “Imagine if the AI is diagnosing based on a dataset that is not local. It doesn’t represent the population at that particular hospital, and it’s providing inaccurate information to the physicians who are then making decisions about treatment.”

In pain management, for example, there are known differences in how patients experience pain, Ms. Boisvert said. If AI was being used to develop an algorithm for how a particular patient’s postoperative pain should be managed, and the algorithm did not include the differences, the pain control for a certain patient could be inappropriate. A poor outcome resulting from the treatment could lead to a claim against the physician or hospital that used the biased AI system, she said.

In the future, as AI becomes more integrated and accepted in medicine, there may be a risk of legal complaints against doctors for not using AI, said Saurabh Jha, MD, an associate professor of radiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and a scholar of AI in radiology.

“Ultimately, we might get to a place where AI starts helping physicians detect more or reduce the miss of certain conditions, and it becomes the standard of care,” Dr. Jha said. “For example, if it became part of the standard of care for pulmonary embolism [PE] detection, and you didn’t use it for PE detection, and there was a miss. That could put you at legal risk. We’re not at that stage yet, but that is one future possibility.”

Dr. Parikh envisions an even cloudier liability landscape as the potential grows for AI to control patient care decisions. In such a scenario, rather than just issuing an alert or prediction to a physician, the AI system could trigger an action.

For instance, if an algorithm is trained to predict sepsis and, once triggered, the AI could initiate a nurse-led rapid response or a change in patient care outside the clinician’s control, said Dr. Parikh, who coauthored a recent article on AI and medical liability in The Milbank Quarterly.

“That’s still very much the minority of how AI is being used, but as evidence is growing that AI-based diagnostic tools perform equivalent or even superior to physicians, these autonomous workflows are being considered,” Dr. Parikh said. “When the ultimate action upon the patient is more determined by the AI than what the clinician does, then I think the liability picture gets murkier, and we should be thinking about how we can respond to that from a liability framework.”
 

How you can prevent AI-related lawsuits

The first step to preventing an AI-related claim is being aware of when and how you are using AI.

Ensure you’re informed about how the AI was trained, Ms. Boisvert stresses.

“Ask questions!” she said. “Is the AI safe? Are the recommendations accurate? Does the AI perform better than current systems? In what way? What databases were used, and did the programmers consider bias? Do I understand how to use the results?”

Never blindly trust the AI but rather view it as a data point in a medical decision, said Dr. Parikh. Ensure that other sources of medical information are properly accessed and that best practices for your specialty are still being followed.

When using any form of AI, document your usage, adds Mr. Rashbaum. A record that clearly outlines how the physician incorporated the AI is critical if a claim later arises in which the doctor is accused of AI-related malpractice, he said.

“Indicating how the AI tool was used, why it was used, and that it was used in conjunction with available clinical information and the clinician’s best judgment could reduce the risk of being found responsible as a result of AI use in a particular case,” he said.

Use chatbots, such as ChatGPT, the way they were intended, as support tools, rather than definitive diagnostic instruments, adds Dr. Castro.

“Doctors should also be well-trained in interpreting and understanding the suggestions provided by ChatGPT and should use their clinical judgment and experience alongside the AI tool for more accurate decision-making,” he said.

In addition, because no AI insurance product exists on the market, physicians and organizations using AI – particularly for direct health care – should evaluate their current insurance or insurance-like products to determine where a claim involving AI might fall and whether the policy would respond, said Ms. Boisvert. The AI vendor/manufacturer will likely have indemnified themselves in the purchase and sale agreement or contract, she said.

It will also become increasingly important for medical practices, hospitals, and health systems to put in place strong data governance strategies, Mr. LeTang said.

“AI relies on good data,” he said. “A data governance strategy is a key component to making sure we understand where the data is coming from, what is represents, how accurate it is, if it’s reproducible, what controls are in place to ensure the right people have the right access, and that if we’re starting to use it to build algorithms, that it’s deidentified.”

While no malpractice claims associated with the use of AI have yet surfaced, this may change as legal courts catch up on the backlog of malpractice claims that were delayed because of COVID-19, and even more so as AI becomes more prevalent in health care, Mr. LeTang said.

“Similar to the attention that autonomous driving systems, like Tesla, receive when the system fails and accidents occur, we can be assured that media outlets will widely publicize AI-related medical adverse events,” he said. “It is crucial for health care professionals, AI developers, and regulatory authorities to work together to ensure the responsible use of AI in health care, with patient safety as the top priority. By doing so, they can mitigate the risks associated with AI implementation and minimize the potential for legal disputes arising from AI-related medical errors.”

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

The ways in which artificial intelligence (AI) may transform the future of medicine is making headlines across the globe. But chances are, you’re already using AI in your practice every day – you may just not realize it.
 

And whether you recognize the presence of AI or not, the technology could be putting you in danger of a lawsuit, legal experts say.

The use of AI in your daily practice can come with hidden liabilities, say legal experts, and as hospitals and medical groups deploy AI into more areas of health care, new liability exposures may be on the horizon.

“For physicians, AI has also not yet drastically changed or improved the way care is provided or consumed,” said Michael LeTang, chief nursing informatics officer and vice president of risk management and patient safety at Healthcare Risk Advisors, part of TDC Group. “Consequently, it may seem like AI is not present in their work streams, but in reality, it has been utilized in health care for several years. As AI technologies continue to develop and become more sophisticated, we can expect them to play an increasingly significant role in health care.”

Today, most AI applications in health care use narrow AI, which is designed to complete a single task without human assistance, as opposed to artificial general intelligence (AGI), which pertains to human-level reasoning and problem solving across a broad spectrum. Here are some ways doctors are using AI throughout the day – sometimes being aware of its assistance, and sometimes being unaware:

• Many doctors use electronic health records (EHRs) with integrated AI that include computerized clinical decision support tools designed to reduce the risk of diagnostic error and to integrate decision-making in the medication ordering function.
• Cardiologists, pathologists, and dermatologists use AI in the interpretation of vast amounts of images, tracings, and complex patterns.
• Surgeons are using AI-enhanced surgical robotics for orthopedic surgeries, such as joint replacement and spine surgery.
• A growing number of doctors are using ChatGPT to assist in drafting prior authorization letters for insurers. Experts say more doctors are also experimenting with ChatGPT to support medical decision-making.
• Within oncology, physicians use machine learning techniques in the form of computer-aided detection systems for early breast cancer detection.
• AI algorithms are often used by health systems for workflow, staffing optimization, population management, and care coordination.
• Some systems within EHRs use AI to indicate high-risk patients.
• Physicians are using AI applications for the early recognition of sepsis, including EHR-integrated decision tools, such as the Hospital Corporation of America Healthcare’s Sepsis Prediction and Optimization Therapy and the Sepsis Early Risk Assessment algorithm.
• About 30% of radiologists use AI in their practice to analyze x-rays and CT scans.
• Epic Systems recently announced a partnership with Microsoft to integrate ChatGPT into MyChart, Epic’s patient portal system. Pilot hospitals will utilize ChatGPT to automatically generate responses to patient-generated questions sent via the portal.

The growth of AI in health care has been enormous, and it’s only going to continue, said Ravi B. Parikh, MD, an assistant professor in the department of medical ethics and health policy and medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“What’s really critical is that physicians, clinicians, and nurses using AI are provided with the tools to understand how artificial intelligence works and, most importantly, understand that they are still accountable for making the ultimate decision,” Mr. LeTang said, “The information is not always going to be the right thing to do or the most accurate thing to do. They’re still liable for making a bad decision, even if AI is driving that.”
 

What are the top AI legal dangers of today?

A pressing legal risk is becoming too reliant on the suggestions that AI-based systems provide, which can lead to poor care decisions, said Kenneth Rashbaum, a New York–based cybersecurity attorney with more than 25 years of experience in medical malpractice defense.

This can occur, for example, when using clinical support systems that leverage AI, machine learning, or statistical pattern recognition. Today, clinical support systems are commonly administered through EHRs and other computerized clinical workflows. In general, such systems match a patient’s characteristics to a computerized clinical knowledge base. An assessment or recommendation is then presented to the physician for a decision.

“If the clinician blindly accepts it without considering whether it’s appropriate for this patient at this time with this presentation, the clinician may bear some responsibility if there is an untoward result,” Mr. Rashbaum said.

“A common claim even in the days before the EMR [electronic medical record] and AI, was that the clinician did not take all available information into account in rendering treatment, including history of past and present condition, as reflected in the records, communication with past and other present treating clinicians, lab and radiology results, discussions with the patient, and physical examination findings,” he said. “So, if the clinician relied upon the support prompt to the exclusion of these other sources of information, that could be a very strong argument for the plaintiff.”

Chatbots, such OpenAI’s ChatGPT, are another form of AI raising legal red flags. ChatGPT, trained on a massive set of text data, can carry out conversations, write code, draft emails, and answer any question posed. The chatbot has gained considerable credibility for accurately diagnosing rare conditions in seconds, and it recently passed the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination.

It’s unclear how many doctors are signing onto the ChatGPT website daily, but physicians are actively using the chatbot, particularly for assistance with prior authorization letters and to support decision-making processes in their practices, said Mr. LeTang.

When physicians ask ChatGPT a question, however, they should be mindful that ChatGPT could “hallucinate,” a term that refers to a generated response that sounds plausible but is factually incorrect or is unrelated to the context, explains Harvey Castro, MD, an emergency physician, ChatGPT health care expert, and author of the 2023 book “ChatGPT and Healthcare: Unlocking the Potential of Patient Empowerment.”

Acting on ChatGPT’s response without vetting the information places doctors at serious risk of a lawsuit, he said.

“Sometimes, the response is half true and half false,” he said. “Say, I go outside my specialty of emergency medicine and ask it about a pediatric surgical procedure. It could give me a response that sounds medically correct, but then I ask a pediatric cardiologist, and he says, ‘We don’t even do this. This doesn’t even exist!’ Physicians really have to make sure they are vetting the information provided.”

In response to ChatGPT’s growing usage by health care professionals, hospitals and practices are quickly implementing guidelines, policies, and restrictions that caution physicians about the accuracy of ChatGPT-generated information, adds Mr. LeTang.

Emerging best practices include avoiding the input of patient health information, personally identifiable information, or any data that could be commercially valuable or considered the intellectual property of a hospital or health system, he said.

“Another crucial guideline is not to rely solely on ChatGPT as a definitive source for clinical decision-making; physicians must exercise their professional judgment,” he said. “If best practices are not adhered to, the associated risks are present today. However, these risks may become more significant as AI technologies continue to evolve and become increasingly integrated into health care.”

The potential for misdiagnosis by AI systems and the risk of unnecessary procedures if physicians do not thoroughly evaluate and validate AI predictions are other dangers.

As an example, Mr. LeTang described a case in which a physician documents in the EHR that a patient has presented to the emergency department with chest pains and other signs of a heart attack, and an AI algorithm predicts that the patient is experiencing an active myocardial infarction. If the physician then sends the patient for stenting or an angioplasty without other concrete evidence or tests to confirm the diagnosis, the doctor could later face a misdiagnosis complaint if the costly procedures were unnecessary.

“That’s one of the risks of using artificial intelligence,” he said. “A large percentage of malpractice claims is failure to diagnose, delayed diagnosis, or inaccurate diagnosis. What falls in the category of failure to diagnose is sending a patient for an unnecessary procedure or having an adverse event or bad outcome because of the failure to diagnose.”

So far, no AI lawsuits have been filed, but they may make an appearance soon, said Sue Boisvert, senior patient safety risk manager at The Doctors Company, a national medical liability insurer.

“There are hundreds of AI programs currently in use in health care,” she said. “At some point, a provider will make a decision that is contrary to what the AI recommended. The AI may be wrong, or the provider may be wrong. Either way, the provider will neglect to document their clinical reasoning, a patient will be harmed, and we will have the first AI claim.”
 

Upcoming AI legal risks to watch for

Lawsuits that allege biased patient care by physicians on the basis of algorithmic bias may also be forthcoming, analysts warn.

Much has been written about algorithmic bias that compounds and worsens inequities in socioeconomic status, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender in health systems. In 2019, a groundbreaking article in Science shed light on commonly used algorithms that are considered racially biased and how health care professionals often use such information to make medical decisions.

No claims involving AI bias have come down the pipeline yet, but it’s an area to watch, said Ms. Boisvert. She noted a website that highlights complaints and accusations of AI bias, including in health care.

“We need to be sure the training of the AI is appropriate, current, and broad enough so that there is no bias in the AI when it’s participating in the decision-making,” said Ms. Boisvert. “Imagine if the AI is diagnosing based on a dataset that is not local. It doesn’t represent the population at that particular hospital, and it’s providing inaccurate information to the physicians who are then making decisions about treatment.”

In pain management, for example, there are known differences in how patients experience pain, Ms. Boisvert said. If AI was being used to develop an algorithm for how a particular patient’s postoperative pain should be managed, and the algorithm did not include the differences, the pain control for a certain patient could be inappropriate. A poor outcome resulting from the treatment could lead to a claim against the physician or hospital that used the biased AI system, she said.

In the future, as AI becomes more integrated and accepted in medicine, there may be a risk of legal complaints against doctors for not using AI, said Saurabh Jha, MD, an associate professor of radiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and a scholar of AI in radiology.

“Ultimately, we might get to a place where AI starts helping physicians detect more or reduce the miss of certain conditions, and it becomes the standard of care,” Dr. Jha said. “For example, if it became part of the standard of care for pulmonary embolism [PE] detection, and you didn’t use it for PE detection, and there was a miss. That could put you at legal risk. We’re not at that stage yet, but that is one future possibility.”

Dr. Parikh envisions an even cloudier liability landscape as the potential grows for AI to control patient care decisions. In such a scenario, rather than just issuing an alert or prediction to a physician, the AI system could trigger an action.

For instance, if an algorithm is trained to predict sepsis and, once triggered, the AI could initiate a nurse-led rapid response or a change in patient care outside the clinician’s control, said Dr. Parikh, who coauthored a recent article on AI and medical liability in The Milbank Quarterly.

“That’s still very much the minority of how AI is being used, but as evidence is growing that AI-based diagnostic tools perform equivalent or even superior to physicians, these autonomous workflows are being considered,” Dr. Parikh said. “When the ultimate action upon the patient is more determined by the AI than what the clinician does, then I think the liability picture gets murkier, and we should be thinking about how we can respond to that from a liability framework.”
 

How you can prevent AI-related lawsuits

The first step to preventing an AI-related claim is being aware of when and how you are using AI.

Ensure you’re informed about how the AI was trained, Ms. Boisvert stresses.

“Ask questions!” she said. “Is the AI safe? Are the recommendations accurate? Does the AI perform better than current systems? In what way? What databases were used, and did the programmers consider bias? Do I understand how to use the results?”

Never blindly trust the AI but rather view it as a data point in a medical decision, said Dr. Parikh. Ensure that other sources of medical information are properly accessed and that best practices for your specialty are still being followed.

When using any form of AI, document your usage, adds Mr. Rashbaum. A record that clearly outlines how the physician incorporated the AI is critical if a claim later arises in which the doctor is accused of AI-related malpractice, he said.

“Indicating how the AI tool was used, why it was used, and that it was used in conjunction with available clinical information and the clinician’s best judgment could reduce the risk of being found responsible as a result of AI use in a particular case,” he said.

Use chatbots, such as ChatGPT, the way they were intended, as support tools, rather than definitive diagnostic instruments, adds Dr. Castro.

“Doctors should also be well-trained in interpreting and understanding the suggestions provided by ChatGPT and should use their clinical judgment and experience alongside the AI tool for more accurate decision-making,” he said.

In addition, because no AI insurance product exists on the market, physicians and organizations using AI – particularly for direct health care – should evaluate their current insurance or insurance-like products to determine where a claim involving AI might fall and whether the policy would respond, said Ms. Boisvert. The AI vendor/manufacturer will likely have indemnified themselves in the purchase and sale agreement or contract, she said.

It will also become increasingly important for medical practices, hospitals, and health systems to put in place strong data governance strategies, Mr. LeTang said.

“AI relies on good data,” he said. “A data governance strategy is a key component to making sure we understand where the data is coming from, what is represents, how accurate it is, if it’s reproducible, what controls are in place to ensure the right people have the right access, and that if we’re starting to use it to build algorithms, that it’s deidentified.”

While no malpractice claims associated with the use of AI have yet surfaced, this may change as legal courts catch up on the backlog of malpractice claims that were delayed because of COVID-19, and even more so as AI becomes more prevalent in health care, Mr. LeTang said.

“Similar to the attention that autonomous driving systems, like Tesla, receive when the system fails and accidents occur, we can be assured that media outlets will widely publicize AI-related medical adverse events,” he said. “It is crucial for health care professionals, AI developers, and regulatory authorities to work together to ensure the responsible use of AI in health care, with patient safety as the top priority. By doing so, they can mitigate the risks associated with AI implementation and minimize the potential for legal disputes arising from AI-related medical errors.”

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

The ways in which artificial intelligence (AI) may transform the future of medicine is making headlines across the globe. But chances are, you’re already using AI in your practice every day – you may just not realize it.
 

And whether you recognize the presence of AI or not, the technology could be putting you in danger of a lawsuit, legal experts say.

The use of AI in your daily practice can come with hidden liabilities, say legal experts, and as hospitals and medical groups deploy AI into more areas of health care, new liability exposures may be on the horizon.

“For physicians, AI has also not yet drastically changed or improved the way care is provided or consumed,” said Michael LeTang, chief nursing informatics officer and vice president of risk management and patient safety at Healthcare Risk Advisors, part of TDC Group. “Consequently, it may seem like AI is not present in their work streams, but in reality, it has been utilized in health care for several years. As AI technologies continue to develop and become more sophisticated, we can expect them to play an increasingly significant role in health care.”

Today, most AI applications in health care use narrow AI, which is designed to complete a single task without human assistance, as opposed to artificial general intelligence (AGI), which pertains to human-level reasoning and problem solving across a broad spectrum. Here are some ways doctors are using AI throughout the day – sometimes being aware of its assistance, and sometimes being unaware:

• Many doctors use electronic health records (EHRs) with integrated AI that include computerized clinical decision support tools designed to reduce the risk of diagnostic error and to integrate decision-making in the medication ordering function.
• Cardiologists, pathologists, and dermatologists use AI in the interpretation of vast amounts of images, tracings, and complex patterns.
• Surgeons are using AI-enhanced surgical robotics for orthopedic surgeries, such as joint replacement and spine surgery.
• A growing number of doctors are using ChatGPT to assist in drafting prior authorization letters for insurers. Experts say more doctors are also experimenting with ChatGPT to support medical decision-making.
• Within oncology, physicians use machine learning techniques in the form of computer-aided detection systems for early breast cancer detection.
• AI algorithms are often used by health systems for workflow, staffing optimization, population management, and care coordination.
• Some systems within EHRs use AI to indicate high-risk patients.
• Physicians are using AI applications for the early recognition of sepsis, including EHR-integrated decision tools, such as the Hospital Corporation of America Healthcare’s Sepsis Prediction and Optimization Therapy and the Sepsis Early Risk Assessment algorithm.
• About 30% of radiologists use AI in their practice to analyze x-rays and CT scans.
• Epic Systems recently announced a partnership with Microsoft to integrate ChatGPT into MyChart, Epic’s patient portal system. Pilot hospitals will utilize ChatGPT to automatically generate responses to patient-generated questions sent via the portal.

The growth of AI in health care has been enormous, and it’s only going to continue, said Ravi B. Parikh, MD, an assistant professor in the department of medical ethics and health policy and medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

“What’s really critical is that physicians, clinicians, and nurses using AI are provided with the tools to understand how artificial intelligence works and, most importantly, understand that they are still accountable for making the ultimate decision,” Mr. LeTang said, “The information is not always going to be the right thing to do or the most accurate thing to do. They’re still liable for making a bad decision, even if AI is driving that.”
 

What are the top AI legal dangers of today?

A pressing legal risk is becoming too reliant on the suggestions that AI-based systems provide, which can lead to poor care decisions, said Kenneth Rashbaum, a New York–based cybersecurity attorney with more than 25 years of experience in medical malpractice defense.

This can occur, for example, when using clinical support systems that leverage AI, machine learning, or statistical pattern recognition. Today, clinical support systems are commonly administered through EHRs and other computerized clinical workflows. In general, such systems match a patient’s characteristics to a computerized clinical knowledge base. An assessment or recommendation is then presented to the physician for a decision.

“If the clinician blindly accepts it without considering whether it’s appropriate for this patient at this time with this presentation, the clinician may bear some responsibility if there is an untoward result,” Mr. Rashbaum said.

“A common claim even in the days before the EMR [electronic medical record] and AI, was that the clinician did not take all available information into account in rendering treatment, including history of past and present condition, as reflected in the records, communication with past and other present treating clinicians, lab and radiology results, discussions with the patient, and physical examination findings,” he said. “So, if the clinician relied upon the support prompt to the exclusion of these other sources of information, that could be a very strong argument for the plaintiff.”

Chatbots, such OpenAI’s ChatGPT, are another form of AI raising legal red flags. ChatGPT, trained on a massive set of text data, can carry out conversations, write code, draft emails, and answer any question posed. The chatbot has gained considerable credibility for accurately diagnosing rare conditions in seconds, and it recently passed the U.S. Medical Licensing Examination.

It’s unclear how many doctors are signing onto the ChatGPT website daily, but physicians are actively using the chatbot, particularly for assistance with prior authorization letters and to support decision-making processes in their practices, said Mr. LeTang.

When physicians ask ChatGPT a question, however, they should be mindful that ChatGPT could “hallucinate,” a term that refers to a generated response that sounds plausible but is factually incorrect or is unrelated to the context, explains Harvey Castro, MD, an emergency physician, ChatGPT health care expert, and author of the 2023 book “ChatGPT and Healthcare: Unlocking the Potential of Patient Empowerment.”

Acting on ChatGPT’s response without vetting the information places doctors at serious risk of a lawsuit, he said.

“Sometimes, the response is half true and half false,” he said. “Say, I go outside my specialty of emergency medicine and ask it about a pediatric surgical procedure. It could give me a response that sounds medically correct, but then I ask a pediatric cardiologist, and he says, ‘We don’t even do this. This doesn’t even exist!’ Physicians really have to make sure they are vetting the information provided.”

In response to ChatGPT’s growing usage by health care professionals, hospitals and practices are quickly implementing guidelines, policies, and restrictions that caution physicians about the accuracy of ChatGPT-generated information, adds Mr. LeTang.

Emerging best practices include avoiding the input of patient health information, personally identifiable information, or any data that could be commercially valuable or considered the intellectual property of a hospital or health system, he said.

“Another crucial guideline is not to rely solely on ChatGPT as a definitive source for clinical decision-making; physicians must exercise their professional judgment,” he said. “If best practices are not adhered to, the associated risks are present today. However, these risks may become more significant as AI technologies continue to evolve and become increasingly integrated into health care.”

The potential for misdiagnosis by AI systems and the risk of unnecessary procedures if physicians do not thoroughly evaluate and validate AI predictions are other dangers.

As an example, Mr. LeTang described a case in which a physician documents in the EHR that a patient has presented to the emergency department with chest pains and other signs of a heart attack, and an AI algorithm predicts that the patient is experiencing an active myocardial infarction. If the physician then sends the patient for stenting or an angioplasty without other concrete evidence or tests to confirm the diagnosis, the doctor could later face a misdiagnosis complaint if the costly procedures were unnecessary.

“That’s one of the risks of using artificial intelligence,” he said. “A large percentage of malpractice claims is failure to diagnose, delayed diagnosis, or inaccurate diagnosis. What falls in the category of failure to diagnose is sending a patient for an unnecessary procedure or having an adverse event or bad outcome because of the failure to diagnose.”

So far, no AI lawsuits have been filed, but they may make an appearance soon, said Sue Boisvert, senior patient safety risk manager at The Doctors Company, a national medical liability insurer.

“There are hundreds of AI programs currently in use in health care,” she said. “At some point, a provider will make a decision that is contrary to what the AI recommended. The AI may be wrong, or the provider may be wrong. Either way, the provider will neglect to document their clinical reasoning, a patient will be harmed, and we will have the first AI claim.”
 

Upcoming AI legal risks to watch for

Lawsuits that allege biased patient care by physicians on the basis of algorithmic bias may also be forthcoming, analysts warn.

Much has been written about algorithmic bias that compounds and worsens inequities in socioeconomic status, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender in health systems. In 2019, a groundbreaking article in Science shed light on commonly used algorithms that are considered racially biased and how health care professionals often use such information to make medical decisions.

No claims involving AI bias have come down the pipeline yet, but it’s an area to watch, said Ms. Boisvert. She noted a website that highlights complaints and accusations of AI bias, including in health care.

“We need to be sure the training of the AI is appropriate, current, and broad enough so that there is no bias in the AI when it’s participating in the decision-making,” said Ms. Boisvert. “Imagine if the AI is diagnosing based on a dataset that is not local. It doesn’t represent the population at that particular hospital, and it’s providing inaccurate information to the physicians who are then making decisions about treatment.”

In pain management, for example, there are known differences in how patients experience pain, Ms. Boisvert said. If AI was being used to develop an algorithm for how a particular patient’s postoperative pain should be managed, and the algorithm did not include the differences, the pain control for a certain patient could be inappropriate. A poor outcome resulting from the treatment could lead to a claim against the physician or hospital that used the biased AI system, she said.

In the future, as AI becomes more integrated and accepted in medicine, there may be a risk of legal complaints against doctors for not using AI, said Saurabh Jha, MD, an associate professor of radiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and a scholar of AI in radiology.

“Ultimately, we might get to a place where AI starts helping physicians detect more or reduce the miss of certain conditions, and it becomes the standard of care,” Dr. Jha said. “For example, if it became part of the standard of care for pulmonary embolism [PE] detection, and you didn’t use it for PE detection, and there was a miss. That could put you at legal risk. We’re not at that stage yet, but that is one future possibility.”

Dr. Parikh envisions an even cloudier liability landscape as the potential grows for AI to control patient care decisions. In such a scenario, rather than just issuing an alert or prediction to a physician, the AI system could trigger an action.

For instance, if an algorithm is trained to predict sepsis and, once triggered, the AI could initiate a nurse-led rapid response or a change in patient care outside the clinician’s control, said Dr. Parikh, who coauthored a recent article on AI and medical liability in The Milbank Quarterly.

“That’s still very much the minority of how AI is being used, but as evidence is growing that AI-based diagnostic tools perform equivalent or even superior to physicians, these autonomous workflows are being considered,” Dr. Parikh said. “When the ultimate action upon the patient is more determined by the AI than what the clinician does, then I think the liability picture gets murkier, and we should be thinking about how we can respond to that from a liability framework.”
 

How you can prevent AI-related lawsuits

The first step to preventing an AI-related claim is being aware of when and how you are using AI.

Ensure you’re informed about how the AI was trained, Ms. Boisvert stresses.

“Ask questions!” she said. “Is the AI safe? Are the recommendations accurate? Does the AI perform better than current systems? In what way? What databases were used, and did the programmers consider bias? Do I understand how to use the results?”

Never blindly trust the AI but rather view it as a data point in a medical decision, said Dr. Parikh. Ensure that other sources of medical information are properly accessed and that best practices for your specialty are still being followed.

When using any form of AI, document your usage, adds Mr. Rashbaum. A record that clearly outlines how the physician incorporated the AI is critical if a claim later arises in which the doctor is accused of AI-related malpractice, he said.

“Indicating how the AI tool was used, why it was used, and that it was used in conjunction with available clinical information and the clinician’s best judgment could reduce the risk of being found responsible as a result of AI use in a particular case,” he said.

Use chatbots, such as ChatGPT, the way they were intended, as support tools, rather than definitive diagnostic instruments, adds Dr. Castro.

“Doctors should also be well-trained in interpreting and understanding the suggestions provided by ChatGPT and should use their clinical judgment and experience alongside the AI tool for more accurate decision-making,” he said.

In addition, because no AI insurance product exists on the market, physicians and organizations using AI – particularly for direct health care – should evaluate their current insurance or insurance-like products to determine where a claim involving AI might fall and whether the policy would respond, said Ms. Boisvert. The AI vendor/manufacturer will likely have indemnified themselves in the purchase and sale agreement or contract, she said.

It will also become increasingly important for medical practices, hospitals, and health systems to put in place strong data governance strategies, Mr. LeTang said.

“AI relies on good data,” he said. “A data governance strategy is a key component to making sure we understand where the data is coming from, what is represents, how accurate it is, if it’s reproducible, what controls are in place to ensure the right people have the right access, and that if we’re starting to use it to build algorithms, that it’s deidentified.”

While no malpractice claims associated with the use of AI have yet surfaced, this may change as legal courts catch up on the backlog of malpractice claims that were delayed because of COVID-19, and even more so as AI becomes more prevalent in health care, Mr. LeTang said.

“Similar to the attention that autonomous driving systems, like Tesla, receive when the system fails and accidents occur, we can be assured that media outlets will widely publicize AI-related medical adverse events,” he said. “It is crucial for health care professionals, AI developers, and regulatory authorities to work together to ensure the responsible use of AI in health care, with patient safety as the top priority. By doing so, they can mitigate the risks associated with AI implementation and minimize the potential for legal disputes arising from AI-related medical errors.”

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

Sowing the seeds of cancer prevention

Are you looking to add to your quality of life, even though pets are not your speed? Might we suggest something with lower maintenance? Something a little greener?

Indoor plants can purify the air that comes from outside. Researchers at the University of Technology Sydney, in partnership with the plantscaping company Ambius, showed that a “green wall” made up of mixed indoor plants was able to suck up 97% of “the most toxic compounds” from the air in just 8 hours. We’re talking about lung-irritating, headache-inducing, cancer risk–boosting compounds from gasoline fumes, including benzene.

Fraser Torpy/University of Technology Sydney

Public health initiatives often strive to reduce cardiovascular and obesity risks, but breathing seems pretty important too. According to the World Health Organization, household air pollution is responsible for about 2.5 million global premature deaths each year. And since 2020 we’ve become accustomed to spending more time inside and at home.

“This new research proves that plants should not just be seen as ‘nice to have,’ but rather a crucial part of every workplace wellness plan,” Ambius General Manager Johan Hodgson said in statement released by the university.

So don’t spend hundreds of dollars on a fancy air filtration system when a wall of plants can do that for next to nothing. Find what works for you and your space and become a plant parent today! Your lungs will thank you.
 

But officer, I had to swerve to miss the duodenal ampulla

Tiny video capsule endoscopes have been around for many years, but they have one big weakness: The ingestible cameras’ journey through the GI tract is passively driven by gravity and the natural movement of the body, so they often miss potential problem areas.

AnX Robotica

Not anymore. That flaw has been addressed by medical technology company AnX Robotica, which has taken endoscopy to the next level by adding that wondrous directional control device of the modern electronic age, a joystick.

The new system “uses an external magnet and hand-held video game style joysticks to move the capsule in three dimensions,” which allows physicians to “remotely drive a miniature video capsule to all regions of the stomach to visualize and photograph potential problem areas,” according to Andrew C. Meltzer, MD, of George Washington University and associates, who conducted a pilot study funded by AnX Robotica.

The video capsule provided a 95% rate of visualization in the stomachs of 40 patients who were examined at a medical office building by an emergency medicine physician who had no previous specialty training in endoscopy. “Capsules were driven by the ER physician and then the study reports were reviewed by an attending gastroenterologist who was physically off site,” the investigators said in a written statement.

The capsule operator did receive some additional training, and development of artificial intelligence to self-drive the capsule is in the works, but for now, we’re talking about a device controlled by a human using a joystick. And we all know that 50-year-olds are not especially known for their joystick skills. For that we need real experts. Yup, we need to put those joystick-controlled capsule endoscopes in the hands of teenage gamers. Who wants to go first?
 

Maybe AI isn’t ready for the big time after all

“How long before some intrepid stockholder says: ‘Hey, instead of paying doctors, why don’t we just use the free robot instead?’ ” Those words appeared on LOTME but a month ago. After all, the AI is supposed to be smarter and more empathetic than a doctor. And did we mention it’s free? Or at least extremely cheap. Cheaper than, say, a group of recently unionized health care workers.

maewjpho/Thinkstock

In early May, the paid employees manning the National Eating Disorders Association emergency hotline voted to unionize, as they felt overwhelmed and underpaid. Apparently, paying six people an extra few thousand a year was too much for NEDA’s leadership, as they decided a few weeks later to fire those workers, fully closing down the hotline. Instead of talking to a real person, people “calling in” for support would be met with Tessa, a wellness chatbot that would hopefully guide them through their crisis. Key word, hopefully.

In perhaps the least surprising twist of the year, NEDA was forced to walk back its decision about a week after its initial announcement. It all started with a viral Instagram post from a woman who called in and received the following advice from Tessa: Lose 1-2 pounds a week, count calories and work for a 500- to 1,000-calorie deficit, weigh herself weekly, and restrict her diet. Unfortunately, all of these suggestions were things that led to the development of the woman’s eating disorder.

Naturally, NEDA responded in good grace, accusing the woman of lying. A NEDA vice president even left some nasty comments on the post, but hastily deleted them a day later when NEDA announced it was shutting down Tessa “until further notice for a complete investigation.” NEDA’s CEO insisted they hadn’t seen that behavior from Tessa before, calling it a “bug” and insisting the bot would only be down temporarily until the triggers causing the bug were fixed.

In the aftermath, several doctors and psychologists chimed in, terming the rush to automate human roles dangerous and risky. After all, much of what makes these hotlines effective is the volunteers speaking from their own experience. An unsupervised bot doesn’t seem to have what it takes to deal with a mental health crisis, but we’re betting that Tessa will be back. As a wise cephalopod once said: Nobody gives a care about the fate of labor as long as they can get their instant gratification.
 

You can’t spell existential without s-t-e-n-t

This week, we’re including a special “bonus” item that, to be honest, has nothing to do with stents. That’s why our editor is making us call this a “bonus” (and making us use quote marks, too): It doesn’t really have anything to do with stents or health care or those who practice health care. Actually, his exact words were, “You can’t just give the readers someone else’s ****ing list and expect to get paid for it.” Did we mention that he looks like Jack Nicklaus but acts like BoJack Horseman?

Anywaaay, we’re pretty sure that the list in question – “America’s Top 10 Most Googled Existential Questions” – says something about the human condition, just not about stents:

1. Why is the sky blue?

2. What do dreams mean?

3. What is the meaning of life?

4. Why am I so tired?

5. Who am I?

6. What is love?

7. Is a hot dog a sandwich?

8. What came first, the chicken or the egg?

9. What should I do?

10. Do animals have souls?

Sowing the seeds of cancer prevention

Are you looking to add to your quality of life, even though pets are not your speed? Might we suggest something with lower maintenance? Something a little greener?

Indoor plants can purify the air that comes from outside. Researchers at the University of Technology Sydney, in partnership with the plantscaping company Ambius, showed that a “green wall” made up of mixed indoor plants was able to suck up 97% of “the most toxic compounds” from the air in just 8 hours. We’re talking about lung-irritating, headache-inducing, cancer risk–boosting compounds from gasoline fumes, including benzene.

Fraser Torpy/University of Technology Sydney

Public health initiatives often strive to reduce cardiovascular and obesity risks, but breathing seems pretty important too. According to the World Health Organization, household air pollution is responsible for about 2.5 million global premature deaths each year. And since 2020 we’ve become accustomed to spending more time inside and at home.

“This new research proves that plants should not just be seen as ‘nice to have,’ but rather a crucial part of every workplace wellness plan,” Ambius General Manager Johan Hodgson said in statement released by the university.

So don’t spend hundreds of dollars on a fancy air filtration system when a wall of plants can do that for next to nothing. Find what works for you and your space and become a plant parent today! Your lungs will thank you.
 

But officer, I had to swerve to miss the duodenal ampulla

Tiny video capsule endoscopes have been around for many years, but they have one big weakness: The ingestible cameras’ journey through the GI tract is passively driven by gravity and the natural movement of the body, so they often miss potential problem areas.

AnX Robotica

Not anymore. That flaw has been addressed by medical technology company AnX Robotica, which has taken endoscopy to the next level by adding that wondrous directional control device of the modern electronic age, a joystick.

The new system “uses an external magnet and hand-held video game style joysticks to move the capsule in three dimensions,” which allows physicians to “remotely drive a miniature video capsule to all regions of the stomach to visualize and photograph potential problem areas,” according to Andrew C. Meltzer, MD, of George Washington University and associates, who conducted a pilot study funded by AnX Robotica.

The video capsule provided a 95% rate of visualization in the stomachs of 40 patients who were examined at a medical office building by an emergency medicine physician who had no previous specialty training in endoscopy. “Capsules were driven by the ER physician and then the study reports were reviewed by an attending gastroenterologist who was physically off site,” the investigators said in a written statement.

The capsule operator did receive some additional training, and development of artificial intelligence to self-drive the capsule is in the works, but for now, we’re talking about a device controlled by a human using a joystick. And we all know that 50-year-olds are not especially known for their joystick skills. For that we need real experts. Yup, we need to put those joystick-controlled capsule endoscopes in the hands of teenage gamers. Who wants to go first?
 

Maybe AI isn’t ready for the big time after all

“How long before some intrepid stockholder says: ‘Hey, instead of paying doctors, why don’t we just use the free robot instead?’ ” Those words appeared on LOTME but a month ago. After all, the AI is supposed to be smarter and more empathetic than a doctor. And did we mention it’s free? Or at least extremely cheap. Cheaper than, say, a group of recently unionized health care workers.

maewjpho/Thinkstock

In early May, the paid employees manning the National Eating Disorders Association emergency hotline voted to unionize, as they felt overwhelmed and underpaid. Apparently, paying six people an extra few thousand a year was too much for NEDA’s leadership, as they decided a few weeks later to fire those workers, fully closing down the hotline. Instead of talking to a real person, people “calling in” for support would be met with Tessa, a wellness chatbot that would hopefully guide them through their crisis. Key word, hopefully.

In perhaps the least surprising twist of the year, NEDA was forced to walk back its decision about a week after its initial announcement. It all started with a viral Instagram post from a woman who called in and received the following advice from Tessa: Lose 1-2 pounds a week, count calories and work for a 500- to 1,000-calorie deficit, weigh herself weekly, and restrict her diet. Unfortunately, all of these suggestions were things that led to the development of the woman’s eating disorder.

Naturally, NEDA responded in good grace, accusing the woman of lying. A NEDA vice president even left some nasty comments on the post, but hastily deleted them a day later when NEDA announced it was shutting down Tessa “until further notice for a complete investigation.” NEDA’s CEO insisted they hadn’t seen that behavior from Tessa before, calling it a “bug” and insisting the bot would only be down temporarily until the triggers causing the bug were fixed.

In the aftermath, several doctors and psychologists chimed in, terming the rush to automate human roles dangerous and risky. After all, much of what makes these hotlines effective is the volunteers speaking from their own experience. An unsupervised bot doesn’t seem to have what it takes to deal with a mental health crisis, but we’re betting that Tessa will be back. As a wise cephalopod once said: Nobody gives a care about the fate of labor as long as they can get their instant gratification.
 

You can’t spell existential without s-t-e-n-t

This week, we’re including a special “bonus” item that, to be honest, has nothing to do with stents. That’s why our editor is making us call this a “bonus” (and making us use quote marks, too): It doesn’t really have anything to do with stents or health care or those who practice health care. Actually, his exact words were, “You can’t just give the readers someone else’s ****ing list and expect to get paid for it.” Did we mention that he looks like Jack Nicklaus but acts like BoJack Horseman?

Anywaaay, we’re pretty sure that the list in question – “America’s Top 10 Most Googled Existential Questions” – says something about the human condition, just not about stents:

1. Why is the sky blue?

2. What do dreams mean?

3. What is the meaning of life?

4. Why am I so tired?

5. Who am I?

6. What is love?

7. Is a hot dog a sandwich?

8. What came first, the chicken or the egg?

9. What should I do?

10. Do animals have souls?

Sowing the seeds of cancer prevention

Are you looking to add to your quality of life, even though pets are not your speed? Might we suggest something with lower maintenance? Something a little greener?

Indoor plants can purify the air that comes from outside. Researchers at the University of Technology Sydney, in partnership with the plantscaping company Ambius, showed that a “green wall” made up of mixed indoor plants was able to suck up 97% of “the most toxic compounds” from the air in just 8 hours. We’re talking about lung-irritating, headache-inducing, cancer risk–boosting compounds from gasoline fumes, including benzene.

Fraser Torpy/University of Technology Sydney

Public health initiatives often strive to reduce cardiovascular and obesity risks, but breathing seems pretty important too. According to the World Health Organization, household air pollution is responsible for about 2.5 million global premature deaths each year. And since 2020 we’ve become accustomed to spending more time inside and at home.

“This new research proves that plants should not just be seen as ‘nice to have,’ but rather a crucial part of every workplace wellness plan,” Ambius General Manager Johan Hodgson said in statement released by the university.

So don’t spend hundreds of dollars on a fancy air filtration system when a wall of plants can do that for next to nothing. Find what works for you and your space and become a plant parent today! Your lungs will thank you.
 

But officer, I had to swerve to miss the duodenal ampulla

Tiny video capsule endoscopes have been around for many years, but they have one big weakness: The ingestible cameras’ journey through the GI tract is passively driven by gravity and the natural movement of the body, so they often miss potential problem areas.

AnX Robotica

Not anymore. That flaw has been addressed by medical technology company AnX Robotica, which has taken endoscopy to the next level by adding that wondrous directional control device of the modern electronic age, a joystick.

The new system “uses an external magnet and hand-held video game style joysticks to move the capsule in three dimensions,” which allows physicians to “remotely drive a miniature video capsule to all regions of the stomach to visualize and photograph potential problem areas,” according to Andrew C. Meltzer, MD, of George Washington University and associates, who conducted a pilot study funded by AnX Robotica.

The video capsule provided a 95% rate of visualization in the stomachs of 40 patients who were examined at a medical office building by an emergency medicine physician who had no previous specialty training in endoscopy. “Capsules were driven by the ER physician and then the study reports were reviewed by an attending gastroenterologist who was physically off site,” the investigators said in a written statement.

The capsule operator did receive some additional training, and development of artificial intelligence to self-drive the capsule is in the works, but for now, we’re talking about a device controlled by a human using a joystick. And we all know that 50-year-olds are not especially known for their joystick skills. For that we need real experts. Yup, we need to put those joystick-controlled capsule endoscopes in the hands of teenage gamers. Who wants to go first?
 

Maybe AI isn’t ready for the big time after all

“How long before some intrepid stockholder says: ‘Hey, instead of paying doctors, why don’t we just use the free robot instead?’ ” Those words appeared on LOTME but a month ago. After all, the AI is supposed to be smarter and more empathetic than a doctor. And did we mention it’s free? Or at least extremely cheap. Cheaper than, say, a group of recently unionized health care workers.

maewjpho/Thinkstock

In early May, the paid employees manning the National Eating Disorders Association emergency hotline voted to unionize, as they felt overwhelmed and underpaid. Apparently, paying six people an extra few thousand a year was too much for NEDA’s leadership, as they decided a few weeks later to fire those workers, fully closing down the hotline. Instead of talking to a real person, people “calling in” for support would be met with Tessa, a wellness chatbot that would hopefully guide them through their crisis. Key word, hopefully.

In perhaps the least surprising twist of the year, NEDA was forced to walk back its decision about a week after its initial announcement. It all started with a viral Instagram post from a woman who called in and received the following advice from Tessa: Lose 1-2 pounds a week, count calories and work for a 500- to 1,000-calorie deficit, weigh herself weekly, and restrict her diet. Unfortunately, all of these suggestions were things that led to the development of the woman’s eating disorder.

Naturally, NEDA responded in good grace, accusing the woman of lying. A NEDA vice president even left some nasty comments on the post, but hastily deleted them a day later when NEDA announced it was shutting down Tessa “until further notice for a complete investigation.” NEDA’s CEO insisted they hadn’t seen that behavior from Tessa before, calling it a “bug” and insisting the bot would only be down temporarily until the triggers causing the bug were fixed.

In the aftermath, several doctors and psychologists chimed in, terming the rush to automate human roles dangerous and risky. After all, much of what makes these hotlines effective is the volunteers speaking from their own experience. An unsupervised bot doesn’t seem to have what it takes to deal with a mental health crisis, but we’re betting that Tessa will be back. As a wise cephalopod once said: Nobody gives a care about the fate of labor as long as they can get their instant gratification.
 

You can’t spell existential without s-t-e-n-t

This week, we’re including a special “bonus” item that, to be honest, has nothing to do with stents. That’s why our editor is making us call this a “bonus” (and making us use quote marks, too): It doesn’t really have anything to do with stents or health care or those who practice health care. Actually, his exact words were, “You can’t just give the readers someone else’s ****ing list and expect to get paid for it.” Did we mention that he looks like Jack Nicklaus but acts like BoJack Horseman?

Anywaaay, we’re pretty sure that the list in question – “America’s Top 10 Most Googled Existential Questions” – says something about the human condition, just not about stents:

1. Why is the sky blue?

2. What do dreams mean?

3. What is the meaning of life?

4. Why am I so tired?

5. Who am I?

6. What is love?

7. Is a hot dog a sandwich?

8. What came first, the chicken or the egg?

9. What should I do?

10. Do animals have souls?

Pacing as a device therapy for heart failure (HF) is headed for what is probably its next big advance.
 

After decades of biventricular (BiV) pacemaker success in resynchronizing the ventricles and improving clinical outcomes, relatively new conduction-system pacing (CSP) techniques that avoid the pitfalls of right-ventricular (RV) pacing using BiV lead systems have been supplanting traditional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in selected patients at some major centers. In fact, they are solidly ensconced in a new guideline document addressing indications for CSP and BiV pacing in HF.

But in the new guideline, CSP, using an endocardial lead to the His bundle or left-bundle branch (LBB) area, is nearly always a second-tier option, an alternative when BiV pacing isn’t appropriate or can’t be engaged.

That’s mainly because the limited, mostly observational evidence supporting CSP in the document can’t measure up to the clinical experience and plethora of large, randomized trials behind BiV-CRT.

But that shortfall is headed for change. Several new comparative studies, including a small, randomized trial, have added significantly to evidence suggesting that CSP is at least as effective as traditional CRT for procedural, functional safety, and clinical outcomes.

The new studies “are inherently prone to bias, but their results are really good,” observed Juan C. Diaz, MD. They show improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and symptoms with CSP that are “outstanding compared to what we have been doing for the last 20 years,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Diaz, Clínica Las Vegas, Medellin, Colombia, is an investigator with the observational SYNCHRONY, which is among the new CSP studies formally presented at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society. He is also lead author on its same-day publication in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.

Dr. Diaz said that CSP, which sustains pacing via the native conduction system, makes more “physiologic sense” than BiV pacing and represents “a step forward” for HF device therapy.

SYNCHRONY compared LBB-area with BiV pacing as the initial strategy for achieving cardiac resynchronization in patients with ischemic or nonischemic cardiomyopathy.

CSP is “a long way” from replacing conventional CRT, he said. But the new studies at the HRS sessions should help extend His-bundle and LBB-area pacing to more patients, he added, given the significant long-term “drawbacks” of BiV pacing. These include inevitable RV pacing, multiple leads, and the risks associated with chronic transvenous leads.

Zachary Goldberger, MD, University of Wisconsin–Madison, went a bit further in support of CSP as invited discussant for the SYNCHRONY presentation.

Given that it improved LVEF, heart failure class, HF hospitalizations (HFH), and mortality in that study and others, Dr. Goldberger said, CSP could potentially “become the dominant mode of resynchronization going forward.”

Other experts at the meeting saw CSP’s potential more as one of several pacing techniques that could be brought to bear for patients with CRT indications.

“Conduction system pacing is going to be a huge complement to biventricular pacing,” to which about 30% of patients have a “less than optimal response,” said Pugazhendhi Vijayaraman, MD, chief of clinical electrophysiology, Geisinger Heart Institute, Danville, Pa.

“I don’t think it needs to replace biventricular pacing, because biventricular pacing is a well-established, incredibly powerful therapy,” he told this news organization. But CSP is likely to provide “a good alternative option” in patients with poor responses to BiV-CRT.

It may, however, render some current BiV-pacing alternatives “obsolete,” Dr. Vijayaraman observed. “At our center, at least for the last 5 years, no patient has needed epicardial surgical left ventricular lead placement” because CSP was a better backup option.

Dr. Vijayaraman presented two of the meeting’s CSP vs. BiV pacing comparisons. In one, the 100-patient randomized HOT-CRT trial, contractile function improved significantly on CSP, which could be either His-bundle or LBB-area pacing.

He also presented an observational study of LBB-area pacing at 15 centers in Asia, Europe, and North America and led the authors of its simultaneous publication in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“I think left-bundle conduction system pacing is the future, for sure,” Jagmeet P. Singh, MD, DPhil, told this news organization. Still, it doesn’t always work and when it does, it “doesn’t work equally in all patients,” he said.

“Conduction system pacing certainly makes a lot of sense,” especially in patients with left-bundle-branch block (LBBB), and “maybe not as a primary approach but certainly as a secondary approach,” said Dr. Singh, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who is not a coauthor on any of the three studies.

He acknowledged that CSP may work well as a first-line option in patients with LBBB at some experienced centers. For those without LBBB or who have an intraventricular conduction delay, who represent 45%-50% of current CRT cases, Dr. Singh observed, “there’s still more evidence” that BiV-CRT is a more appropriate initial approach.

Standard CRT may fail, however, even in some patients who otherwise meet guideline-based indications. “We don’t really understand all the mechanisms for nonresponse in conventional biventricular pacing,” observed Niraj Varma, MD, PhD, Cleveland Clinic, also not involved with any of the three studies.

In some groups, including “patients with larger ventricles,” for example, BiV-CRT doesn’t always narrow the electrocardiographic QRS complex or preexcite delayed left ventricular (LV) activation, hallmarks of successful CRT, he said in an interview.

“I think we need to understand why this occurs in both situations,” but in such cases, CSP alone or as an adjunct to direct LV pacing may be successful. “Sometimes we need both an LV lead and the conduction-system pacing lead.”

Narrower, more efficient use of CSP as a BiV-CRT alternative may also boost its chances for success, Dr. Varma added. “I think we need to refine patient selection.”
 

HOT-CRT: Randomized CSP vs. BiV pacing trial

Conducted at three centers in a single health system, the His-optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy study (HOT-CRT) randomly assigned 100 patients with primary or secondary CRT indications to either to CSP – by either His-bundle or LBB-area pacing – or to standard BiV-CRT as the first-line resynchronization method.

Treatment crossovers, allowed for either pacing modality in the event of implantation failure, occurred in two patients and nine patients initially assigned to CSP and BiV pacing, respectively (4% vs. 18%), Dr. Vijayaraman reported.

International comparison of CSP and BiV pacing

In Dr. Vijayaraman’s other study, the observational comparison of LBB-area pacing and BiV-CRT, the CSP technique emerged as a “reasonable alternative to biventricular pacing, not only for improvement in LV function but also to reduce adverse clinical outcomes.”

Indeed, in the international study of 1,778 mostly male patients with primary or secondary CRT indications who received LBB-area or BiV pacing (797 and 981 patients, respectively), those on CSP saw a significant drop in risk for the primary endpoint, death or HFH.

Mean LVEF improved from 27% to 41% in the LBB-area pacing group and 27% to 37% with BiV pacing (P < .001 for both changes) over a follow-up averaging 33 months. The difference in improvement between CSP and BiV pacing was significant at P < .001.

In adjusted analysis, the risk for death or HFH was greater for BiV-pacing patients, a difference driven by HFH events.

• Death or HF: hazard ratio, 1.49 (95% confidence interval, 1.21-1.84; P < .001).
• Death: HR, 1.14 (95% CI, 0.88-1.48; P = .313).
• HFH: HR, 1.49 (95% CI, 1.16-1.92; P = .002)

The analysis has all the “inherent biases” of an observational study. The risk for patient-selection bias, however, was somewhat mitigated by consistent practice patterns at participating centers, Dr. Vijayaraman told this news organization.

For example, he said, operators at six of the institutions were most likely to use CSP as the first-line approach, and the same number of centers usually went with BiV pacing.
 

SYNCHRONY: First-line LBB-area pacing vs. BiV-CRT

Outcomes using the two approaches were similar in the prospective, international, observational study of 371 patients with ischemic or nonischemic cardiomyopathy and standard CRT indications. Allocation of 128 patients to LBB-area pacing and 243 to BiV-CRT was based on patient and operator preferences, reported Jorge Romero Jr, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, at the HRS sessions.

Risk for the death-HFH primary endpoint dropped 38% for those initially treated with LBB-area pacing, compared with BiV pacing, primarily because of a lower HFH risk:

• Death or HFH: HR, 0.62 (95% CI, 0.41-0.93; P = .02).
• Death: HR, 0.57 (95% CI, 0.25-1.32; P = .19).
• HFH: HR, 0.61 (95% CI, 0.34-0.93; P = .02)

Patients in the CSP group were also more likely to improve by at least one NYHA (New York Heart Association) class (80.4% vs. 67.9%; P < .001), consistent with their greater absolute change in LVEF (8.0 vs. 3.9 points; P < .01).

The findings “suggest that LBBAP [left-bundle branch area pacing] is an excellent alternative to BiV pacing,” with a comparable safety profile, write Jayanthi N. Koneru, MBBS, and Kenneth A. Ellenbogen, MD, in an editorial accompanying the published SYNCHRONY report.

“The differences in improvement of LVEF are encouraging for both groups,” but were superior for LBB-area pacing, continue Dr. Koneru and Dr. Ellenbogen, both with Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond. “Whether these results would have regressed to the mean over a longer period of follow-up or diverge further with LBB-area pacing continuing to be superior is unknown.”
 

Years for an answer?

A large randomized comparison of CSP and BiV-CRT, called Left vs. Left, is currently in early stages, Sana M. Al-Khatib, MD, MHS, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said in a media presentation on two of the presented studies. It has a planned enrollment of more than 2,100 patients on optimal meds with an LVEF of 50% or lower and either a QRS duration of at least 130 ms or an anticipated burden of RV pacing exceeding 40%.

The trial, she said, “will take years to give an answer, but it is actually designed to address the question of whether a composite endpoint of time to death or heart failure hospitalization can be improved with conduction system pacing vs. biventricular pacing.”

Dr. Al-Khatib is a coauthor on the new guideline covering both CSP and BiV-CRT in HF, as are Dr. Cha, Dr. Varma, Dr. Singh, Dr. Vijayaraman, and Dr. Goldberger; Dr. Ellenbogen is one of the reviewers.

Dr. Diaz discloses receiving honoraria or fees for speaking or teaching from Bayer Healthcare, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Vijayaraman discloses receiving honoraria or fees for speaking, teaching, or consulting for Abbott, Medtronic, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific; and receiving research grants from Medtronic. Dr. Varma discloses receiving honoraria or fees for speaking or consulting as an independent contractor for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Impulse Dynamics USA, Cardiologs, Abbott, Pacemate, Implicity, and EP Solutions. Dr. Singh discloses receiving fees for consulting from EBR Systems, Merit Medical Systems, New Century Health, Biotronik, Abbott, Medtronic, MicroPort Scientific, Cardiologs, Sanofi, CVRx, Impulse Dynamics USA, Octagos, Implicity, Orchestra Biomed, Rhythm Management Group, and Biosense Webster; and receiving honoraria or fees for speaking and teaching from Medscape. Dr. Cha had no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Romero discloses receiving research grants from Biosense Webster; and speaking or receiving honoraria or fees for consulting, speaking, or teaching, or serving on a board for Sanofi, Boston Scientific, and AtriCure. Dr. Koneru discloses consulting for Medtronic and receiving honoraria from Abbott. Dr. Ellenbogen discloses consulting or lecturing for or receiving honoraria from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Abbott. Dr. Goldberger discloses receiving royalty income from and serving as an independent contractor for Elsevier. Dr. Al-Khatib discloses receiving research grants from Medtronic and Boston Scientific.

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

Pacing as a device therapy for heart failure (HF) is headed for what is probably its next big advance.
 

After decades of biventricular (BiV) pacemaker success in resynchronizing the ventricles and improving clinical outcomes, relatively new conduction-system pacing (CSP) techniques that avoid the pitfalls of right-ventricular (RV) pacing using BiV lead systems have been supplanting traditional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in selected patients at some major centers. In fact, they are solidly ensconced in a new guideline document addressing indications for CSP and BiV pacing in HF.

But in the new guideline, CSP, using an endocardial lead to the His bundle or left-bundle branch (LBB) area, is nearly always a second-tier option, an alternative when BiV pacing isn’t appropriate or can’t be engaged.

That’s mainly because the limited, mostly observational evidence supporting CSP in the document can’t measure up to the clinical experience and plethora of large, randomized trials behind BiV-CRT.

But that shortfall is headed for change. Several new comparative studies, including a small, randomized trial, have added significantly to evidence suggesting that CSP is at least as effective as traditional CRT for procedural, functional safety, and clinical outcomes.

The new studies “are inherently prone to bias, but their results are really good,” observed Juan C. Diaz, MD. They show improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and symptoms with CSP that are “outstanding compared to what we have been doing for the last 20 years,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Diaz, Clínica Las Vegas, Medellin, Colombia, is an investigator with the observational SYNCHRONY, which is among the new CSP studies formally presented at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society. He is also lead author on its same-day publication in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.

Dr. Diaz said that CSP, which sustains pacing via the native conduction system, makes more “physiologic sense” than BiV pacing and represents “a step forward” for HF device therapy.

SYNCHRONY compared LBB-area with BiV pacing as the initial strategy for achieving cardiac resynchronization in patients with ischemic or nonischemic cardiomyopathy.

CSP is “a long way” from replacing conventional CRT, he said. But the new studies at the HRS sessions should help extend His-bundle and LBB-area pacing to more patients, he added, given the significant long-term “drawbacks” of BiV pacing. These include inevitable RV pacing, multiple leads, and the risks associated with chronic transvenous leads.

Zachary Goldberger, MD, University of Wisconsin–Madison, went a bit further in support of CSP as invited discussant for the SYNCHRONY presentation.

Given that it improved LVEF, heart failure class, HF hospitalizations (HFH), and mortality in that study and others, Dr. Goldberger said, CSP could potentially “become the dominant mode of resynchronization going forward.”

Other experts at the meeting saw CSP’s potential more as one of several pacing techniques that could be brought to bear for patients with CRT indications.

“Conduction system pacing is going to be a huge complement to biventricular pacing,” to which about 30% of patients have a “less than optimal response,” said Pugazhendhi Vijayaraman, MD, chief of clinical electrophysiology, Geisinger Heart Institute, Danville, Pa.

“I don’t think it needs to replace biventricular pacing, because biventricular pacing is a well-established, incredibly powerful therapy,” he told this news organization. But CSP is likely to provide “a good alternative option” in patients with poor responses to BiV-CRT.

It may, however, render some current BiV-pacing alternatives “obsolete,” Dr. Vijayaraman observed. “At our center, at least for the last 5 years, no patient has needed epicardial surgical left ventricular lead placement” because CSP was a better backup option.

Dr. Vijayaraman presented two of the meeting’s CSP vs. BiV pacing comparisons. In one, the 100-patient randomized HOT-CRT trial, contractile function improved significantly on CSP, which could be either His-bundle or LBB-area pacing.

He also presented an observational study of LBB-area pacing at 15 centers in Asia, Europe, and North America and led the authors of its simultaneous publication in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“I think left-bundle conduction system pacing is the future, for sure,” Jagmeet P. Singh, MD, DPhil, told this news organization. Still, it doesn’t always work and when it does, it “doesn’t work equally in all patients,” he said.

“Conduction system pacing certainly makes a lot of sense,” especially in patients with left-bundle-branch block (LBBB), and “maybe not as a primary approach but certainly as a secondary approach,” said Dr. Singh, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who is not a coauthor on any of the three studies.

He acknowledged that CSP may work well as a first-line option in patients with LBBB at some experienced centers. For those without LBBB or who have an intraventricular conduction delay, who represent 45%-50% of current CRT cases, Dr. Singh observed, “there’s still more evidence” that BiV-CRT is a more appropriate initial approach.

Standard CRT may fail, however, even in some patients who otherwise meet guideline-based indications. “We don’t really understand all the mechanisms for nonresponse in conventional biventricular pacing,” observed Niraj Varma, MD, PhD, Cleveland Clinic, also not involved with any of the three studies.

In some groups, including “patients with larger ventricles,” for example, BiV-CRT doesn’t always narrow the electrocardiographic QRS complex or preexcite delayed left ventricular (LV) activation, hallmarks of successful CRT, he said in an interview.

“I think we need to understand why this occurs in both situations,” but in such cases, CSP alone or as an adjunct to direct LV pacing may be successful. “Sometimes we need both an LV lead and the conduction-system pacing lead.”

Narrower, more efficient use of CSP as a BiV-CRT alternative may also boost its chances for success, Dr. Varma added. “I think we need to refine patient selection.”
 

HOT-CRT: Randomized CSP vs. BiV pacing trial

Conducted at three centers in a single health system, the His-optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy study (HOT-CRT) randomly assigned 100 patients with primary or secondary CRT indications to either to CSP – by either His-bundle or LBB-area pacing – or to standard BiV-CRT as the first-line resynchronization method.

Treatment crossovers, allowed for either pacing modality in the event of implantation failure, occurred in two patients and nine patients initially assigned to CSP and BiV pacing, respectively (4% vs. 18%), Dr. Vijayaraman reported.

International comparison of CSP and BiV pacing

In Dr. Vijayaraman’s other study, the observational comparison of LBB-area pacing and BiV-CRT, the CSP technique emerged as a “reasonable alternative to biventricular pacing, not only for improvement in LV function but also to reduce adverse clinical outcomes.”

Indeed, in the international study of 1,778 mostly male patients with primary or secondary CRT indications who received LBB-area or BiV pacing (797 and 981 patients, respectively), those on CSP saw a significant drop in risk for the primary endpoint, death or HFH.

Mean LVEF improved from 27% to 41% in the LBB-area pacing group and 27% to 37% with BiV pacing (P < .001 for both changes) over a follow-up averaging 33 months. The difference in improvement between CSP and BiV pacing was significant at P < .001.

In adjusted analysis, the risk for death or HFH was greater for BiV-pacing patients, a difference driven by HFH events.

• Death or HF: hazard ratio, 1.49 (95% confidence interval, 1.21-1.84; P < .001).
• Death: HR, 1.14 (95% CI, 0.88-1.48; P = .313).
• HFH: HR, 1.49 (95% CI, 1.16-1.92; P = .002)

The analysis has all the “inherent biases” of an observational study. The risk for patient-selection bias, however, was somewhat mitigated by consistent practice patterns at participating centers, Dr. Vijayaraman told this news organization.

For example, he said, operators at six of the institutions were most likely to use CSP as the first-line approach, and the same number of centers usually went with BiV pacing.
 

SYNCHRONY: First-line LBB-area pacing vs. BiV-CRT

Outcomes using the two approaches were similar in the prospective, international, observational study of 371 patients with ischemic or nonischemic cardiomyopathy and standard CRT indications. Allocation of 128 patients to LBB-area pacing and 243 to BiV-CRT was based on patient and operator preferences, reported Jorge Romero Jr, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, at the HRS sessions.

Risk for the death-HFH primary endpoint dropped 38% for those initially treated with LBB-area pacing, compared with BiV pacing, primarily because of a lower HFH risk:

• Death or HFH: HR, 0.62 (95% CI, 0.41-0.93; P = .02).
• Death: HR, 0.57 (95% CI, 0.25-1.32; P = .19).
• HFH: HR, 0.61 (95% CI, 0.34-0.93; P = .02)

Patients in the CSP group were also more likely to improve by at least one NYHA (New York Heart Association) class (80.4% vs. 67.9%; P < .001), consistent with their greater absolute change in LVEF (8.0 vs. 3.9 points; P < .01).

The findings “suggest that LBBAP [left-bundle branch area pacing] is an excellent alternative to BiV pacing,” with a comparable safety profile, write Jayanthi N. Koneru, MBBS, and Kenneth A. Ellenbogen, MD, in an editorial accompanying the published SYNCHRONY report.

“The differences in improvement of LVEF are encouraging for both groups,” but were superior for LBB-area pacing, continue Dr. Koneru and Dr. Ellenbogen, both with Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond. “Whether these results would have regressed to the mean over a longer period of follow-up or diverge further with LBB-area pacing continuing to be superior is unknown.”
 

Years for an answer?

A large randomized comparison of CSP and BiV-CRT, called Left vs. Left, is currently in early stages, Sana M. Al-Khatib, MD, MHS, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said in a media presentation on two of the presented studies. It has a planned enrollment of more than 2,100 patients on optimal meds with an LVEF of 50% or lower and either a QRS duration of at least 130 ms or an anticipated burden of RV pacing exceeding 40%.

The trial, she said, “will take years to give an answer, but it is actually designed to address the question of whether a composite endpoint of time to death or heart failure hospitalization can be improved with conduction system pacing vs. biventricular pacing.”

Dr. Al-Khatib is a coauthor on the new guideline covering both CSP and BiV-CRT in HF, as are Dr. Cha, Dr. Varma, Dr. Singh, Dr. Vijayaraman, and Dr. Goldberger; Dr. Ellenbogen is one of the reviewers.

Dr. Diaz discloses receiving honoraria or fees for speaking or teaching from Bayer Healthcare, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Vijayaraman discloses receiving honoraria or fees for speaking, teaching, or consulting for Abbott, Medtronic, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific; and receiving research grants from Medtronic. Dr. Varma discloses receiving honoraria or fees for speaking or consulting as an independent contractor for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Impulse Dynamics USA, Cardiologs, Abbott, Pacemate, Implicity, and EP Solutions. Dr. Singh discloses receiving fees for consulting from EBR Systems, Merit Medical Systems, New Century Health, Biotronik, Abbott, Medtronic, MicroPort Scientific, Cardiologs, Sanofi, CVRx, Impulse Dynamics USA, Octagos, Implicity, Orchestra Biomed, Rhythm Management Group, and Biosense Webster; and receiving honoraria or fees for speaking and teaching from Medscape. Dr. Cha had no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Romero discloses receiving research grants from Biosense Webster; and speaking or receiving honoraria or fees for consulting, speaking, or teaching, or serving on a board for Sanofi, Boston Scientific, and AtriCure. Dr. Koneru discloses consulting for Medtronic and receiving honoraria from Abbott. Dr. Ellenbogen discloses consulting or lecturing for or receiving honoraria from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Abbott. Dr. Goldberger discloses receiving royalty income from and serving as an independent contractor for Elsevier. Dr. Al-Khatib discloses receiving research grants from Medtronic and Boston Scientific.

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

Pacing as a device therapy for heart failure (HF) is headed for what is probably its next big advance.
 

After decades of biventricular (BiV) pacemaker success in resynchronizing the ventricles and improving clinical outcomes, relatively new conduction-system pacing (CSP) techniques that avoid the pitfalls of right-ventricular (RV) pacing using BiV lead systems have been supplanting traditional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in selected patients at some major centers. In fact, they are solidly ensconced in a new guideline document addressing indications for CSP and BiV pacing in HF.

But in the new guideline, CSP, using an endocardial lead to the His bundle or left-bundle branch (LBB) area, is nearly always a second-tier option, an alternative when BiV pacing isn’t appropriate or can’t be engaged.

That’s mainly because the limited, mostly observational evidence supporting CSP in the document can’t measure up to the clinical experience and plethora of large, randomized trials behind BiV-CRT.

But that shortfall is headed for change. Several new comparative studies, including a small, randomized trial, have added significantly to evidence suggesting that CSP is at least as effective as traditional CRT for procedural, functional safety, and clinical outcomes.

The new studies “are inherently prone to bias, but their results are really good,” observed Juan C. Diaz, MD. They show improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and symptoms with CSP that are “outstanding compared to what we have been doing for the last 20 years,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Diaz, Clínica Las Vegas, Medellin, Colombia, is an investigator with the observational SYNCHRONY, which is among the new CSP studies formally presented at the annual scientific sessions of the Heart Rhythm Society. He is also lead author on its same-day publication in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.

Dr. Diaz said that CSP, which sustains pacing via the native conduction system, makes more “physiologic sense” than BiV pacing and represents “a step forward” for HF device therapy.

SYNCHRONY compared LBB-area with BiV pacing as the initial strategy for achieving cardiac resynchronization in patients with ischemic or nonischemic cardiomyopathy.

CSP is “a long way” from replacing conventional CRT, he said. But the new studies at the HRS sessions should help extend His-bundle and LBB-area pacing to more patients, he added, given the significant long-term “drawbacks” of BiV pacing. These include inevitable RV pacing, multiple leads, and the risks associated with chronic transvenous leads.

Zachary Goldberger, MD, University of Wisconsin–Madison, went a bit further in support of CSP as invited discussant for the SYNCHRONY presentation.

Given that it improved LVEF, heart failure class, HF hospitalizations (HFH), and mortality in that study and others, Dr. Goldberger said, CSP could potentially “become the dominant mode of resynchronization going forward.”

Other experts at the meeting saw CSP’s potential more as one of several pacing techniques that could be brought to bear for patients with CRT indications.

“Conduction system pacing is going to be a huge complement to biventricular pacing,” to which about 30% of patients have a “less than optimal response,” said Pugazhendhi Vijayaraman, MD, chief of clinical electrophysiology, Geisinger Heart Institute, Danville, Pa.

“I don’t think it needs to replace biventricular pacing, because biventricular pacing is a well-established, incredibly powerful therapy,” he told this news organization. But CSP is likely to provide “a good alternative option” in patients with poor responses to BiV-CRT.

It may, however, render some current BiV-pacing alternatives “obsolete,” Dr. Vijayaraman observed. “At our center, at least for the last 5 years, no patient has needed epicardial surgical left ventricular lead placement” because CSP was a better backup option.

Dr. Vijayaraman presented two of the meeting’s CSP vs. BiV pacing comparisons. In one, the 100-patient randomized HOT-CRT trial, contractile function improved significantly on CSP, which could be either His-bundle or LBB-area pacing.

He also presented an observational study of LBB-area pacing at 15 centers in Asia, Europe, and North America and led the authors of its simultaneous publication in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“I think left-bundle conduction system pacing is the future, for sure,” Jagmeet P. Singh, MD, DPhil, told this news organization. Still, it doesn’t always work and when it does, it “doesn’t work equally in all patients,” he said.

“Conduction system pacing certainly makes a lot of sense,” especially in patients with left-bundle-branch block (LBBB), and “maybe not as a primary approach but certainly as a secondary approach,” said Dr. Singh, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who is not a coauthor on any of the three studies.

He acknowledged that CSP may work well as a first-line option in patients with LBBB at some experienced centers. For those without LBBB or who have an intraventricular conduction delay, who represent 45%-50% of current CRT cases, Dr. Singh observed, “there’s still more evidence” that BiV-CRT is a more appropriate initial approach.

Standard CRT may fail, however, even in some patients who otherwise meet guideline-based indications. “We don’t really understand all the mechanisms for nonresponse in conventional biventricular pacing,” observed Niraj Varma, MD, PhD, Cleveland Clinic, also not involved with any of the three studies.

In some groups, including “patients with larger ventricles,” for example, BiV-CRT doesn’t always narrow the electrocardiographic QRS complex or preexcite delayed left ventricular (LV) activation, hallmarks of successful CRT, he said in an interview.

“I think we need to understand why this occurs in both situations,” but in such cases, CSP alone or as an adjunct to direct LV pacing may be successful. “Sometimes we need both an LV lead and the conduction-system pacing lead.”

Narrower, more efficient use of CSP as a BiV-CRT alternative may also boost its chances for success, Dr. Varma added. “I think we need to refine patient selection.”
 

HOT-CRT: Randomized CSP vs. BiV pacing trial

Conducted at three centers in a single health system, the His-optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy study (HOT-CRT) randomly assigned 100 patients with primary or secondary CRT indications to either to CSP – by either His-bundle or LBB-area pacing – or to standard BiV-CRT as the first-line resynchronization method.

Treatment crossovers, allowed for either pacing modality in the event of implantation failure, occurred in two patients and nine patients initially assigned to CSP and BiV pacing, respectively (4% vs. 18%), Dr. Vijayaraman reported.

International comparison of CSP and BiV pacing

In Dr. Vijayaraman’s other study, the observational comparison of LBB-area pacing and BiV-CRT, the CSP technique emerged as a “reasonable alternative to biventricular pacing, not only for improvement in LV function but also to reduce adverse clinical outcomes.”

Indeed, in the international study of 1,778 mostly male patients with primary or secondary CRT indications who received LBB-area or BiV pacing (797 and 981 patients, respectively), those on CSP saw a significant drop in risk for the primary endpoint, death or HFH.

Mean LVEF improved from 27% to 41% in the LBB-area pacing group and 27% to 37% with BiV pacing (P < .001 for both changes) over a follow-up averaging 33 months. The difference in improvement between CSP and BiV pacing was significant at P < .001.

In adjusted analysis, the risk for death or HFH was greater for BiV-pacing patients, a difference driven by HFH events.

• Death or HF: hazard ratio, 1.49 (95% confidence interval, 1.21-1.84; P < .001).
• Death: HR, 1.14 (95% CI, 0.88-1.48; P = .313).
• HFH: HR, 1.49 (95% CI, 1.16-1.92; P = .002)

The analysis has all the “inherent biases” of an observational study. The risk for patient-selection bias, however, was somewhat mitigated by consistent practice patterns at participating centers, Dr. Vijayaraman told this news organization.

For example, he said, operators at six of the institutions were most likely to use CSP as the first-line approach, and the same number of centers usually went with BiV pacing.
 

SYNCHRONY: First-line LBB-area pacing vs. BiV-CRT

Outcomes using the two approaches were similar in the prospective, international, observational study of 371 patients with ischemic or nonischemic cardiomyopathy and standard CRT indications. Allocation of 128 patients to LBB-area pacing and 243 to BiV-CRT was based on patient and operator preferences, reported Jorge Romero Jr, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, at the HRS sessions.

Risk for the death-HFH primary endpoint dropped 38% for those initially treated with LBB-area pacing, compared with BiV pacing, primarily because of a lower HFH risk:

• Death or HFH: HR, 0.62 (95% CI, 0.41-0.93; P = .02).
• Death: HR, 0.57 (95% CI, 0.25-1.32; P = .19).
• HFH: HR, 0.61 (95% CI, 0.34-0.93; P = .02)

Patients in the CSP group were also more likely to improve by at least one NYHA (New York Heart Association) class (80.4% vs. 67.9%; P < .001), consistent with their greater absolute change in LVEF (8.0 vs. 3.9 points; P < .01).

The findings “suggest that LBBAP [left-bundle branch area pacing] is an excellent alternative to BiV pacing,” with a comparable safety profile, write Jayanthi N. Koneru, MBBS, and Kenneth A. Ellenbogen, MD, in an editorial accompanying the published SYNCHRONY report.

“The differences in improvement of LVEF are encouraging for both groups,” but were superior for LBB-area pacing, continue Dr. Koneru and Dr. Ellenbogen, both with Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond. “Whether these results would have regressed to the mean over a longer period of follow-up or diverge further with LBB-area pacing continuing to be superior is unknown.”
 

Years for an answer?

A large randomized comparison of CSP and BiV-CRT, called Left vs. Left, is currently in early stages, Sana M. Al-Khatib, MD, MHS, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C., said in a media presentation on two of the presented studies. It has a planned enrollment of more than 2,100 patients on optimal meds with an LVEF of 50% or lower and either a QRS duration of at least 130 ms or an anticipated burden of RV pacing exceeding 40%.

The trial, she said, “will take years to give an answer, but it is actually designed to address the question of whether a composite endpoint of time to death or heart failure hospitalization can be improved with conduction system pacing vs. biventricular pacing.”

Dr. Al-Khatib is a coauthor on the new guideline covering both CSP and BiV-CRT in HF, as are Dr. Cha, Dr. Varma, Dr. Singh, Dr. Vijayaraman, and Dr. Goldberger; Dr. Ellenbogen is one of the reviewers.

Dr. Diaz discloses receiving honoraria or fees for speaking or teaching from Bayer Healthcare, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. Dr. Vijayaraman discloses receiving honoraria or fees for speaking, teaching, or consulting for Abbott, Medtronic, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific; and receiving research grants from Medtronic. Dr. Varma discloses receiving honoraria or fees for speaking or consulting as an independent contractor for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Impulse Dynamics USA, Cardiologs, Abbott, Pacemate, Implicity, and EP Solutions. Dr. Singh discloses receiving fees for consulting from EBR Systems, Merit Medical Systems, New Century Health, Biotronik, Abbott, Medtronic, MicroPort Scientific, Cardiologs, Sanofi, CVRx, Impulse Dynamics USA, Octagos, Implicity, Orchestra Biomed, Rhythm Management Group, and Biosense Webster; and receiving honoraria or fees for speaking and teaching from Medscape. Dr. Cha had no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Romero discloses receiving research grants from Biosense Webster; and speaking or receiving honoraria or fees for consulting, speaking, or teaching, or serving on a board for Sanofi, Boston Scientific, and AtriCure. Dr. Koneru discloses consulting for Medtronic and receiving honoraria from Abbott. Dr. Ellenbogen discloses consulting or lecturing for or receiving honoraria from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Abbott. Dr. Goldberger discloses receiving royalty income from and serving as an independent contractor for Elsevier. Dr. Al-Khatib discloses receiving research grants from Medtronic and Boston Scientific.

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

Dapagliflozin (Farxiga) appears to be no more effective than the “thiazide-like” diuretic metolazone at improving pulmonary congestion and fluid status in patients with acute heart failure (AHF), suggests a new randomized trial. The drugs were given to the study’s loop diuretic–resistant patients on top of furosemide.

Changes in volume status and measures of pulmonary congestion and risk for serious adverse events were similar for those assigned to take dapagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, or metolazone, a quinazoline diuretic. Those on dapagliflozin zone ultimately received a larger cumulative furosemide dose in the 61-patient trial, called DAPA-RESIST.

“The next steps are to assess whether a strategy of using SGLT2 inhibitors up front in patients with HF reduces the incidence of diuretic resistance, and to test further combinations of diuretics such as thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics, compared with acetazolamide, when used in addition to an IV loop diuretic and SGLT2 inhibitors together,” Ross T. Campbell, MBChB, PhD, University of Glasgow and Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, also in Glasgow, said in an interview.

Dr. Campbell presented the findings at the annual meeting of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology and is senior author on its simultaneous publication in the European Heart Journal.

The multicenter trial randomly assigned 61 patients with AHF to receive dapagliflozin at a fixed dose of 10 mg once daily or metolazone 5 mg or 10 mg (starting dosage at physician discretion) once daily for 3 days of treatment on an open-label basis.

Patients had entered the trial on furosemide at a mean daily dosage of 260 mg in the dapagliflozin group and 229 mg for those assigned metolazone; dosages for the loop diuretic in the trial weren’t prespecified.

Their median age was 79 and 54% were women; 44% had HF with reduced ejection fraction. Their mean glomerular filtration rate was below 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² in 26%, 90% had chronic kidney disease, 98% had peripheral edema, and 46% had diabetes.

The mean cumulative furosemide dose was significantly higher among the dapagliflozin group’s 31 patients, 976 mg versus 704 mg for the 30 on acetazolamide (P < .05), 96 hours after the start of randomized therapy. However, patients on dapagliflozin experienced a lesser increase in creatinine (P < .05) and in blood urea (P < .01), a greater change in serum sodium (P < .05), and a smaller reduction in serum potassium (P < .01).

Although the trial wasn’t powered for those outcomes, Dr. Campbell said, “less biochemical upset could be associated with better outcomes in terms of less medium- to long-term renal impairment, and in the short-term length of stay.”

The mean decrease in weight at 96 hours, the primary endpoint, reached 3 kg on dapagliflozin, compared with 3.6 kg with metolazone (P = .082), a difference that fell short of significance.

Loop diuretic efficiency, that is weight change in kg per 40 mg furosemide, “was smaller with dapagliflozin than with metolazone at each time point after randomization, although the difference was only significant at 24 hours,” the published report states.

Changes in pulmonary congestion (by lung ultrasound) and fluid volume were similar between the groups.

“This trial further adds to the evidence base and safety profile for using SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with acute heart failure,” and “gives further confidence to clinicians that this class can be started in ‘sicker’ patients with HF who also have diuretic resistance,” Dr. Campbell said.

Asked during his presentation’s question and answer whether dapagliflozin might have shown a greater effect had the dosage been higher, Dr. Campbell explained that the drug was investigational when the trial started. Adding a higher-dose dapagliflozin arm, he said, would have made for an excessively complex study. But “that’s a great research question for another trial.”

DAPA-RESIST was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Campbell disclosed receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca for speaking and from Bayer for serving on an advisory board.

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

Dapagliflozin (Farxiga) appears to be no more effective than the “thiazide-like” diuretic metolazone at improving pulmonary congestion and fluid status in patients with acute heart failure (AHF), suggests a new randomized trial. The drugs were given to the study’s loop diuretic–resistant patients on top of furosemide.

Changes in volume status and measures of pulmonary congestion and risk for serious adverse events were similar for those assigned to take dapagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, or metolazone, a quinazoline diuretic. Those on dapagliflozin zone ultimately received a larger cumulative furosemide dose in the 61-patient trial, called DAPA-RESIST.

“The next steps are to assess whether a strategy of using SGLT2 inhibitors up front in patients with HF reduces the incidence of diuretic resistance, and to test further combinations of diuretics such as thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics, compared with acetazolamide, when used in addition to an IV loop diuretic and SGLT2 inhibitors together,” Ross T. Campbell, MBChB, PhD, University of Glasgow and Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, also in Glasgow, said in an interview.

Dr. Campbell presented the findings at the annual meeting of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology and is senior author on its simultaneous publication in the European Heart Journal.

The multicenter trial randomly assigned 61 patients with AHF to receive dapagliflozin at a fixed dose of 10 mg once daily or metolazone 5 mg or 10 mg (starting dosage at physician discretion) once daily for 3 days of treatment on an open-label basis.

Patients had entered the trial on furosemide at a mean daily dosage of 260 mg in the dapagliflozin group and 229 mg for those assigned metolazone; dosages for the loop diuretic in the trial weren’t prespecified.

Their median age was 79 and 54% were women; 44% had HF with reduced ejection fraction. Their mean glomerular filtration rate was below 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² in 26%, 90% had chronic kidney disease, 98% had peripheral edema, and 46% had diabetes.

The mean cumulative furosemide dose was significantly higher among the dapagliflozin group’s 31 patients, 976 mg versus 704 mg for the 30 on acetazolamide (P < .05), 96 hours after the start of randomized therapy. However, patients on dapagliflozin experienced a lesser increase in creatinine (P < .05) and in blood urea (P < .01), a greater change in serum sodium (P < .05), and a smaller reduction in serum potassium (P < .01).

Although the trial wasn’t powered for those outcomes, Dr. Campbell said, “less biochemical upset could be associated with better outcomes in terms of less medium- to long-term renal impairment, and in the short-term length of stay.”

The mean decrease in weight at 96 hours, the primary endpoint, reached 3 kg on dapagliflozin, compared with 3.6 kg with metolazone (P = .082), a difference that fell short of significance.

Loop diuretic efficiency, that is weight change in kg per 40 mg furosemide, “was smaller with dapagliflozin than with metolazone at each time point after randomization, although the difference was only significant at 24 hours,” the published report states.

Changes in pulmonary congestion (by lung ultrasound) and fluid volume were similar between the groups.

“This trial further adds to the evidence base and safety profile for using SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with acute heart failure,” and “gives further confidence to clinicians that this class can be started in ‘sicker’ patients with HF who also have diuretic resistance,” Dr. Campbell said.

Asked during his presentation’s question and answer whether dapagliflozin might have shown a greater effect had the dosage been higher, Dr. Campbell explained that the drug was investigational when the trial started. Adding a higher-dose dapagliflozin arm, he said, would have made for an excessively complex study. But “that’s a great research question for another trial.”

DAPA-RESIST was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Campbell disclosed receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca for speaking and from Bayer for serving on an advisory board.

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

Dapagliflozin (Farxiga) appears to be no more effective than the “thiazide-like” diuretic metolazone at improving pulmonary congestion and fluid status in patients with acute heart failure (AHF), suggests a new randomized trial. The drugs were given to the study’s loop diuretic–resistant patients on top of furosemide.

Changes in volume status and measures of pulmonary congestion and risk for serious adverse events were similar for those assigned to take dapagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor, or metolazone, a quinazoline diuretic. Those on dapagliflozin zone ultimately received a larger cumulative furosemide dose in the 61-patient trial, called DAPA-RESIST.

“The next steps are to assess whether a strategy of using SGLT2 inhibitors up front in patients with HF reduces the incidence of diuretic resistance, and to test further combinations of diuretics such as thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics, compared with acetazolamide, when used in addition to an IV loop diuretic and SGLT2 inhibitors together,” Ross T. Campbell, MBChB, PhD, University of Glasgow and Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, also in Glasgow, said in an interview.

Dr. Campbell presented the findings at the annual meeting of the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology and is senior author on its simultaneous publication in the European Heart Journal.

The multicenter trial randomly assigned 61 patients with AHF to receive dapagliflozin at a fixed dose of 10 mg once daily or metolazone 5 mg or 10 mg (starting dosage at physician discretion) once daily for 3 days of treatment on an open-label basis.

Patients had entered the trial on furosemide at a mean daily dosage of 260 mg in the dapagliflozin group and 229 mg for those assigned metolazone; dosages for the loop diuretic in the trial weren’t prespecified.

Their median age was 79 and 54% were women; 44% had HF with reduced ejection fraction. Their mean glomerular filtration rate was below 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² in 26%, 90% had chronic kidney disease, 98% had peripheral edema, and 46% had diabetes.

The mean cumulative furosemide dose was significantly higher among the dapagliflozin group’s 31 patients, 976 mg versus 704 mg for the 30 on acetazolamide (P < .05), 96 hours after the start of randomized therapy. However, patients on dapagliflozin experienced a lesser increase in creatinine (P < .05) and in blood urea (P < .01), a greater change in serum sodium (P < .05), and a smaller reduction in serum potassium (P < .01).

Although the trial wasn’t powered for those outcomes, Dr. Campbell said, “less biochemical upset could be associated with better outcomes in terms of less medium- to long-term renal impairment, and in the short-term length of stay.”

The mean decrease in weight at 96 hours, the primary endpoint, reached 3 kg on dapagliflozin, compared with 3.6 kg with metolazone (P = .082), a difference that fell short of significance.

Loop diuretic efficiency, that is weight change in kg per 40 mg furosemide, “was smaller with dapagliflozin than with metolazone at each time point after randomization, although the difference was only significant at 24 hours,” the published report states.

Changes in pulmonary congestion (by lung ultrasound) and fluid volume were similar between the groups.

“This trial further adds to the evidence base and safety profile for using SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with acute heart failure,” and “gives further confidence to clinicians that this class can be started in ‘sicker’ patients with HF who also have diuretic resistance,” Dr. Campbell said.

Asked during his presentation’s question and answer whether dapagliflozin might have shown a greater effect had the dosage been higher, Dr. Campbell explained that the drug was investigational when the trial started. Adding a higher-dose dapagliflozin arm, he said, would have made for an excessively complex study. But “that’s a great research question for another trial.”

DAPA-RESIST was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Campbell disclosed receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca for speaking and from Bayer for serving on an advisory board.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me to discuss ways to address and reform the toxic culture associated with medical training is Dr. Amy Faith Ho, senior vice president of clinical informatics and analytics at Integrative Emergency Services in Dallas. Also joining us is Dr. Júlia Loyola Ferreira, a pediatric surgeon originally from Brazil, now practicing at Montreal Children’s and focused on advocacy for gender equity and patient-centered care.

Welcome to both of you. Thanks so much for joining me.

Amy Faith Ho, MD, MPH: Thanks so much for having us, Rob.

Dr. Glatter: Amy, I noticed a tweet recently where you talked about how your career choice was affected by the toxic environment in medical school, affecting your choice of residency. Can you elaborate on that?

Dr. Ho: This is a super-important topic, not in just one specialty but in all of medicine, because what you’re talking about is toxic workplace culture that is certainly directed toward certain groups. In this instance, what we’re talking about is gender, but it can be directed toward any number of other groups as well.

What you’re alluding to is a tweet by Stanford Surgery Group showing the next residency class, and what was really stunning about this residency class was that it was almost all females. And this was something that took off on social media.

When I saw this, I was really brought back to one of my personal experiences that I chose to share, which was basically that, as a medical student, I really wanted to be a surgeon. I’m an emergency medicine doctor now, so you know that didn’t happen.

The story that I was sharing was that when I was a third-year medical student rotating on surgery, we had a male attending who was very well known at that school at the time who basically would take the female medical students, and instead of clinic, he would round us up. He would have us sit around him in the workplace room while everyone else was seeing patients, and he would have you look at news clippings of himself. He would tell you stories about himself, like he was holding court for the ladies.

It was this very weird culture where my takeaway as a med student was like, “Wow, this is kind of abusive patriarchy that is supported,” because everyone knew about it and was complicit. Even though I really liked surgery, this was just one instance and one example of where you see this culture that really resonates into the rest of life that I didn’t really want to be a part of.

I went into emergency medicine and loved it. It’s also highly procedural, and I was very happy with where I was. What was really interesting about this tweet to me, though, is that it really took off and garnered hundreds of thousands of views on a very niche topic, because what was most revealing is that everyone has a story like this.

It is not just surgery. It is definitely not just one specialty and it is not just one school. It is an endemic problem in medicine. Not only does it change the lives of young women, but it also says so much about the complicity and the culture that we have in medicine that many people were upset about just the same way I was.
 

Medical training experience in other countries vs. the United States

Dr. Glatter: Júlia, I want to hear about your experience in medical school, surgery, and then fellowship training and up to the present, if possible.

Júlia Loyola Ferreira, MD: In Brazil, as in many countries now, women have made up the majority of the medical students since 2010. It’s a more female-friendly environment when you’re going through medical school, and I was lucky enough to do rotations in areas of surgery where people were friendly to women.

I lived in this tiny bubble that also gave me the privilege of not facing some things that I can imagine that people in Brazil in different areas and smaller towns face. In Brazil, people try to not talk about this gender agenda. This is something that’s being talked about outside Brazil. But in Brazil, we are years back. People are not really engaging on this conversation. I thought it was going to be hard for me as a woman, because Brazil has around 20% female surgeons.

I knew it was going to be challenging, but I had no idea how bad it was. When I started and things started happening, the list was big. I have an example of everything that is written about – microaggression, implicit bias, discrimination, harassment.

Every time I would try to speak about it and talk to someone, I would be strongly gaslighted. It was the whole training, the whole 5 years. People would say, “Oh, I don’t think it was like that. I think you were overreacting.” People would come with all these different answers for what I was experiencing, and that was frustrating. That was even harder because I had to cope with everything that was happening and I had no one to turn to. I had no mentors.

When I looked up to women who were in surgery, they would be tougher on us young surgeons than the men and they would tell us that we should not complain because in their time it was even harder. Now, it’s getting better and we are supposed to accept whatever comes.

That was at least a little bit of what I experienced in my training. It was only after I finished and started to do research about it that I really encountered a field of people who would echo what I was trying to say to many people in different hospitals that I attended to.

That was the key for me to get out of that situation of being gaslighted and of not being able to really talk about it. Suddenly, I started to publish things about Brazil that nobody was even writing or studying. That gave me a large amount of responsibility, but also motivation to keep going and to see the change.
 

Valuing women in medicine

Dr. Glatter: This is a very important point that you’re raising about the environment of women being hard on other women. We know that men can be very difficult on and also judgmental toward their trainees.

Amy, how would you respond to that? Was your experience similar in emergency medicine training?

Dr. Ho: I actually don’t feel like it was. I think what Júlia is alluding to is this “mean girls” idea, of “I went through it and thus you have to go through it.” I think you do see this in many specialties. One of the classic ones we hear about, and I don’t want to speak to it too much because it’s not my specialty, is ob.gyn., where it is a very female-dominant surgery group. There’s almost a hazing level that you hear about in some of the more malignant workplaces.

I think that you speak to two really important things. Number one is the numbers game. As you were saying, Brazil actually has many women. That’s awesome. That’s actually different from the United States, especially for the historic, existing workplace and less so for the medical students and for residents. I think step one is having minorities like women just present and there.

Step two is actually including and valuing them. While I think it’s really easy to move away from the women discussion, because there are women when you look around in medicine, it doesn’t mean that women are actually being heard, that they’re actually being accepted, or that their viewpoints are being listened to. A big part of it is normalizing not only seeing women in medicine but also normalizing the narrative of women in medicine.

It’s not just about motherhood; it’s about things like normalizing talking about advancement, academic promotions, pay, culture, being called things like “too reactive,” “anxious,” or “too assertive.” These are all classic things that we hear about when we talk about women.

That’s why we’re looking to not only conversations like this, but also structured ways for women to discuss being women in medicine. There are many women in medicine groups in emergency medicine, including: Females Working in Emergency Medicine (FemInEM); the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) women’s groups, which are American Association of Women Emergency Physicians (AAWEP) and Academy for Women in Academic Emergency Medicine (AWAEM), respectively; and the American Medical Women’s Association (AMWA), which is the American Medical Association’s offshoot.

All of these groups are geared toward normalizing women in medicine, normalizing the narrative of women in medicine, and then working on mentoring and educating so that we can advance our initiatives.
 

Gender balance is not gender equity

Dr. Glatter: Amy, you bring up a very critical point that mentoring is sort of the antidote to gender-based discrimination. Júlia had written a paper back in November of 2022 that was published in the Journal of Surgical Research talking exactly about this and how important it is to develop mentoring. Part of her research showed that about 20% of medical students who took the survey, about 1,000 people, had mentors, which was very disturbing.

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Mentorship is one of the ways of changing the reality about gender-based discrimination. Amy’s comment was very strong and we need to really keep saying it, which is that gender balance is not gender equity.

The idea of having more women is not the same as women being recognized as equals, as able as men, and as valued as men. To change this very long culture of male domination, we need support, and this support comes from mentorship.

Although I didn’t have one, I feel that since I started being a mentor for some students, it changed not only them but myself. It gave me strength to keep going, studying, publishing, and going further with this discussion. I feel like the relationship was as good for them as it is for me. That’s how things change.
 

Diversity, equity, and inclusion training

Dr. Glatter: We’re talking about the reality of gender equity in terms of the ability to have equal respect, recognition, opportunities, and access. That’s really an important point to realize, and for our audience, to understand that gender equity is not gender balance.

Amy, I want to talk about medical school curriculums. Are there advances that you’re aware of being made at certain schools, programs, even in residencies, to enforce these things and make it a priority?

Dr. Ho: We’re really lucky that, as a culture in the United States, medical training is certainly very geared toward diversity. Some of that is certainly unofficial. Some of that just means when they’re looking at a medical school class or looking at rank lists for residency, that they’re cognizant of the different backgrounds that people have. That’s still a step. That is a step, that we’re at least acknowledging it.

There are multiple medical schools and residencies that have more formal unconscious-bias training or diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training, both of which are excellent not only for us in the workplace but also for our patients. Almost all of us will see patients of highly diverse backgrounds. I think the biggest push is looking toward the criteria that we use for selecting trainees and students into our programs. Historically, it’s been MCAT, GPA, and so on.

We’ve really started to ask the question of, are these sorts of “objective criteria” actually biased in institutional ways? They talk about this all the time where GPAs will bias against students from underrepresented minorities (URM). I think all medical students and residencies have really acknowledged that. Although there are still test cutoffs, we are putting an inquisitive eye to what those mean, why they exist, and what are the other things that we should consider. This is all very heartening from what I’m seeing in medical training.

Dr. Glatter: There’s no formal rating system for DEI curriculums right now, like ranking of this school, or this program has more advanced recognition in terms of DEI?

Dr. Ho: No, but on the flip side, the U.S. News & World Report was classically one of the major rankings for medical schools. What we saw fairly recently was that very high-tier schools like Harvard and University of Chicago pulled out of that ranking because that ranking did not acknowledge the value of diversity. That was an incredible stance for medical schools to take, to say, “Hey, you are not evaluating an important criterion of ours.”

Dr. Glatter: That’s a great point. Júlia, where are we now in Brazil in terms of awareness of DEI and curriculum in schools and training programs?

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Our reality is not as good as in the U.S., unfortunately. I don’t see much discussion on residency programs or medical schools at the moment. I see many students bringing it out and trying to make their schools engage in that discussion. This is something that is coming from the bottom up and not from the top down. I think it can lead to change as well. It is a step and it’s a beginning. Institutions should take the responsibility of doing this from the beginning. This is something where Brazil is still years behind you guys.

Dr. Glatter: It’s unfortunate, but certainly it’s important to hear that. What about in Canada and certainly your institution, McGill, where you just completed a master’s degree?

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Canada is very much like the U.S. This is something that is really happening and it’s happening fast. I see, at least at McGill, a large amount of DEI inclusion and everything on this discussion. They have institutional courses for us to do as students, and we are all obliged to do many courses, which I think is really educating, especially for people with different cultures and backgrounds.

Dr. Glatter: Amy, where do you think we are in emergency medicine to look at the other side of it? Comparing surgery with emergency medicine, do you think we’re well advanced in terms of DEI, inclusion criteria, respect, and dignity, or are we really far off?

Dr. Ho: I may be biased, but I think emergency medicine is one of the best in terms of this, and I think there are a couple of reasons for it. One is that we are an inherently team-based organization. The attending, the residents, and the students all work in line with one another. There’s less of a hierarchy.

The same is true for our nurses, pharmacists, techs, and EMS. We all work together as a team. Because of that fairly flat structure, it’s really easy for us to value one another as individuals with our diverse backgrounds. In a way, that’s harder for specialties that are more hierarchical, and I think surgery is certainly one of the most hierarchical.

The second reason why emergency medicine is fairly well off in this is that we’re, by nature, a safety-net specialty. We see patients of all-comers, all walks, all backgrounds. I think we both recognize the value of physician-patient concordance. When we share characteristics with our patients, we recognize that value immediately at the bedside.

It exposes us to so much diversity. I see a refugee one day and the next patient is someone who is incarcerated. The next patient after that is an important businessman in society. That diversity and whiplash in the type of patients that we see back-to-back helps us see the playing field in a really flat, diverse way. Because of that, I think our culture is much better, as is our understanding of the value and importance of diversity not only for our programs, but also for our patients.
 

Do female doctors have better patient outcomes?

Dr. Glatter: Specialties working together in the emergency department is so important. Building that team and that togetherness is so critical. Júlia, would you agree?

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Definitely. Something Amy said that is beautiful is that you recognize yourself in these patients. In surgery, we are taught to try to be away from the patients and not to put ourselves in the same position. We are taught to be less engaging, and this is not good. The good thing is when we really have patient-centered care, when we listen to them, and when we are involved with them.

I saw a publication showing that female and male surgeons treating similar patients had the same surgical outcomes. Women are as good as men technically to do surgery and have the same surgical outcomes. However, there is research showing that surgical teams with greater representation of women have improved surgical outcomes because of patient-centered care and the way women conduct bedside attention to patients. And they have better patient experience measures afterward. That is not only from the women who are treating the patients, but the whole environment. Women end up bringing men [into the conversation] and this better improves patient-centered care, and that makes the whole team a better team attending patients. Definitely, we are in the moment of patient experience and satisfaction, and increasing women is a way of achieving better patient satisfaction and experience.

Dr. Ho: There’s much to be said about having female clinicians available for patients. It doesn’t have to be just for female patients, although again, concordance between physicians and patients is certainly beneficial. Besides outcomes benefit, there’s even just a communication benefit. The way that women and men communicate is inherently different. The way women and men experience certain things is also inherently different.

A classic example of this is women who are experiencing a heart attack may not actually have chest pain but present with nausea. As a female who’s sensitive to this, when I see a woman throwing up, I am very attuned to something actually being wrong, knowing that they may not present with classic pain for a syndrome, but actually may be presenting with nausea instead. It doesn’t have to be a woman who takes that knowledge and turns it into something at the bedside. It certainly doesn’t have to, but it is just a natural, easy thing to step into as a female.

While I’m really careful to not step into this “women are better than men” or “men are better than women” argument, there’s something to be said about how the availability of female clinicians for all patients, not just female patients, can have benefit. Again, it’s shown in studies with cardiovascular outcomes and cardiologists, it’s certainly shown in ob.gyn., particularly for underrepresented minorities as well for maternal outcomes of Black mothers. It’s certainly shown again in patient satisfaction, which is concordance.

There is a profound level of research already on this that goes beyond just the idea of stacking the bench and putting more women in there. That’s not the value. We’re not just here to check off the box. We’re here to actually lend some value to our patients and, again, to one another as well.

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. These are excellent points. The point you make about patient presentation is so vital. The fact that women have nausea sometimes in ACS presentations, the research never was really attentive to this. It was biased. The symptoms that women may have that are not “typical” for ACS weren’t included in patient presentations. Educating everyone about, overall, the types of presentations that we can recognize is vital and important.

Dr. Ho: Yes. It’s worth saying that, when you look at how medicine and research developed, classically, who were the research participants? They were often White men. They were college students who, historically, because women were not allowed to go to college, were men.

I say that not to fault the institution, because that was the culture of our history, but to just say it is okay to question things. It is okay to realize that someone’s presenting outside of the box and that maybe we actually need to reframe what even created the walls of the box in the first place.

Dr. Glatter: Thank you again for joining us. I truly appreciate your insight and expertise.

Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine, department of emergency medicine, Hofstra/Northwell, New York. Dr. Ho is senior vice president of clinical informatics & analytics, department of emergency medicine, Integrative Emergency Services, Dallas. Dr. Loyola Ferreira is a master of science candidate, department of experimental surgery, McGill University, Montreal. They reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me to discuss ways to address and reform the toxic culture associated with medical training is Dr. Amy Faith Ho, senior vice president of clinical informatics and analytics at Integrative Emergency Services in Dallas. Also joining us is Dr. Júlia Loyola Ferreira, a pediatric surgeon originally from Brazil, now practicing at Montreal Children’s and focused on advocacy for gender equity and patient-centered care.

Welcome to both of you. Thanks so much for joining me.

Amy Faith Ho, MD, MPH: Thanks so much for having us, Rob.

Dr. Glatter: Amy, I noticed a tweet recently where you talked about how your career choice was affected by the toxic environment in medical school, affecting your choice of residency. Can you elaborate on that?

Dr. Ho: This is a super-important topic, not in just one specialty but in all of medicine, because what you’re talking about is toxic workplace culture that is certainly directed toward certain groups. In this instance, what we’re talking about is gender, but it can be directed toward any number of other groups as well.

What you’re alluding to is a tweet by Stanford Surgery Group showing the next residency class, and what was really stunning about this residency class was that it was almost all females. And this was something that took off on social media.

When I saw this, I was really brought back to one of my personal experiences that I chose to share, which was basically that, as a medical student, I really wanted to be a surgeon. I’m an emergency medicine doctor now, so you know that didn’t happen.

The story that I was sharing was that when I was a third-year medical student rotating on surgery, we had a male attending who was very well known at that school at the time who basically would take the female medical students, and instead of clinic, he would round us up. He would have us sit around him in the workplace room while everyone else was seeing patients, and he would have you look at news clippings of himself. He would tell you stories about himself, like he was holding court for the ladies.

It was this very weird culture where my takeaway as a med student was like, “Wow, this is kind of abusive patriarchy that is supported,” because everyone knew about it and was complicit. Even though I really liked surgery, this was just one instance and one example of where you see this culture that really resonates into the rest of life that I didn’t really want to be a part of.

I went into emergency medicine and loved it. It’s also highly procedural, and I was very happy with where I was. What was really interesting about this tweet to me, though, is that it really took off and garnered hundreds of thousands of views on a very niche topic, because what was most revealing is that everyone has a story like this.

It is not just surgery. It is definitely not just one specialty and it is not just one school. It is an endemic problem in medicine. Not only does it change the lives of young women, but it also says so much about the complicity and the culture that we have in medicine that many people were upset about just the same way I was.
 

Medical training experience in other countries vs. the United States

Dr. Glatter: Júlia, I want to hear about your experience in medical school, surgery, and then fellowship training and up to the present, if possible.

Júlia Loyola Ferreira, MD: In Brazil, as in many countries now, women have made up the majority of the medical students since 2010. It’s a more female-friendly environment when you’re going through medical school, and I was lucky enough to do rotations in areas of surgery where people were friendly to women.

I lived in this tiny bubble that also gave me the privilege of not facing some things that I can imagine that people in Brazil in different areas and smaller towns face. In Brazil, people try to not talk about this gender agenda. This is something that’s being talked about outside Brazil. But in Brazil, we are years back. People are not really engaging on this conversation. I thought it was going to be hard for me as a woman, because Brazil has around 20% female surgeons.

I knew it was going to be challenging, but I had no idea how bad it was. When I started and things started happening, the list was big. I have an example of everything that is written about – microaggression, implicit bias, discrimination, harassment.

Every time I would try to speak about it and talk to someone, I would be strongly gaslighted. It was the whole training, the whole 5 years. People would say, “Oh, I don’t think it was like that. I think you were overreacting.” People would come with all these different answers for what I was experiencing, and that was frustrating. That was even harder because I had to cope with everything that was happening and I had no one to turn to. I had no mentors.

When I looked up to women who were in surgery, they would be tougher on us young surgeons than the men and they would tell us that we should not complain because in their time it was even harder. Now, it’s getting better and we are supposed to accept whatever comes.

That was at least a little bit of what I experienced in my training. It was only after I finished and started to do research about it that I really encountered a field of people who would echo what I was trying to say to many people in different hospitals that I attended to.

That was the key for me to get out of that situation of being gaslighted and of not being able to really talk about it. Suddenly, I started to publish things about Brazil that nobody was even writing or studying. That gave me a large amount of responsibility, but also motivation to keep going and to see the change.
 

Valuing women in medicine

Dr. Glatter: This is a very important point that you’re raising about the environment of women being hard on other women. We know that men can be very difficult on and also judgmental toward their trainees.

Amy, how would you respond to that? Was your experience similar in emergency medicine training?

Dr. Ho: I actually don’t feel like it was. I think what Júlia is alluding to is this “mean girls” idea, of “I went through it and thus you have to go through it.” I think you do see this in many specialties. One of the classic ones we hear about, and I don’t want to speak to it too much because it’s not my specialty, is ob.gyn., where it is a very female-dominant surgery group. There’s almost a hazing level that you hear about in some of the more malignant workplaces.

I think that you speak to two really important things. Number one is the numbers game. As you were saying, Brazil actually has many women. That’s awesome. That’s actually different from the United States, especially for the historic, existing workplace and less so for the medical students and for residents. I think step one is having minorities like women just present and there.

Step two is actually including and valuing them. While I think it’s really easy to move away from the women discussion, because there are women when you look around in medicine, it doesn’t mean that women are actually being heard, that they’re actually being accepted, or that their viewpoints are being listened to. A big part of it is normalizing not only seeing women in medicine but also normalizing the narrative of women in medicine.

It’s not just about motherhood; it’s about things like normalizing talking about advancement, academic promotions, pay, culture, being called things like “too reactive,” “anxious,” or “too assertive.” These are all classic things that we hear about when we talk about women.

That’s why we’re looking to not only conversations like this, but also structured ways for women to discuss being women in medicine. There are many women in medicine groups in emergency medicine, including: Females Working in Emergency Medicine (FemInEM); the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) women’s groups, which are American Association of Women Emergency Physicians (AAWEP) and Academy for Women in Academic Emergency Medicine (AWAEM), respectively; and the American Medical Women’s Association (AMWA), which is the American Medical Association’s offshoot.

All of these groups are geared toward normalizing women in medicine, normalizing the narrative of women in medicine, and then working on mentoring and educating so that we can advance our initiatives.
 

Gender balance is not gender equity

Dr. Glatter: Amy, you bring up a very critical point that mentoring is sort of the antidote to gender-based discrimination. Júlia had written a paper back in November of 2022 that was published in the Journal of Surgical Research talking exactly about this and how important it is to develop mentoring. Part of her research showed that about 20% of medical students who took the survey, about 1,000 people, had mentors, which was very disturbing.

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Mentorship is one of the ways of changing the reality about gender-based discrimination. Amy’s comment was very strong and we need to really keep saying it, which is that gender balance is not gender equity.

The idea of having more women is not the same as women being recognized as equals, as able as men, and as valued as men. To change this very long culture of male domination, we need support, and this support comes from mentorship.

Although I didn’t have one, I feel that since I started being a mentor for some students, it changed not only them but myself. It gave me strength to keep going, studying, publishing, and going further with this discussion. I feel like the relationship was as good for them as it is for me. That’s how things change.
 

Diversity, equity, and inclusion training

Dr. Glatter: We’re talking about the reality of gender equity in terms of the ability to have equal respect, recognition, opportunities, and access. That’s really an important point to realize, and for our audience, to understand that gender equity is not gender balance.

Amy, I want to talk about medical school curriculums. Are there advances that you’re aware of being made at certain schools, programs, even in residencies, to enforce these things and make it a priority?

Dr. Ho: We’re really lucky that, as a culture in the United States, medical training is certainly very geared toward diversity. Some of that is certainly unofficial. Some of that just means when they’re looking at a medical school class or looking at rank lists for residency, that they’re cognizant of the different backgrounds that people have. That’s still a step. That is a step, that we’re at least acknowledging it.

There are multiple medical schools and residencies that have more formal unconscious-bias training or diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training, both of which are excellent not only for us in the workplace but also for our patients. Almost all of us will see patients of highly diverse backgrounds. I think the biggest push is looking toward the criteria that we use for selecting trainees and students into our programs. Historically, it’s been MCAT, GPA, and so on.

We’ve really started to ask the question of, are these sorts of “objective criteria” actually biased in institutional ways? They talk about this all the time where GPAs will bias against students from underrepresented minorities (URM). I think all medical students and residencies have really acknowledged that. Although there are still test cutoffs, we are putting an inquisitive eye to what those mean, why they exist, and what are the other things that we should consider. This is all very heartening from what I’m seeing in medical training.

Dr. Glatter: There’s no formal rating system for DEI curriculums right now, like ranking of this school, or this program has more advanced recognition in terms of DEI?

Dr. Ho: No, but on the flip side, the U.S. News & World Report was classically one of the major rankings for medical schools. What we saw fairly recently was that very high-tier schools like Harvard and University of Chicago pulled out of that ranking because that ranking did not acknowledge the value of diversity. That was an incredible stance for medical schools to take, to say, “Hey, you are not evaluating an important criterion of ours.”

Dr. Glatter: That’s a great point. Júlia, where are we now in Brazil in terms of awareness of DEI and curriculum in schools and training programs?

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Our reality is not as good as in the U.S., unfortunately. I don’t see much discussion on residency programs or medical schools at the moment. I see many students bringing it out and trying to make their schools engage in that discussion. This is something that is coming from the bottom up and not from the top down. I think it can lead to change as well. It is a step and it’s a beginning. Institutions should take the responsibility of doing this from the beginning. This is something where Brazil is still years behind you guys.

Dr. Glatter: It’s unfortunate, but certainly it’s important to hear that. What about in Canada and certainly your institution, McGill, where you just completed a master’s degree?

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Canada is very much like the U.S. This is something that is really happening and it’s happening fast. I see, at least at McGill, a large amount of DEI inclusion and everything on this discussion. They have institutional courses for us to do as students, and we are all obliged to do many courses, which I think is really educating, especially for people with different cultures and backgrounds.

Dr. Glatter: Amy, where do you think we are in emergency medicine to look at the other side of it? Comparing surgery with emergency medicine, do you think we’re well advanced in terms of DEI, inclusion criteria, respect, and dignity, or are we really far off?

Dr. Ho: I may be biased, but I think emergency medicine is one of the best in terms of this, and I think there are a couple of reasons for it. One is that we are an inherently team-based organization. The attending, the residents, and the students all work in line with one another. There’s less of a hierarchy.

The same is true for our nurses, pharmacists, techs, and EMS. We all work together as a team. Because of that fairly flat structure, it’s really easy for us to value one another as individuals with our diverse backgrounds. In a way, that’s harder for specialties that are more hierarchical, and I think surgery is certainly one of the most hierarchical.

The second reason why emergency medicine is fairly well off in this is that we’re, by nature, a safety-net specialty. We see patients of all-comers, all walks, all backgrounds. I think we both recognize the value of physician-patient concordance. When we share characteristics with our patients, we recognize that value immediately at the bedside.

It exposes us to so much diversity. I see a refugee one day and the next patient is someone who is incarcerated. The next patient after that is an important businessman in society. That diversity and whiplash in the type of patients that we see back-to-back helps us see the playing field in a really flat, diverse way. Because of that, I think our culture is much better, as is our understanding of the value and importance of diversity not only for our programs, but also for our patients.
 

Do female doctors have better patient outcomes?

Dr. Glatter: Specialties working together in the emergency department is so important. Building that team and that togetherness is so critical. Júlia, would you agree?

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Definitely. Something Amy said that is beautiful is that you recognize yourself in these patients. In surgery, we are taught to try to be away from the patients and not to put ourselves in the same position. We are taught to be less engaging, and this is not good. The good thing is when we really have patient-centered care, when we listen to them, and when we are involved with them.

I saw a publication showing that female and male surgeons treating similar patients had the same surgical outcomes. Women are as good as men technically to do surgery and have the same surgical outcomes. However, there is research showing that surgical teams with greater representation of women have improved surgical outcomes because of patient-centered care and the way women conduct bedside attention to patients. And they have better patient experience measures afterward. That is not only from the women who are treating the patients, but the whole environment. Women end up bringing men [into the conversation] and this better improves patient-centered care, and that makes the whole team a better team attending patients. Definitely, we are in the moment of patient experience and satisfaction, and increasing women is a way of achieving better patient satisfaction and experience.

Dr. Ho: There’s much to be said about having female clinicians available for patients. It doesn’t have to be just for female patients, although again, concordance between physicians and patients is certainly beneficial. Besides outcomes benefit, there’s even just a communication benefit. The way that women and men communicate is inherently different. The way women and men experience certain things is also inherently different.

A classic example of this is women who are experiencing a heart attack may not actually have chest pain but present with nausea. As a female who’s sensitive to this, when I see a woman throwing up, I am very attuned to something actually being wrong, knowing that they may not present with classic pain for a syndrome, but actually may be presenting with nausea instead. It doesn’t have to be a woman who takes that knowledge and turns it into something at the bedside. It certainly doesn’t have to, but it is just a natural, easy thing to step into as a female.

While I’m really careful to not step into this “women are better than men” or “men are better than women” argument, there’s something to be said about how the availability of female clinicians for all patients, not just female patients, can have benefit. Again, it’s shown in studies with cardiovascular outcomes and cardiologists, it’s certainly shown in ob.gyn., particularly for underrepresented minorities as well for maternal outcomes of Black mothers. It’s certainly shown again in patient satisfaction, which is concordance.

There is a profound level of research already on this that goes beyond just the idea of stacking the bench and putting more women in there. That’s not the value. We’re not just here to check off the box. We’re here to actually lend some value to our patients and, again, to one another as well.

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. These are excellent points. The point you make about patient presentation is so vital. The fact that women have nausea sometimes in ACS presentations, the research never was really attentive to this. It was biased. The symptoms that women may have that are not “typical” for ACS weren’t included in patient presentations. Educating everyone about, overall, the types of presentations that we can recognize is vital and important.

Dr. Ho: Yes. It’s worth saying that, when you look at how medicine and research developed, classically, who were the research participants? They were often White men. They were college students who, historically, because women were not allowed to go to college, were men.

I say that not to fault the institution, because that was the culture of our history, but to just say it is okay to question things. It is okay to realize that someone’s presenting outside of the box and that maybe we actually need to reframe what even created the walls of the box in the first place.

Dr. Glatter: Thank you again for joining us. I truly appreciate your insight and expertise.

Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine, department of emergency medicine, Hofstra/Northwell, New York. Dr. Ho is senior vice president of clinical informatics & analytics, department of emergency medicine, Integrative Emergency Services, Dallas. Dr. Loyola Ferreira is a master of science candidate, department of experimental surgery, McGill University, Montreal. They reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me to discuss ways to address and reform the toxic culture associated with medical training is Dr. Amy Faith Ho, senior vice president of clinical informatics and analytics at Integrative Emergency Services in Dallas. Also joining us is Dr. Júlia Loyola Ferreira, a pediatric surgeon originally from Brazil, now practicing at Montreal Children’s and focused on advocacy for gender equity and patient-centered care.

Welcome to both of you. Thanks so much for joining me.

Amy Faith Ho, MD, MPH: Thanks so much for having us, Rob.

Dr. Glatter: Amy, I noticed a tweet recently where you talked about how your career choice was affected by the toxic environment in medical school, affecting your choice of residency. Can you elaborate on that?

Dr. Ho: This is a super-important topic, not in just one specialty but in all of medicine, because what you’re talking about is toxic workplace culture that is certainly directed toward certain groups. In this instance, what we’re talking about is gender, but it can be directed toward any number of other groups as well.

What you’re alluding to is a tweet by Stanford Surgery Group showing the next residency class, and what was really stunning about this residency class was that it was almost all females. And this was something that took off on social media.

When I saw this, I was really brought back to one of my personal experiences that I chose to share, which was basically that, as a medical student, I really wanted to be a surgeon. I’m an emergency medicine doctor now, so you know that didn’t happen.

The story that I was sharing was that when I was a third-year medical student rotating on surgery, we had a male attending who was very well known at that school at the time who basically would take the female medical students, and instead of clinic, he would round us up. He would have us sit around him in the workplace room while everyone else was seeing patients, and he would have you look at news clippings of himself. He would tell you stories about himself, like he was holding court for the ladies.

It was this very weird culture where my takeaway as a med student was like, “Wow, this is kind of abusive patriarchy that is supported,” because everyone knew about it and was complicit. Even though I really liked surgery, this was just one instance and one example of where you see this culture that really resonates into the rest of life that I didn’t really want to be a part of.

I went into emergency medicine and loved it. It’s also highly procedural, and I was very happy with where I was. What was really interesting about this tweet to me, though, is that it really took off and garnered hundreds of thousands of views on a very niche topic, because what was most revealing is that everyone has a story like this.

It is not just surgery. It is definitely not just one specialty and it is not just one school. It is an endemic problem in medicine. Not only does it change the lives of young women, but it also says so much about the complicity and the culture that we have in medicine that many people were upset about just the same way I was.
 

Medical training experience in other countries vs. the United States

Dr. Glatter: Júlia, I want to hear about your experience in medical school, surgery, and then fellowship training and up to the present, if possible.

Júlia Loyola Ferreira, MD: In Brazil, as in many countries now, women have made up the majority of the medical students since 2010. It’s a more female-friendly environment when you’re going through medical school, and I was lucky enough to do rotations in areas of surgery where people were friendly to women.

I lived in this tiny bubble that also gave me the privilege of not facing some things that I can imagine that people in Brazil in different areas and smaller towns face. In Brazil, people try to not talk about this gender agenda. This is something that’s being talked about outside Brazil. But in Brazil, we are years back. People are not really engaging on this conversation. I thought it was going to be hard for me as a woman, because Brazil has around 20% female surgeons.

I knew it was going to be challenging, but I had no idea how bad it was. When I started and things started happening, the list was big. I have an example of everything that is written about – microaggression, implicit bias, discrimination, harassment.

Every time I would try to speak about it and talk to someone, I would be strongly gaslighted. It was the whole training, the whole 5 years. People would say, “Oh, I don’t think it was like that. I think you were overreacting.” People would come with all these different answers for what I was experiencing, and that was frustrating. That was even harder because I had to cope with everything that was happening and I had no one to turn to. I had no mentors.

When I looked up to women who were in surgery, they would be tougher on us young surgeons than the men and they would tell us that we should not complain because in their time it was even harder. Now, it’s getting better and we are supposed to accept whatever comes.

That was at least a little bit of what I experienced in my training. It was only after I finished and started to do research about it that I really encountered a field of people who would echo what I was trying to say to many people in different hospitals that I attended to.

That was the key for me to get out of that situation of being gaslighted and of not being able to really talk about it. Suddenly, I started to publish things about Brazil that nobody was even writing or studying. That gave me a large amount of responsibility, but also motivation to keep going and to see the change.
 

Valuing women in medicine

Dr. Glatter: This is a very important point that you’re raising about the environment of women being hard on other women. We know that men can be very difficult on and also judgmental toward their trainees.

Amy, how would you respond to that? Was your experience similar in emergency medicine training?

Dr. Ho: I actually don’t feel like it was. I think what Júlia is alluding to is this “mean girls” idea, of “I went through it and thus you have to go through it.” I think you do see this in many specialties. One of the classic ones we hear about, and I don’t want to speak to it too much because it’s not my specialty, is ob.gyn., where it is a very female-dominant surgery group. There’s almost a hazing level that you hear about in some of the more malignant workplaces.

I think that you speak to two really important things. Number one is the numbers game. As you were saying, Brazil actually has many women. That’s awesome. That’s actually different from the United States, especially for the historic, existing workplace and less so for the medical students and for residents. I think step one is having minorities like women just present and there.

Step two is actually including and valuing them. While I think it’s really easy to move away from the women discussion, because there are women when you look around in medicine, it doesn’t mean that women are actually being heard, that they’re actually being accepted, or that their viewpoints are being listened to. A big part of it is normalizing not only seeing women in medicine but also normalizing the narrative of women in medicine.

It’s not just about motherhood; it’s about things like normalizing talking about advancement, academic promotions, pay, culture, being called things like “too reactive,” “anxious,” or “too assertive.” These are all classic things that we hear about when we talk about women.

That’s why we’re looking to not only conversations like this, but also structured ways for women to discuss being women in medicine. There are many women in medicine groups in emergency medicine, including: Females Working in Emergency Medicine (FemInEM); the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) women’s groups, which are American Association of Women Emergency Physicians (AAWEP) and Academy for Women in Academic Emergency Medicine (AWAEM), respectively; and the American Medical Women’s Association (AMWA), which is the American Medical Association’s offshoot.

All of these groups are geared toward normalizing women in medicine, normalizing the narrative of women in medicine, and then working on mentoring and educating so that we can advance our initiatives.
 

Gender balance is not gender equity

Dr. Glatter: Amy, you bring up a very critical point that mentoring is sort of the antidote to gender-based discrimination. Júlia had written a paper back in November of 2022 that was published in the Journal of Surgical Research talking exactly about this and how important it is to develop mentoring. Part of her research showed that about 20% of medical students who took the survey, about 1,000 people, had mentors, which was very disturbing.

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Mentorship is one of the ways of changing the reality about gender-based discrimination. Amy’s comment was very strong and we need to really keep saying it, which is that gender balance is not gender equity.

The idea of having more women is not the same as women being recognized as equals, as able as men, and as valued as men. To change this very long culture of male domination, we need support, and this support comes from mentorship.

Although I didn’t have one, I feel that since I started being a mentor for some students, it changed not only them but myself. It gave me strength to keep going, studying, publishing, and going further with this discussion. I feel like the relationship was as good for them as it is for me. That’s how things change.
 

Diversity, equity, and inclusion training

Dr. Glatter: We’re talking about the reality of gender equity in terms of the ability to have equal respect, recognition, opportunities, and access. That’s really an important point to realize, and for our audience, to understand that gender equity is not gender balance.

Amy, I want to talk about medical school curriculums. Are there advances that you’re aware of being made at certain schools, programs, even in residencies, to enforce these things and make it a priority?

Dr. Ho: We’re really lucky that, as a culture in the United States, medical training is certainly very geared toward diversity. Some of that is certainly unofficial. Some of that just means when they’re looking at a medical school class or looking at rank lists for residency, that they’re cognizant of the different backgrounds that people have. That’s still a step. That is a step, that we’re at least acknowledging it.

There are multiple medical schools and residencies that have more formal unconscious-bias training or diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training, both of which are excellent not only for us in the workplace but also for our patients. Almost all of us will see patients of highly diverse backgrounds. I think the biggest push is looking toward the criteria that we use for selecting trainees and students into our programs. Historically, it’s been MCAT, GPA, and so on.

We’ve really started to ask the question of, are these sorts of “objective criteria” actually biased in institutional ways? They talk about this all the time where GPAs will bias against students from underrepresented minorities (URM). I think all medical students and residencies have really acknowledged that. Although there are still test cutoffs, we are putting an inquisitive eye to what those mean, why they exist, and what are the other things that we should consider. This is all very heartening from what I’m seeing in medical training.

Dr. Glatter: There’s no formal rating system for DEI curriculums right now, like ranking of this school, or this program has more advanced recognition in terms of DEI?

Dr. Ho: No, but on the flip side, the U.S. News & World Report was classically one of the major rankings for medical schools. What we saw fairly recently was that very high-tier schools like Harvard and University of Chicago pulled out of that ranking because that ranking did not acknowledge the value of diversity. That was an incredible stance for medical schools to take, to say, “Hey, you are not evaluating an important criterion of ours.”

Dr. Glatter: That’s a great point. Júlia, where are we now in Brazil in terms of awareness of DEI and curriculum in schools and training programs?

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Our reality is not as good as in the U.S., unfortunately. I don’t see much discussion on residency programs or medical schools at the moment. I see many students bringing it out and trying to make their schools engage in that discussion. This is something that is coming from the bottom up and not from the top down. I think it can lead to change as well. It is a step and it’s a beginning. Institutions should take the responsibility of doing this from the beginning. This is something where Brazil is still years behind you guys.

Dr. Glatter: It’s unfortunate, but certainly it’s important to hear that. What about in Canada and certainly your institution, McGill, where you just completed a master’s degree?

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Canada is very much like the U.S. This is something that is really happening and it’s happening fast. I see, at least at McGill, a large amount of DEI inclusion and everything on this discussion. They have institutional courses for us to do as students, and we are all obliged to do many courses, which I think is really educating, especially for people with different cultures and backgrounds.

Dr. Glatter: Amy, where do you think we are in emergency medicine to look at the other side of it? Comparing surgery with emergency medicine, do you think we’re well advanced in terms of DEI, inclusion criteria, respect, and dignity, or are we really far off?

Dr. Ho: I may be biased, but I think emergency medicine is one of the best in terms of this, and I think there are a couple of reasons for it. One is that we are an inherently team-based organization. The attending, the residents, and the students all work in line with one another. There’s less of a hierarchy.

The same is true for our nurses, pharmacists, techs, and EMS. We all work together as a team. Because of that fairly flat structure, it’s really easy for us to value one another as individuals with our diverse backgrounds. In a way, that’s harder for specialties that are more hierarchical, and I think surgery is certainly one of the most hierarchical.

The second reason why emergency medicine is fairly well off in this is that we’re, by nature, a safety-net specialty. We see patients of all-comers, all walks, all backgrounds. I think we both recognize the value of physician-patient concordance. When we share characteristics with our patients, we recognize that value immediately at the bedside.

It exposes us to so much diversity. I see a refugee one day and the next patient is someone who is incarcerated. The next patient after that is an important businessman in society. That diversity and whiplash in the type of patients that we see back-to-back helps us see the playing field in a really flat, diverse way. Because of that, I think our culture is much better, as is our understanding of the value and importance of diversity not only for our programs, but also for our patients.
 

Do female doctors have better patient outcomes?

Dr. Glatter: Specialties working together in the emergency department is so important. Building that team and that togetherness is so critical. Júlia, would you agree?

Dr. Loyola Ferreira: Definitely. Something Amy said that is beautiful is that you recognize yourself in these patients. In surgery, we are taught to try to be away from the patients and not to put ourselves in the same position. We are taught to be less engaging, and this is not good. The good thing is when we really have patient-centered care, when we listen to them, and when we are involved with them.

I saw a publication showing that female and male surgeons treating similar patients had the same surgical outcomes. Women are as good as men technically to do surgery and have the same surgical outcomes. However, there is research showing that surgical teams with greater representation of women have improved surgical outcomes because of patient-centered care and the way women conduct bedside attention to patients. And they have better patient experience measures afterward. That is not only from the women who are treating the patients, but the whole environment. Women end up bringing men [into the conversation] and this better improves patient-centered care, and that makes the whole team a better team attending patients. Definitely, we are in the moment of patient experience and satisfaction, and increasing women is a way of achieving better patient satisfaction and experience.

Dr. Ho: There’s much to be said about having female clinicians available for patients. It doesn’t have to be just for female patients, although again, concordance between physicians and patients is certainly beneficial. Besides outcomes benefit, there’s even just a communication benefit. The way that women and men communicate is inherently different. The way women and men experience certain things is also inherently different.

A classic example of this is women who are experiencing a heart attack may not actually have chest pain but present with nausea. As a female who’s sensitive to this, when I see a woman throwing up, I am very attuned to something actually being wrong, knowing that they may not present with classic pain for a syndrome, but actually may be presenting with nausea instead. It doesn’t have to be a woman who takes that knowledge and turns it into something at the bedside. It certainly doesn’t have to, but it is just a natural, easy thing to step into as a female.

While I’m really careful to not step into this “women are better than men” or “men are better than women” argument, there’s something to be said about how the availability of female clinicians for all patients, not just female patients, can have benefit. Again, it’s shown in studies with cardiovascular outcomes and cardiologists, it’s certainly shown in ob.gyn., particularly for underrepresented minorities as well for maternal outcomes of Black mothers. It’s certainly shown again in patient satisfaction, which is concordance.

There is a profound level of research already on this that goes beyond just the idea of stacking the bench and putting more women in there. That’s not the value. We’re not just here to check off the box. We’re here to actually lend some value to our patients and, again, to one another as well.

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. These are excellent points. The point you make about patient presentation is so vital. The fact that women have nausea sometimes in ACS presentations, the research never was really attentive to this. It was biased. The symptoms that women may have that are not “typical” for ACS weren’t included in patient presentations. Educating everyone about, overall, the types of presentations that we can recognize is vital and important.

Dr. Ho: Yes. It’s worth saying that, when you look at how medicine and research developed, classically, who were the research participants? They were often White men. They were college students who, historically, because women were not allowed to go to college, were men.

I say that not to fault the institution, because that was the culture of our history, but to just say it is okay to question things. It is okay to realize that someone’s presenting outside of the box and that maybe we actually need to reframe what even created the walls of the box in the first place.

Dr. Glatter: Thank you again for joining us. I truly appreciate your insight and expertise.

Dr. Glatter is assistant professor of emergency medicine, department of emergency medicine, Hofstra/Northwell, New York. Dr. Ho is senior vice president of clinical informatics & analytics, department of emergency medicine, Integrative Emergency Services, Dallas. Dr. Loyola Ferreira is a master of science candidate, department of experimental surgery, McGill University, Montreal. They reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

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