All Content

BANGKOK – Statin therapy, even when initiated only upon hospitalization for acute ischemic stroke, was associated with a striking reduction in the risk of early poststroke symptomatic seizure in a large observational study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Using propensity-score matching to control for potential confounders, use of a statin during acute stroke management was associated with a “robust” 77% reduction in the risk of developing a symptomatic seizure within 7 days after hospital admission, Soichiro Matsubara, MD, reported at the International Epilepsy Congress.

This is an important finding because early symptomatic seizure (ESS) occurs in 2%-7% of patients following an acute ischemic stroke. Moreover, an Italian meta-analysis concluded that ESS was associated with a 4.4-fold increased risk of developing poststroke epilepsy (Epilepsia. 2016 Aug;57[8]:1205-14), noted Dr. Matsubara, a neurologist at the National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center in Suita, Japan, as well as at Kumamoto (Japan) University.

He presented a study of 2,969 consecutive acute ischemic stroke patients with no history of epilepsy who were admitted to the Japanese comprehensive stroke center, of whom 2.2% experienced ESS. At physician discretion, 19% of the ESS cohort were on a statin during their acute stroke management, as were 55% of the no-ESS group. Four-fifths of patients on a statin initiated the drug only upon hospital admission.

Strokes tended to be more severe in the ESS group, with a median initial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 12.5, compared with 4 in the seizure-free patients. A cortical stroke lesion was evident upon imaging in 89% of the ESS group and 55% of no-ESS patients. Among ESS patients, 46% had a cardiometabolic stroke, compared with 34% of the no-ESS cohort. Mean C-reactive protein levels and white blood cell counts were significantly higher in the ESS cohort as well. Their median hospital length of stay was 25.5 days, versus 18 days in the no-ESS group, Dr. Matsubara said at the congress sponsored by the International League Against Epilepsy.

Of the 76 ESSs that occurred in 66 patients, 37% were focal awareness seizures, 35% were focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures, and 28% were focal impaired awareness seizures.

In a multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, stroke subtype, and other potential confounders, statin therapy during acute management of stroke was independently associated with a 56% reduction in the relative risk of ESS. In contrast, a cortical stroke lesion was associated with a 2.83-fold increased risk.

Since this wasn’t a randomized trial of statin therapy, Dr. Matsubara and his coinvestigators felt the need to go further in analyzing the data. After extensive propensity score matching for atrial fibrillation, current smoking, systolic blood pressure, the presence or absence of a cortical stroke lesion, large vessel stenosis, and other possible confounders, they were left with two closely comparable groups: 886 statin-treated stroke patients and an equal number who were not on statin therapy during their acute stroke management. The key finding: The risk of ESS was reduced by a whopping 77% in the patients on statin therapy.

The neurologist observed that these new findings in acute ischemic stroke patients are consistent with an earlier study in a U.S. Veterans Affairs population, which demonstrated that statin therapy was associated with a significantly lower risk of new-onset geriatric epilepsy (J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009 Feb;57[2]:237-42).

As to the possible mechanism by which statins may protect against ESS, Dr. Matsubara noted that acute ischemic stroke causes toxic neuronal excitation because of blood-brain barrier disruption, ion channel dysfunction, altered gene expression, and increased release of neurotransmitters. In animal models, statins provide a neuroprotective effect by reducing glutamate levels, activating endothelial nitric oxide synthase, and inhibiting production of interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and other inflammatory cytokines.

Asked about the intensity of the statin therapy, Dr. Matsubara replied that the target was typically an LDL cholesterol below 100 mg/dL.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Matsubara S et al. IEC 219, Abstract P002.

BANGKOK – Statin therapy, even when initiated only upon hospitalization for acute ischemic stroke, was associated with a striking reduction in the risk of early poststroke symptomatic seizure in a large observational study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Using propensity-score matching to control for potential confounders, use of a statin during acute stroke management was associated with a “robust” 77% reduction in the risk of developing a symptomatic seizure within 7 days after hospital admission, Soichiro Matsubara, MD, reported at the International Epilepsy Congress.

This is an important finding because early symptomatic seizure (ESS) occurs in 2%-7% of patients following an acute ischemic stroke. Moreover, an Italian meta-analysis concluded that ESS was associated with a 4.4-fold increased risk of developing poststroke epilepsy (Epilepsia. 2016 Aug;57[8]:1205-14), noted Dr. Matsubara, a neurologist at the National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center in Suita, Japan, as well as at Kumamoto (Japan) University.

He presented a study of 2,969 consecutive acute ischemic stroke patients with no history of epilepsy who were admitted to the Japanese comprehensive stroke center, of whom 2.2% experienced ESS. At physician discretion, 19% of the ESS cohort were on a statin during their acute stroke management, as were 55% of the no-ESS group. Four-fifths of patients on a statin initiated the drug only upon hospital admission.

Strokes tended to be more severe in the ESS group, with a median initial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 12.5, compared with 4 in the seizure-free patients. A cortical stroke lesion was evident upon imaging in 89% of the ESS group and 55% of no-ESS patients. Among ESS patients, 46% had a cardiometabolic stroke, compared with 34% of the no-ESS cohort. Mean C-reactive protein levels and white blood cell counts were significantly higher in the ESS cohort as well. Their median hospital length of stay was 25.5 days, versus 18 days in the no-ESS group, Dr. Matsubara said at the congress sponsored by the International League Against Epilepsy.

Of the 76 ESSs that occurred in 66 patients, 37% were focal awareness seizures, 35% were focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures, and 28% were focal impaired awareness seizures.

In a multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, stroke subtype, and other potential confounders, statin therapy during acute management of stroke was independently associated with a 56% reduction in the relative risk of ESS. In contrast, a cortical stroke lesion was associated with a 2.83-fold increased risk.

Since this wasn’t a randomized trial of statin therapy, Dr. Matsubara and his coinvestigators felt the need to go further in analyzing the data. After extensive propensity score matching for atrial fibrillation, current smoking, systolic blood pressure, the presence or absence of a cortical stroke lesion, large vessel stenosis, and other possible confounders, they were left with two closely comparable groups: 886 statin-treated stroke patients and an equal number who were not on statin therapy during their acute stroke management. The key finding: The risk of ESS was reduced by a whopping 77% in the patients on statin therapy.

The neurologist observed that these new findings in acute ischemic stroke patients are consistent with an earlier study in a U.S. Veterans Affairs population, which demonstrated that statin therapy was associated with a significantly lower risk of new-onset geriatric epilepsy (J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009 Feb;57[2]:237-42).

As to the possible mechanism by which statins may protect against ESS, Dr. Matsubara noted that acute ischemic stroke causes toxic neuronal excitation because of blood-brain barrier disruption, ion channel dysfunction, altered gene expression, and increased release of neurotransmitters. In animal models, statins provide a neuroprotective effect by reducing glutamate levels, activating endothelial nitric oxide synthase, and inhibiting production of interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and other inflammatory cytokines.

Asked about the intensity of the statin therapy, Dr. Matsubara replied that the target was typically an LDL cholesterol below 100 mg/dL.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Matsubara S et al. IEC 219, Abstract P002.

BANGKOK – Statin therapy, even when initiated only upon hospitalization for acute ischemic stroke, was associated with a striking reduction in the risk of early poststroke symptomatic seizure in a large observational study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Using propensity-score matching to control for potential confounders, use of a statin during acute stroke management was associated with a “robust” 77% reduction in the risk of developing a symptomatic seizure within 7 days after hospital admission, Soichiro Matsubara, MD, reported at the International Epilepsy Congress.

This is an important finding because early symptomatic seizure (ESS) occurs in 2%-7% of patients following an acute ischemic stroke. Moreover, an Italian meta-analysis concluded that ESS was associated with a 4.4-fold increased risk of developing poststroke epilepsy (Epilepsia. 2016 Aug;57[8]:1205-14), noted Dr. Matsubara, a neurologist at the National Cerebral and Cardiovascular Center in Suita, Japan, as well as at Kumamoto (Japan) University.

He presented a study of 2,969 consecutive acute ischemic stroke patients with no history of epilepsy who were admitted to the Japanese comprehensive stroke center, of whom 2.2% experienced ESS. At physician discretion, 19% of the ESS cohort were on a statin during their acute stroke management, as were 55% of the no-ESS group. Four-fifths of patients on a statin initiated the drug only upon hospital admission.

Strokes tended to be more severe in the ESS group, with a median initial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 12.5, compared with 4 in the seizure-free patients. A cortical stroke lesion was evident upon imaging in 89% of the ESS group and 55% of no-ESS patients. Among ESS patients, 46% had a cardiometabolic stroke, compared with 34% of the no-ESS cohort. Mean C-reactive protein levels and white blood cell counts were significantly higher in the ESS cohort as well. Their median hospital length of stay was 25.5 days, versus 18 days in the no-ESS group, Dr. Matsubara said at the congress sponsored by the International League Against Epilepsy.

Of the 76 ESSs that occurred in 66 patients, 37% were focal awareness seizures, 35% were focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures, and 28% were focal impaired awareness seizures.

In a multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, stroke subtype, and other potential confounders, statin therapy during acute management of stroke was independently associated with a 56% reduction in the relative risk of ESS. In contrast, a cortical stroke lesion was associated with a 2.83-fold increased risk.

Since this wasn’t a randomized trial of statin therapy, Dr. Matsubara and his coinvestigators felt the need to go further in analyzing the data. After extensive propensity score matching for atrial fibrillation, current smoking, systolic blood pressure, the presence or absence of a cortical stroke lesion, large vessel stenosis, and other possible confounders, they were left with two closely comparable groups: 886 statin-treated stroke patients and an equal number who were not on statin therapy during their acute stroke management. The key finding: The risk of ESS was reduced by a whopping 77% in the patients on statin therapy.

The neurologist observed that these new findings in acute ischemic stroke patients are consistent with an earlier study in a U.S. Veterans Affairs population, which demonstrated that statin therapy was associated with a significantly lower risk of new-onset geriatric epilepsy (J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009 Feb;57[2]:237-42).

As to the possible mechanism by which statins may protect against ESS, Dr. Matsubara noted that acute ischemic stroke causes toxic neuronal excitation because of blood-brain barrier disruption, ion channel dysfunction, altered gene expression, and increased release of neurotransmitters. In animal models, statins provide a neuroprotective effect by reducing glutamate levels, activating endothelial nitric oxide synthase, and inhibiting production of interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and other inflammatory cytokines.

Asked about the intensity of the statin therapy, Dr. Matsubara replied that the target was typically an LDL cholesterol below 100 mg/dL.

He reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Matsubara S et al. IEC 219, Abstract P002.

I had just received my sign-out for the day. My pager beeped, and I heard it overhead “Code Blue Room X.” Hospitalist physicians lead the code team in our hospital; I quickly headed to the room.

A young man in his forties was found to be unconscious on the floor. One of the nurses had started cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) as the patient was unconscious and had no palpable pulse. It was a long, drawn-out battle: CPR, cracking bones, shouting, lots of needles – an extreme roller-coaster-style situation. The patient had recently had a hip surgery and our suspicion was a massive pulmonary embolism. We ran the exhaustive code for more than an hour and then I started to debrief with my code team; discussed that treatment was getting futile and asked for opinions. Finally, I asked the team to stop and pronounced the patient dead. I felt terrible. Later that day I returned to my house, tossed my bag in the corner, and sympathized with myself – “Hello Dr. B, It was a tough one.”

Stopping resuscitation was one of the toughest decisions I had ever made, and I wondered if I would be able to make such a decision the next day. What if I had carried on? I had led code teams during my residency training and as an attending physician; but there was something different that day. This patient was a young man with no history of medical problems. Every physician knows how to initiate resuscitation for cardiopulmonary arrest (CPA); only a few know when to stop it. Did I miss this learning during my internal medicine training? I checked my red pocket leaflet with advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) algorithms, and it had no mention of it. I searched Google Scholar, PubMed, and UpToDate and surprisingly, I found no predetermined rule but only a few recommendations on when CPR should be stopped. The American Heart Association is clear that the decision to terminate resuscitative efforts rests with the treating physician in the hospital.

In my experience, the length of time to continue a code can vary widely and is mostly dependent on the physician running the code. I have seen it last 15 minutes (which is reasonable) and I have seen it last for 50 minutes when the initial rhythm was ventricular fibrillation. And if perhaps the patient regains a pulse temporarily, only to lose it again, we restart the clock. One needs to take into account various factors including time to CPR, time to defibrillation, comorbid disease, prearrest state, and initial arrest rhythm in making these decisions. It’s well understood that none of these factors alone or in combination is clearly predictive of outcome.¹

Some selected patients potentially have good outcomes with prolonged, aggressive resuscitation. So when should we stop, and when should we continue resuscitation? This is always challenging. Physicians hate to stop CPR even when they know it’s time. We are guided by the Hippocratic Oath to save lives. Sometimes, even if we want to stop, we tend to continue to avoid being criticized for stopping; we are systematically biased against stopping CPR. We routinely run long codes, in part because we are not sure which patients we can bring back.

A 2012 Lancet study highlighted that the median duration of resuscitation was 12 minutes for patients achieving the return of spontaneous circulation and 20 minutes for nonsurvivors.² The ethical guidelines issued by AHA in 2018 highlight that, in the absence of mitigating factors, prolonged resuscitative efforts for adults and children are unlikely to be successful and can be discontinued if there is no return of spontaneous circulation at any time during 30 minutes of cumulative ACLS. If the return of spontaneous circulation of any duration occurs at any time, however, it may be appropriate to consider extending the resuscitative effort.³

I believe a careful balance of the patient’s prognosis for both length of life and quality of life will determine whether continued CPR is appropriate. The responsible clinician should stop the resuscitative effort when he or she determines with a high degree of certainty that the arrest victim will not respond to further efforts. But what will help me guide my decisions next time if I ever come across this situation again?

I discussed my dilemma with one of our intensivist physicians; he expressed that in a similar scenario he would ask for opinions from other members of the code team. The role of good communication among code team members is necessary to exchange relevant knowledge in real time in a collaborative, nonhierarchical environment. The code team can provide the team leader with quick, accurate information about the patient’s clinical history that is critical to good decision making.

Family support is also an essential part of any resuscitation. Health care providers need to offer the opportunity to be present to family members during the resuscitation attempts whenever possible. One team member should be assigned to the family to answer questions, clarify information, and offer comfort, but physicians should not be asking family members to decide to stop the code. It is important to note that the decision should be made by the team leader and not the patient’s family members. Regardless of the age or condition of the patient, the loss of a loved one is difficult to deal with, even if expected. The issue becomes more difficult with changes in legal, cultural, or personal perspectives.

The AHA in 2018 stated that the treating physician is expected to understand the patient and the arrest features, and the system factors that have prognostic importance for resuscitation.³ For clinicians who work in critical care settings, the framework presented by AHA is intuitive. As a code leader, I can always give more epinephrine, try a clot-busting drug or deliver another shock. Situations vary greatly during a code, and the amount of time spent resuscitating a patient before terminating efforts is not set in stone. In many cases, it is a judgment call. The process of CPR is almost as disheartening as its bleak outcomes.

In-hospital CPAs are inevitably gruesome. Each day as an attending physician, we are faced with difficult decisions, but experiencing these incredibly difficult and life-changing events can make for good learning. A CPA situation in action is very difficult for all concerned, particularly when there is almost no chance of success. But an unsuccessful or aborted resuscitation is also a huge loss for both the family and the code team. One of the critical functions of the code team leader is to review the events of a code and exercise judgment while evaluating the length of a code. This can be an intense and emotional experience, but with these principles in mind, we can feel reassured that we are making the best decision possible, for the patient, the family, and our team.

Dr. Basnet is a hospitalist physician in the department of internal medicine at Eastern New Mexico Medical Center, Roswell.

References

1. Part 2: Ethical aspects of CPR and ECC. Circulation. 2000;102(8):I12.

2. Goldberger ZD et al. Duration of resuscitation efforts and survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest: An observational study. The Lancet. 2012;380(9852):1473-81.

3. Sirbaugh PE et al. A prospective, population-based study of the demographics, epidemiology, management, and outcome of out-of-hospital pediatric cardiopulmonary arrest. Ann Emerg Med. 1999;33(2):174-84.

I had just received my sign-out for the day. My pager beeped, and I heard it overhead “Code Blue Room X.” Hospitalist physicians lead the code team in our hospital; I quickly headed to the room.

A young man in his forties was found to be unconscious on the floor. One of the nurses had started cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) as the patient was unconscious and had no palpable pulse. It was a long, drawn-out battle: CPR, cracking bones, shouting, lots of needles – an extreme roller-coaster-style situation. The patient had recently had a hip surgery and our suspicion was a massive pulmonary embolism. We ran the exhaustive code for more than an hour and then I started to debrief with my code team; discussed that treatment was getting futile and asked for opinions. Finally, I asked the team to stop and pronounced the patient dead. I felt terrible. Later that day I returned to my house, tossed my bag in the corner, and sympathized with myself – “Hello Dr. B, It was a tough one.”

Stopping resuscitation was one of the toughest decisions I had ever made, and I wondered if I would be able to make such a decision the next day. What if I had carried on? I had led code teams during my residency training and as an attending physician; but there was something different that day. This patient was a young man with no history of medical problems. Every physician knows how to initiate resuscitation for cardiopulmonary arrest (CPA); only a few know when to stop it. Did I miss this learning during my internal medicine training? I checked my red pocket leaflet with advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) algorithms, and it had no mention of it. I searched Google Scholar, PubMed, and UpToDate and surprisingly, I found no predetermined rule but only a few recommendations on when CPR should be stopped. The American Heart Association is clear that the decision to terminate resuscitative efforts rests with the treating physician in the hospital.

In my experience, the length of time to continue a code can vary widely and is mostly dependent on the physician running the code. I have seen it last 15 minutes (which is reasonable) and I have seen it last for 50 minutes when the initial rhythm was ventricular fibrillation. And if perhaps the patient regains a pulse temporarily, only to lose it again, we restart the clock. One needs to take into account various factors including time to CPR, time to defibrillation, comorbid disease, prearrest state, and initial arrest rhythm in making these decisions. It’s well understood that none of these factors alone or in combination is clearly predictive of outcome.¹

Some selected patients potentially have good outcomes with prolonged, aggressive resuscitation. So when should we stop, and when should we continue resuscitation? This is always challenging. Physicians hate to stop CPR even when they know it’s time. We are guided by the Hippocratic Oath to save lives. Sometimes, even if we want to stop, we tend to continue to avoid being criticized for stopping; we are systematically biased against stopping CPR. We routinely run long codes, in part because we are not sure which patients we can bring back.

A 2012 Lancet study highlighted that the median duration of resuscitation was 12 minutes for patients achieving the return of spontaneous circulation and 20 minutes for nonsurvivors.² The ethical guidelines issued by AHA in 2018 highlight that, in the absence of mitigating factors, prolonged resuscitative efforts for adults and children are unlikely to be successful and can be discontinued if there is no return of spontaneous circulation at any time during 30 minutes of cumulative ACLS. If the return of spontaneous circulation of any duration occurs at any time, however, it may be appropriate to consider extending the resuscitative effort.³

I believe a careful balance of the patient’s prognosis for both length of life and quality of life will determine whether continued CPR is appropriate. The responsible clinician should stop the resuscitative effort when he or she determines with a high degree of certainty that the arrest victim will not respond to further efforts. But what will help me guide my decisions next time if I ever come across this situation again?

I discussed my dilemma with one of our intensivist physicians; he expressed that in a similar scenario he would ask for opinions from other members of the code team. The role of good communication among code team members is necessary to exchange relevant knowledge in real time in a collaborative, nonhierarchical environment. The code team can provide the team leader with quick, accurate information about the patient’s clinical history that is critical to good decision making.

Family support is also an essential part of any resuscitation. Health care providers need to offer the opportunity to be present to family members during the resuscitation attempts whenever possible. One team member should be assigned to the family to answer questions, clarify information, and offer comfort, but physicians should not be asking family members to decide to stop the code. It is important to note that the decision should be made by the team leader and not the patient’s family members. Regardless of the age or condition of the patient, the loss of a loved one is difficult to deal with, even if expected. The issue becomes more difficult with changes in legal, cultural, or personal perspectives.

The AHA in 2018 stated that the treating physician is expected to understand the patient and the arrest features, and the system factors that have prognostic importance for resuscitation.³ For clinicians who work in critical care settings, the framework presented by AHA is intuitive. As a code leader, I can always give more epinephrine, try a clot-busting drug or deliver another shock. Situations vary greatly during a code, and the amount of time spent resuscitating a patient before terminating efforts is not set in stone. In many cases, it is a judgment call. The process of CPR is almost as disheartening as its bleak outcomes.

In-hospital CPAs are inevitably gruesome. Each day as an attending physician, we are faced with difficult decisions, but experiencing these incredibly difficult and life-changing events can make for good learning. A CPA situation in action is very difficult for all concerned, particularly when there is almost no chance of success. But an unsuccessful or aborted resuscitation is also a huge loss for both the family and the code team. One of the critical functions of the code team leader is to review the events of a code and exercise judgment while evaluating the length of a code. This can be an intense and emotional experience, but with these principles in mind, we can feel reassured that we are making the best decision possible, for the patient, the family, and our team.

Dr. Basnet is a hospitalist physician in the department of internal medicine at Eastern New Mexico Medical Center, Roswell.

References

1. Part 2: Ethical aspects of CPR and ECC. Circulation. 2000;102(8):I12.

2. Goldberger ZD et al. Duration of resuscitation efforts and survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest: An observational study. The Lancet. 2012;380(9852):1473-81.

3. Sirbaugh PE et al. A prospective, population-based study of the demographics, epidemiology, management, and outcome of out-of-hospital pediatric cardiopulmonary arrest. Ann Emerg Med. 1999;33(2):174-84.

I had just received my sign-out for the day. My pager beeped, and I heard it overhead “Code Blue Room X.” Hospitalist physicians lead the code team in our hospital; I quickly headed to the room.

A young man in his forties was found to be unconscious on the floor. One of the nurses had started cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) as the patient was unconscious and had no palpable pulse. It was a long, drawn-out battle: CPR, cracking bones, shouting, lots of needles – an extreme roller-coaster-style situation. The patient had recently had a hip surgery and our suspicion was a massive pulmonary embolism. We ran the exhaustive code for more than an hour and then I started to debrief with my code team; discussed that treatment was getting futile and asked for opinions. Finally, I asked the team to stop and pronounced the patient dead. I felt terrible. Later that day I returned to my house, tossed my bag in the corner, and sympathized with myself – “Hello Dr. B, It was a tough one.”

Stopping resuscitation was one of the toughest decisions I had ever made, and I wondered if I would be able to make such a decision the next day. What if I had carried on? I had led code teams during my residency training and as an attending physician; but there was something different that day. This patient was a young man with no history of medical problems. Every physician knows how to initiate resuscitation for cardiopulmonary arrest (CPA); only a few know when to stop it. Did I miss this learning during my internal medicine training? I checked my red pocket leaflet with advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) algorithms, and it had no mention of it. I searched Google Scholar, PubMed, and UpToDate and surprisingly, I found no predetermined rule but only a few recommendations on when CPR should be stopped. The American Heart Association is clear that the decision to terminate resuscitative efforts rests with the treating physician in the hospital.

In my experience, the length of time to continue a code can vary widely and is mostly dependent on the physician running the code. I have seen it last 15 minutes (which is reasonable) and I have seen it last for 50 minutes when the initial rhythm was ventricular fibrillation. And if perhaps the patient regains a pulse temporarily, only to lose it again, we restart the clock. One needs to take into account various factors including time to CPR, time to defibrillation, comorbid disease, prearrest state, and initial arrest rhythm in making these decisions. It’s well understood that none of these factors alone or in combination is clearly predictive of outcome.¹

Some selected patients potentially have good outcomes with prolonged, aggressive resuscitation. So when should we stop, and when should we continue resuscitation? This is always challenging. Physicians hate to stop CPR even when they know it’s time. We are guided by the Hippocratic Oath to save lives. Sometimes, even if we want to stop, we tend to continue to avoid being criticized for stopping; we are systematically biased against stopping CPR. We routinely run long codes, in part because we are not sure which patients we can bring back.

A 2012 Lancet study highlighted that the median duration of resuscitation was 12 minutes for patients achieving the return of spontaneous circulation and 20 minutes for nonsurvivors.² The ethical guidelines issued by AHA in 2018 highlight that, in the absence of mitigating factors, prolonged resuscitative efforts for adults and children are unlikely to be successful and can be discontinued if there is no return of spontaneous circulation at any time during 30 minutes of cumulative ACLS. If the return of spontaneous circulation of any duration occurs at any time, however, it may be appropriate to consider extending the resuscitative effort.³

I believe a careful balance of the patient’s prognosis for both length of life and quality of life will determine whether continued CPR is appropriate. The responsible clinician should stop the resuscitative effort when he or she determines with a high degree of certainty that the arrest victim will not respond to further efforts. But what will help me guide my decisions next time if I ever come across this situation again?

I discussed my dilemma with one of our intensivist physicians; he expressed that in a similar scenario he would ask for opinions from other members of the code team. The role of good communication among code team members is necessary to exchange relevant knowledge in real time in a collaborative, nonhierarchical environment. The code team can provide the team leader with quick, accurate information about the patient’s clinical history that is critical to good decision making.

Family support is also an essential part of any resuscitation. Health care providers need to offer the opportunity to be present to family members during the resuscitation attempts whenever possible. One team member should be assigned to the family to answer questions, clarify information, and offer comfort, but physicians should not be asking family members to decide to stop the code. It is important to note that the decision should be made by the team leader and not the patient’s family members. Regardless of the age or condition of the patient, the loss of a loved one is difficult to deal with, even if expected. The issue becomes more difficult with changes in legal, cultural, or personal perspectives.

The AHA in 2018 stated that the treating physician is expected to understand the patient and the arrest features, and the system factors that have prognostic importance for resuscitation.³ For clinicians who work in critical care settings, the framework presented by AHA is intuitive. As a code leader, I can always give more epinephrine, try a clot-busting drug or deliver another shock. Situations vary greatly during a code, and the amount of time spent resuscitating a patient before terminating efforts is not set in stone. In many cases, it is a judgment call. The process of CPR is almost as disheartening as its bleak outcomes.

In-hospital CPAs are inevitably gruesome. Each day as an attending physician, we are faced with difficult decisions, but experiencing these incredibly difficult and life-changing events can make for good learning. A CPA situation in action is very difficult for all concerned, particularly when there is almost no chance of success. But an unsuccessful or aborted resuscitation is also a huge loss for both the family and the code team. One of the critical functions of the code team leader is to review the events of a code and exercise judgment while evaluating the length of a code. This can be an intense and emotional experience, but with these principles in mind, we can feel reassured that we are making the best decision possible, for the patient, the family, and our team.

Dr. Basnet is a hospitalist physician in the department of internal medicine at Eastern New Mexico Medical Center, Roswell.

References

1. Part 2: Ethical aspects of CPR and ECC. Circulation. 2000;102(8):I12.

2. Goldberger ZD et al. Duration of resuscitation efforts and survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest: An observational study. The Lancet. 2012;380(9852):1473-81.

3. Sirbaugh PE et al. A prospective, population-based study of the demographics, epidemiology, management, and outcome of out-of-hospital pediatric cardiopulmonary arrest. Ann Emerg Med. 1999;33(2):174-84.

Background: Acute cystitis is a common condition in women and associated with morbidity. A commonly recommended preventative measure is increased oral hydration, but there is limited evidence to support this claim.

Though antibiotic prophylaxis is more effective at reducing cystitis, increased daily water intake is a safe and inexpensive method to prevent cystitis without increasing exposure to antimicrobial therapy. This study did rely on information obtained from phone calls with patients. It is also an open-label study design in which patients were not blinded to their assigned group. This would be less of an issue if episodes of cystitis were confirmed with culture. Another limitation of this study is that it included only ambulatory patients and excluded patients with pyelonephritis, so it may be less applicable to our hospitalized patients.

Bottom line: This study shows a benefit in recurrent cystitis by increased water intake in premenopausal women.

Citation: Hooton TM et al. Effect of increased daily water intake in premenopausal women with recurrent urinary tract infections. JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Nov;178(11):1509-15.

Dr. Astik is medical director, clinical documentation, at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, both in Chicago.

Background: Acute cystitis is a common condition in women and associated with morbidity. A commonly recommended preventative measure is increased oral hydration, but there is limited evidence to support this claim.

Though antibiotic prophylaxis is more effective at reducing cystitis, increased daily water intake is a safe and inexpensive method to prevent cystitis without increasing exposure to antimicrobial therapy. This study did rely on information obtained from phone calls with patients. It is also an open-label study design in which patients were not blinded to their assigned group. This would be less of an issue if episodes of cystitis were confirmed with culture. Another limitation of this study is that it included only ambulatory patients and excluded patients with pyelonephritis, so it may be less applicable to our hospitalized patients.

Bottom line: This study shows a benefit in recurrent cystitis by increased water intake in premenopausal women.

Citation: Hooton TM et al. Effect of increased daily water intake in premenopausal women with recurrent urinary tract infections. JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Nov;178(11):1509-15.

Dr. Astik is medical director, clinical documentation, at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, both in Chicago.

Background: Acute cystitis is a common condition in women and associated with morbidity. A commonly recommended preventative measure is increased oral hydration, but there is limited evidence to support this claim.

Though antibiotic prophylaxis is more effective at reducing cystitis, increased daily water intake is a safe and inexpensive method to prevent cystitis without increasing exposure to antimicrobial therapy. This study did rely on information obtained from phone calls with patients. It is also an open-label study design in which patients were not blinded to their assigned group. This would be less of an issue if episodes of cystitis were confirmed with culture. Another limitation of this study is that it included only ambulatory patients and excluded patients with pyelonephritis, so it may be less applicable to our hospitalized patients.

Bottom line: This study shows a benefit in recurrent cystitis by increased water intake in premenopausal women.

Citation: Hooton TM et al. Effect of increased daily water intake in premenopausal women with recurrent urinary tract infections. JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Nov;178(11):1509-15.

Dr. Astik is medical director, clinical documentation, at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, both in Chicago.

Both systolic and diastolic hypertension independently predict myocardial infarction and strokes, but systolic blood pressure is more strongly linked to adverse outcomes.

That’s according to a study of more than 1 million patients and 36 million outpatient blood pressure measurements published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Systolic and diastolic hypertension predicted adverse outcomes at cutpoints of 140/90 and 130/80 mm Hg in the large retrospective cohort study, supporting the recent guideline changes that made blood pressure targets more stringent for higher-risk patients, said lead investigator Alexander C. Flint, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) in Oakland.

“While systolic does count for more, in the fact that it is a stronger driver of the risk of heart attack and stroke, diastolic absolutely does as well, and it does so independently. So we ignore our diastolic hypertension at our own peril,” Dr. Flint said in an interview.

Systolic hypertension began to overshadow diastolic after the Framingham Heart Study and others that suggested it is a more important predictor of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, Dr. Flint and coauthors said in a report on their study.

Those findings caused some to say diastole should be abandoned, and led to a “near-exclusive focus” on systolic hypertension in a 2000 advisory statement from the National High Blood Pressure Education Program, they say in their report.

While current guidelines emphasize the importance of both systolic and diastolic targets, many clinicians today often assign little importance to diastolic blood pressure values, the report adds.

“The pendulum needs to swing back, right down in the middle,” Dr. Flint said in the interview.

The study by Dr. Flint and colleagues comprised a cohort of approximately 1.3 million outpatients from KPNC who had at least one baseline blood pressure reading in during 2007-2008, and two or more follow-up measurements between 2009 and 2016, for a total of about 36.8 million data points.

Systolic hypertension burden was linked to the composite of MI or stroke, with a hazard ratio of 1.18 (95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.18; P less than .001) per unit increase in z score, according to results of a multivariable regression analysis. Likewise, diastolic hypertension burden was linked to those adverse outcomes, with a hazard ratio of 1.06 (95% CI, 1.06-1.07; P less than .001).

Put in terms of estimated risk of MI or stroke, patients with a systolic blood pressure around 160 mm Hg – 3 standard deviations from the mean – was 4.8%, compared to a predicted risk of just 1.9% for a systolic blood pressure near 136 mm Hg, the investigators said in their report.

Similarly, predicted risk was 3.6% for a diastolic pressure of about 96 mm Hg, also 3 standard deviations from the mean, and 1.9% for a diastolic BP near 81 mm Hg.

“The two are not that separate,” Dr. Flint said of the risks associated with systolic and diastolic hypertension at that 3-standard-deviation point. Beyond that, increased systolic blood pressure is associated with more risk relative to increased diastolic blood pressure, the logistic regression modeling shows.

Taken together, findings from this large cohort study emphasize the importance of making lifestyle modifications and adjusting medication to ensure that both systolic and diastolic targets are met, according to Dr. Flint.

“Rises in systolic blood pressure count for more in influencing the risk of heart attack and stroke,” he said, “but diastolic independently counts for quite a lot. It’s a close second.”

Dr. Flint reported no disclosures. Senior author Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, reported disclosures with Amarin, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ethicon, Medtronic, Sanofi Aventis, Takeda, The Medicines Company, and others. The remaining authors had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Flint AC et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jul 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1803180.

Both systolic and diastolic hypertension independently predict myocardial infarction and strokes, but systolic blood pressure is more strongly linked to adverse outcomes.

That’s according to a study of more than 1 million patients and 36 million outpatient blood pressure measurements published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Systolic and diastolic hypertension predicted adverse outcomes at cutpoints of 140/90 and 130/80 mm Hg in the large retrospective cohort study, supporting the recent guideline changes that made blood pressure targets more stringent for higher-risk patients, said lead investigator Alexander C. Flint, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) in Oakland.

“While systolic does count for more, in the fact that it is a stronger driver of the risk of heart attack and stroke, diastolic absolutely does as well, and it does so independently. So we ignore our diastolic hypertension at our own peril,” Dr. Flint said in an interview.

Systolic hypertension began to overshadow diastolic after the Framingham Heart Study and others that suggested it is a more important predictor of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, Dr. Flint and coauthors said in a report on their study.

Those findings caused some to say diastole should be abandoned, and led to a “near-exclusive focus” on systolic hypertension in a 2000 advisory statement from the National High Blood Pressure Education Program, they say in their report.

While current guidelines emphasize the importance of both systolic and diastolic targets, many clinicians today often assign little importance to diastolic blood pressure values, the report adds.

“The pendulum needs to swing back, right down in the middle,” Dr. Flint said in the interview.

The study by Dr. Flint and colleagues comprised a cohort of approximately 1.3 million outpatients from KPNC who had at least one baseline blood pressure reading in during 2007-2008, and two or more follow-up measurements between 2009 and 2016, for a total of about 36.8 million data points.

Systolic hypertension burden was linked to the composite of MI or stroke, with a hazard ratio of 1.18 (95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.18; P less than .001) per unit increase in z score, according to results of a multivariable regression analysis. Likewise, diastolic hypertension burden was linked to those adverse outcomes, with a hazard ratio of 1.06 (95% CI, 1.06-1.07; P less than .001).

Put in terms of estimated risk of MI or stroke, patients with a systolic blood pressure around 160 mm Hg – 3 standard deviations from the mean – was 4.8%, compared to a predicted risk of just 1.9% for a systolic blood pressure near 136 mm Hg, the investigators said in their report.

Similarly, predicted risk was 3.6% for a diastolic pressure of about 96 mm Hg, also 3 standard deviations from the mean, and 1.9% for a diastolic BP near 81 mm Hg.

“The two are not that separate,” Dr. Flint said of the risks associated with systolic and diastolic hypertension at that 3-standard-deviation point. Beyond that, increased systolic blood pressure is associated with more risk relative to increased diastolic blood pressure, the logistic regression modeling shows.

Taken together, findings from this large cohort study emphasize the importance of making lifestyle modifications and adjusting medication to ensure that both systolic and diastolic targets are met, according to Dr. Flint.

“Rises in systolic blood pressure count for more in influencing the risk of heart attack and stroke,” he said, “but diastolic independently counts for quite a lot. It’s a close second.”

Dr. Flint reported no disclosures. Senior author Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, reported disclosures with Amarin, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ethicon, Medtronic, Sanofi Aventis, Takeda, The Medicines Company, and others. The remaining authors had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Flint AC et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jul 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1803180.

Both systolic and diastolic hypertension independently predict myocardial infarction and strokes, but systolic blood pressure is more strongly linked to adverse outcomes.

That’s according to a study of more than 1 million patients and 36 million outpatient blood pressure measurements published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Systolic and diastolic hypertension predicted adverse outcomes at cutpoints of 140/90 and 130/80 mm Hg in the large retrospective cohort study, supporting the recent guideline changes that made blood pressure targets more stringent for higher-risk patients, said lead investigator Alexander C. Flint, MD, of Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) in Oakland.

“While systolic does count for more, in the fact that it is a stronger driver of the risk of heart attack and stroke, diastolic absolutely does as well, and it does so independently. So we ignore our diastolic hypertension at our own peril,” Dr. Flint said in an interview.

Systolic hypertension began to overshadow diastolic after the Framingham Heart Study and others that suggested it is a more important predictor of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, Dr. Flint and coauthors said in a report on their study.

Those findings caused some to say diastole should be abandoned, and led to a “near-exclusive focus” on systolic hypertension in a 2000 advisory statement from the National High Blood Pressure Education Program, they say in their report.

While current guidelines emphasize the importance of both systolic and diastolic targets, many clinicians today often assign little importance to diastolic blood pressure values, the report adds.

“The pendulum needs to swing back, right down in the middle,” Dr. Flint said in the interview.

The study by Dr. Flint and colleagues comprised a cohort of approximately 1.3 million outpatients from KPNC who had at least one baseline blood pressure reading in during 2007-2008, and two or more follow-up measurements between 2009 and 2016, for a total of about 36.8 million data points.

Systolic hypertension burden was linked to the composite of MI or stroke, with a hazard ratio of 1.18 (95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.18; P less than .001) per unit increase in z score, according to results of a multivariable regression analysis. Likewise, diastolic hypertension burden was linked to those adverse outcomes, with a hazard ratio of 1.06 (95% CI, 1.06-1.07; P less than .001).

Put in terms of estimated risk of MI or stroke, patients with a systolic blood pressure around 160 mm Hg – 3 standard deviations from the mean – was 4.8%, compared to a predicted risk of just 1.9% for a systolic blood pressure near 136 mm Hg, the investigators said in their report.

Similarly, predicted risk was 3.6% for a diastolic pressure of about 96 mm Hg, also 3 standard deviations from the mean, and 1.9% for a diastolic BP near 81 mm Hg.

“The two are not that separate,” Dr. Flint said of the risks associated with systolic and diastolic hypertension at that 3-standard-deviation point. Beyond that, increased systolic blood pressure is associated with more risk relative to increased diastolic blood pressure, the logistic regression modeling shows.

Taken together, findings from this large cohort study emphasize the importance of making lifestyle modifications and adjusting medication to ensure that both systolic and diastolic targets are met, according to Dr. Flint.

“Rises in systolic blood pressure count for more in influencing the risk of heart attack and stroke,” he said, “but diastolic independently counts for quite a lot. It’s a close second.”

Dr. Flint reported no disclosures. Senior author Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, reported disclosures with Amarin, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ethicon, Medtronic, Sanofi Aventis, Takeda, The Medicines Company, and others. The remaining authors had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Flint AC et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jul 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1803180.

Although guideline recommended, treating children in shock with a bolus of saline or albumin fluid imposes counterproductive effects on respiratory and neurologic function, ultimately increasing risk of death, according to a detailed analysis of available data, including a randomized trial.

Several sets of guidelines for resuscitation of patients in shock have advocated volume expansion with bolus intravenous fluid, but that recommendation was based on expected physiologic benefits not a randomized trial. The only randomized trial associated this approach showed increased mortality, and a new analysis of these and other data appears to explain why.

According to the findings of a study lead by Michael Levin, MD, of the department of medicine at Imperial College London and colleagues, “volume resuscitation is associated with deterioration of respiratory function and neurological function in some patients.” Their study was published in Lancet Respiratory Medicine. The authors stated that saline-induced hyperchloremic acidosis appears to have been “a major contributor” to the observed increase in adverse outcomes.

The key take home message is that “normal saline and other unbuffered crystalloid solutions should be avoided in resuscitating seriously ill patients,” according to the authors, who believe the findings might be relevant to adults as well as children.

The controversy about the role of volume expansion for management of shock was ignited by a 2011 trial called FEAST (N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2483-95). That trial, which randomized African children with severe febrile illness to a bolus of 20-40 mg of 5% albumin solution, a bolus of 0.9% saline solution, or no bolus, was halted early when 48-hour mortality data showed a lower death rate in the no bolus group (7.3%) than either the albumin (10.6%) or saline (10.5%) bolus groups.

The FEAST result was unexpected and so contrary to accepted thinking that it prompted widespread debate, including whether findings in the resource-poor area of the world where the FEAST trial was conducted could be extrapolated to centers elsewhere in the world. Arguing for benefit, fluid resuscitation is known to increase pulse pressure and urinary output. Arguing against benefit, pulmonary edema is a known complication of bolus fluid replacement.

In an attempt to address and potentially resolve this controversy, data collected in the FEAST trial along with four other sets of data involving volume expansion in critically ill children were evaluated with a focus on changes in cardiovascular, neurological, and respiratory function. Analysis of blood biochemistry and blood oxygen transport were also conducted.

The cardiovascular, respiratory, and neurologic functions were scored on the basis of objective measurements, such as heart rate, respiratory rate, and blood pressure. These measures were evaluated prior to fluid administration and at 1 hour, 4 hours, 8 hours, 24 hours, and 48 hours after fluid administration. Odds ratio (OR) of an adverse outcome were evaluated in the context of each 10-unit change in these scores.

Relative to baseline, there was worsening respiratory and neurological function after fluid administration. Although cardiovascular function improved, hemoglobin concentrations were lower in those who received fluid than in those who did not. Fluid resuscitation was also associated with lower bicarbonate and increased base deficit and chloride at 24 hours.

Regression modeling with physiological variables suggests “that the increased mortality in FEAST can be explained by bolus-induced worsening in respiratory and neurological function, hemodilution, and hyperchloremic acidosis,” according to the authors.

Analyses of the four other sets of data, which included children treated for meningococcal sepsis in the United Kingdom, acutely ill with malaria treated in Malawi, and cohorts of children in South Africa and a London hospital for acute illnesses, provided supportive data.

Although this analysis does not address the value of administering buffered solutions in low volumes, the authors concluded that the data from the FEAST trial are generalizable. They challenge the routine use of bolus infusions of saline or albumin in the initial management of shock, which has been guideline recommended. The risks of fluid resuscitation might be particularly high among children who already have compromised respiratory or neurologic function.

SOURCE: Levin M et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2019;7:581-93.

Although guideline recommended, treating children in shock with a bolus of saline or albumin fluid imposes counterproductive effects on respiratory and neurologic function, ultimately increasing risk of death, according to a detailed analysis of available data, including a randomized trial.

Several sets of guidelines for resuscitation of patients in shock have advocated volume expansion with bolus intravenous fluid, but that recommendation was based on expected physiologic benefits not a randomized trial. The only randomized trial associated this approach showed increased mortality, and a new analysis of these and other data appears to explain why.

According to the findings of a study lead by Michael Levin, MD, of the department of medicine at Imperial College London and colleagues, “volume resuscitation is associated with deterioration of respiratory function and neurological function in some patients.” Their study was published in Lancet Respiratory Medicine. The authors stated that saline-induced hyperchloremic acidosis appears to have been “a major contributor” to the observed increase in adverse outcomes.

The key take home message is that “normal saline and other unbuffered crystalloid solutions should be avoided in resuscitating seriously ill patients,” according to the authors, who believe the findings might be relevant to adults as well as children.

The controversy about the role of volume expansion for management of shock was ignited by a 2011 trial called FEAST (N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2483-95). That trial, which randomized African children with severe febrile illness to a bolus of 20-40 mg of 5% albumin solution, a bolus of 0.9% saline solution, or no bolus, was halted early when 48-hour mortality data showed a lower death rate in the no bolus group (7.3%) than either the albumin (10.6%) or saline (10.5%) bolus groups.

The FEAST result was unexpected and so contrary to accepted thinking that it prompted widespread debate, including whether findings in the resource-poor area of the world where the FEAST trial was conducted could be extrapolated to centers elsewhere in the world. Arguing for benefit, fluid resuscitation is known to increase pulse pressure and urinary output. Arguing against benefit, pulmonary edema is a known complication of bolus fluid replacement.

In an attempt to address and potentially resolve this controversy, data collected in the FEAST trial along with four other sets of data involving volume expansion in critically ill children were evaluated with a focus on changes in cardiovascular, neurological, and respiratory function. Analysis of blood biochemistry and blood oxygen transport were also conducted.

The cardiovascular, respiratory, and neurologic functions were scored on the basis of objective measurements, such as heart rate, respiratory rate, and blood pressure. These measures were evaluated prior to fluid administration and at 1 hour, 4 hours, 8 hours, 24 hours, and 48 hours after fluid administration. Odds ratio (OR) of an adverse outcome were evaluated in the context of each 10-unit change in these scores.

Relative to baseline, there was worsening respiratory and neurological function after fluid administration. Although cardiovascular function improved, hemoglobin concentrations were lower in those who received fluid than in those who did not. Fluid resuscitation was also associated with lower bicarbonate and increased base deficit and chloride at 24 hours.

Regression modeling with physiological variables suggests “that the increased mortality in FEAST can be explained by bolus-induced worsening in respiratory and neurological function, hemodilution, and hyperchloremic acidosis,” according to the authors.

Analyses of the four other sets of data, which included children treated for meningococcal sepsis in the United Kingdom, acutely ill with malaria treated in Malawi, and cohorts of children in South Africa and a London hospital for acute illnesses, provided supportive data.

Although this analysis does not address the value of administering buffered solutions in low volumes, the authors concluded that the data from the FEAST trial are generalizable. They challenge the routine use of bolus infusions of saline or albumin in the initial management of shock, which has been guideline recommended. The risks of fluid resuscitation might be particularly high among children who already have compromised respiratory or neurologic function.

SOURCE: Levin M et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2019;7:581-93.

Although guideline recommended, treating children in shock with a bolus of saline or albumin fluid imposes counterproductive effects on respiratory and neurologic function, ultimately increasing risk of death, according to a detailed analysis of available data, including a randomized trial.

Several sets of guidelines for resuscitation of patients in shock have advocated volume expansion with bolus intravenous fluid, but that recommendation was based on expected physiologic benefits not a randomized trial. The only randomized trial associated this approach showed increased mortality, and a new analysis of these and other data appears to explain why.

According to the findings of a study lead by Michael Levin, MD, of the department of medicine at Imperial College London and colleagues, “volume resuscitation is associated with deterioration of respiratory function and neurological function in some patients.” Their study was published in Lancet Respiratory Medicine. The authors stated that saline-induced hyperchloremic acidosis appears to have been “a major contributor” to the observed increase in adverse outcomes.

The key take home message is that “normal saline and other unbuffered crystalloid solutions should be avoided in resuscitating seriously ill patients,” according to the authors, who believe the findings might be relevant to adults as well as children.

The controversy about the role of volume expansion for management of shock was ignited by a 2011 trial called FEAST (N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2483-95). That trial, which randomized African children with severe febrile illness to a bolus of 20-40 mg of 5% albumin solution, a bolus of 0.9% saline solution, or no bolus, was halted early when 48-hour mortality data showed a lower death rate in the no bolus group (7.3%) than either the albumin (10.6%) or saline (10.5%) bolus groups.

The FEAST result was unexpected and so contrary to accepted thinking that it prompted widespread debate, including whether findings in the resource-poor area of the world where the FEAST trial was conducted could be extrapolated to centers elsewhere in the world. Arguing for benefit, fluid resuscitation is known to increase pulse pressure and urinary output. Arguing against benefit, pulmonary edema is a known complication of bolus fluid replacement.

In an attempt to address and potentially resolve this controversy, data collected in the FEAST trial along with four other sets of data involving volume expansion in critically ill children were evaluated with a focus on changes in cardiovascular, neurological, and respiratory function. Analysis of blood biochemistry and blood oxygen transport were also conducted.

The cardiovascular, respiratory, and neurologic functions were scored on the basis of objective measurements, such as heart rate, respiratory rate, and blood pressure. These measures were evaluated prior to fluid administration and at 1 hour, 4 hours, 8 hours, 24 hours, and 48 hours after fluid administration. Odds ratio (OR) of an adverse outcome were evaluated in the context of each 10-unit change in these scores.

Relative to baseline, there was worsening respiratory and neurological function after fluid administration. Although cardiovascular function improved, hemoglobin concentrations were lower in those who received fluid than in those who did not. Fluid resuscitation was also associated with lower bicarbonate and increased base deficit and chloride at 24 hours.

Regression modeling with physiological variables suggests “that the increased mortality in FEAST can be explained by bolus-induced worsening in respiratory and neurological function, hemodilution, and hyperchloremic acidosis,” according to the authors.

Analyses of the four other sets of data, which included children treated for meningococcal sepsis in the United Kingdom, acutely ill with malaria treated in Malawi, and cohorts of children in South Africa and a London hospital for acute illnesses, provided supportive data.

Although this analysis does not address the value of administering buffered solutions in low volumes, the authors concluded that the data from the FEAST trial are generalizable. They challenge the routine use of bolus infusions of saline or albumin in the initial management of shock, which has been guideline recommended. The risks of fluid resuscitation might be particularly high among children who already have compromised respiratory or neurologic function.

SOURCE: Levin M et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2019;7:581-93.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Recarbrio for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections (cUTI) and complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAI) in adults. Recarbrio is a three-drug combo injection containing imipenem/cilastatin, an antibiotic previously approved by the FDA, and relebactam, a beta-lactamase inhibitor.

The efficacy of Recarbrio was supported by data on the efficacy of imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of cUTI and cIAI and by in vitro studies and animal models of infection with treatment by relebactam. The safety was assessed in a pair of clinical studies, one that assessed cUTI patients and another that assessed cIAI patients.

The most common adverse events reported were nausea, diarrhea, headache, fever, and increased liver enzymes. Treatment with Recarbrio is not recommended in patients taking ganciclovir, valproic acid, or divalproex sodium because there is an increased risk of seizures, according to the FDA.

“The FDA remains focused on facilitating the development of safe and effective new antibacterial drugs to give patients more options to fight serious infections. It is important that the use of Recarbrio be reserved for situations when there are limited or no alternative antibacterial drugs for treating a patient’s infection,” Ed Cox, MD, MPH, director for the Office of Antimicrobial Products in FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the press release.

Find the full press release on the FDA website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Recarbrio for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections (cUTI) and complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAI) in adults. Recarbrio is a three-drug combo injection containing imipenem/cilastatin, an antibiotic previously approved by the FDA, and relebactam, a beta-lactamase inhibitor.

The efficacy of Recarbrio was supported by data on the efficacy of imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of cUTI and cIAI and by in vitro studies and animal models of infection with treatment by relebactam. The safety was assessed in a pair of clinical studies, one that assessed cUTI patients and another that assessed cIAI patients.

The most common adverse events reported were nausea, diarrhea, headache, fever, and increased liver enzymes. Treatment with Recarbrio is not recommended in patients taking ganciclovir, valproic acid, or divalproex sodium because there is an increased risk of seizures, according to the FDA.

“The FDA remains focused on facilitating the development of safe and effective new antibacterial drugs to give patients more options to fight serious infections. It is important that the use of Recarbrio be reserved for situations when there are limited or no alternative antibacterial drugs for treating a patient’s infection,” Ed Cox, MD, MPH, director for the Office of Antimicrobial Products in FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the press release.

Find the full press release on the FDA website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Recarbrio for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections (cUTI) and complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAI) in adults. Recarbrio is a three-drug combo injection containing imipenem/cilastatin, an antibiotic previously approved by the FDA, and relebactam, a beta-lactamase inhibitor.

The efficacy of Recarbrio was supported by data on the efficacy of imipenem/cilastatin in the treatment of cUTI and cIAI and by in vitro studies and animal models of infection with treatment by relebactam. The safety was assessed in a pair of clinical studies, one that assessed cUTI patients and another that assessed cIAI patients.

The most common adverse events reported were nausea, diarrhea, headache, fever, and increased liver enzymes. Treatment with Recarbrio is not recommended in patients taking ganciclovir, valproic acid, or divalproex sodium because there is an increased risk of seizures, according to the FDA.

“The FDA remains focused on facilitating the development of safe and effective new antibacterial drugs to give patients more options to fight serious infections. It is important that the use of Recarbrio be reserved for situations when there are limited or no alternative antibacterial drugs for treating a patient’s infection,” Ed Cox, MD, MPH, director for the Office of Antimicrobial Products in FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the press release.

Find the full press release on the FDA website.

[email protected]

Non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) significantly reduced the risk of stroke or systemic embolism compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for patients in the early stages of chronic kidney disease and comorbid atrial fibrillation, based on data from a meta-analysis of roughly 34,000 patients.

Chronic kidney disease increases the risk of complications including stroke, congestive heart failure, and death in patients who also have atrial fibrillation, but most trials of anticoagulant therapy to reduce the risk of such events have excluded these patients, wrote Jeffrey T. Ha, MBBS, of the George Institute for Global Health, Newtown, Australia, and colleagues.

To assess the benefits and harms of oral anticoagulants for multiple indications in chronic kidney disease patients, the researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 45 studies including 34,082 individuals. The findings were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The analysis included 8 trials of end stage kidney disease patients on dialysis; the remaining trials excluded patients with creatinine clearance less than 20 mL/min or an estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 15 mL/min per 1.73 m². The interventional agents were rivaroxaban, dabigatran, apixaban, edoxaban, betrixaban, warfarin, and acenocoumarol.

A notable finding was the significant reduction in relative risk of stroke or systemic embolism (21%), hemorrhagic stroke (52%), and intracranial hemorrhage (51%) for early-stage chronic kidney disease patients with atrial fibrillation given NOACs, compared with those given VKAs.

The evidence for the superiority of NOACs over VKAs for reducing risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or VTE-related death was uncertain, as was the evidence to draw any conclusions about benefits and harms of either NOACs or VKAs for patients with advanced or end-stage kidney disease.

Across all trials, NOACs appeared to reduce the relative risk of major bleeding, compared with VKAs by roughly 25%, but the difference was not statistically significant, the researchers noted.

The findings were limited by the lack of evidence for oral anticoagulant use in patients with advanced chronic or end-stage kidney disease, as well as inability to assess differences among NOACs, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that NOACs may be recommended over VKAs for the subgroup of early-stage chronic kidney disease patients with atrial fibrillation, they said.

Several additional trials are in progress, and future trials “should include not only participants with dialysis-dependent ESKD [end-stage kidney disease] but also those with CrCl [creatinine clearance of] less than 25 mL/min,” and compare NOACs with placebo as well, they noted.

Lead author Dr. Ha is supported by a University Postgraduate Award from University of New South Wales, Sydney, but had no financial conflicts to disclose; coauthors disclosed support from various organizations as well as pharmaceutical companies including Baxter, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Vifor Pharma, Janssen, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and GlaxoSmithKline.
 

SOURCE: Ha JT et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 July 15. doi: 10.7326/M19-0087

Non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) significantly reduced the risk of stroke or systemic embolism compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for patients in the early stages of chronic kidney disease and comorbid atrial fibrillation, based on data from a meta-analysis of roughly 34,000 patients.

Chronic kidney disease increases the risk of complications including stroke, congestive heart failure, and death in patients who also have atrial fibrillation, but most trials of anticoagulant therapy to reduce the risk of such events have excluded these patients, wrote Jeffrey T. Ha, MBBS, of the George Institute for Global Health, Newtown, Australia, and colleagues.

To assess the benefits and harms of oral anticoagulants for multiple indications in chronic kidney disease patients, the researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 45 studies including 34,082 individuals. The findings were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The analysis included 8 trials of end stage kidney disease patients on dialysis; the remaining trials excluded patients with creatinine clearance less than 20 mL/min or an estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 15 mL/min per 1.73 m². The interventional agents were rivaroxaban, dabigatran, apixaban, edoxaban, betrixaban, warfarin, and acenocoumarol.

A notable finding was the significant reduction in relative risk of stroke or systemic embolism (21%), hemorrhagic stroke (52%), and intracranial hemorrhage (51%) for early-stage chronic kidney disease patients with atrial fibrillation given NOACs, compared with those given VKAs.

The evidence for the superiority of NOACs over VKAs for reducing risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or VTE-related death was uncertain, as was the evidence to draw any conclusions about benefits and harms of either NOACs or VKAs for patients with advanced or end-stage kidney disease.

Across all trials, NOACs appeared to reduce the relative risk of major bleeding, compared with VKAs by roughly 25%, but the difference was not statistically significant, the researchers noted.

The findings were limited by the lack of evidence for oral anticoagulant use in patients with advanced chronic or end-stage kidney disease, as well as inability to assess differences among NOACs, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that NOACs may be recommended over VKAs for the subgroup of early-stage chronic kidney disease patients with atrial fibrillation, they said.

Several additional trials are in progress, and future trials “should include not only participants with dialysis-dependent ESKD [end-stage kidney disease] but also those with CrCl [creatinine clearance of] less than 25 mL/min,” and compare NOACs with placebo as well, they noted.

Lead author Dr. Ha is supported by a University Postgraduate Award from University of New South Wales, Sydney, but had no financial conflicts to disclose; coauthors disclosed support from various organizations as well as pharmaceutical companies including Baxter, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Vifor Pharma, Janssen, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and GlaxoSmithKline.
 

SOURCE: Ha JT et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 July 15. doi: 10.7326/M19-0087

Non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) significantly reduced the risk of stroke or systemic embolism compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for patients in the early stages of chronic kidney disease and comorbid atrial fibrillation, based on data from a meta-analysis of roughly 34,000 patients.

Chronic kidney disease increases the risk of complications including stroke, congestive heart failure, and death in patients who also have atrial fibrillation, but most trials of anticoagulant therapy to reduce the risk of such events have excluded these patients, wrote Jeffrey T. Ha, MBBS, of the George Institute for Global Health, Newtown, Australia, and colleagues.

To assess the benefits and harms of oral anticoagulants for multiple indications in chronic kidney disease patients, the researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 45 studies including 34,082 individuals. The findings were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine. The analysis included 8 trials of end stage kidney disease patients on dialysis; the remaining trials excluded patients with creatinine clearance less than 20 mL/min or an estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 15 mL/min per 1.73 m². The interventional agents were rivaroxaban, dabigatran, apixaban, edoxaban, betrixaban, warfarin, and acenocoumarol.

A notable finding was the significant reduction in relative risk of stroke or systemic embolism (21%), hemorrhagic stroke (52%), and intracranial hemorrhage (51%) for early-stage chronic kidney disease patients with atrial fibrillation given NOACs, compared with those given VKAs.

The evidence for the superiority of NOACs over VKAs for reducing risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or VTE-related death was uncertain, as was the evidence to draw any conclusions about benefits and harms of either NOACs or VKAs for patients with advanced or end-stage kidney disease.

Across all trials, NOACs appeared to reduce the relative risk of major bleeding, compared with VKAs by roughly 25%, but the difference was not statistically significant, the researchers noted.

The findings were limited by the lack of evidence for oral anticoagulant use in patients with advanced chronic or end-stage kidney disease, as well as inability to assess differences among NOACs, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that NOACs may be recommended over VKAs for the subgroup of early-stage chronic kidney disease patients with atrial fibrillation, they said.

Several additional trials are in progress, and future trials “should include not only participants with dialysis-dependent ESKD [end-stage kidney disease] but also those with CrCl [creatinine clearance of] less than 25 mL/min,” and compare NOACs with placebo as well, they noted.

Lead author Dr. Ha is supported by a University Postgraduate Award from University of New South Wales, Sydney, but had no financial conflicts to disclose; coauthors disclosed support from various organizations as well as pharmaceutical companies including Baxter, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Vifor Pharma, Janssen, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and GlaxoSmithKline.
 

SOURCE: Ha JT et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 July 15. doi: 10.7326/M19-0087

Everyone always told me that my time in residency would fly by, and the 3 years of internal medicine training really did seem to pass in just a few moments. Before I knew it, I had passed my internal medicine boards and practiced hospital medicine at an academic medical center.

One day last fall, I received notice from the American Board of Internal Medicine that it was time to recertify. I was surprised – had it already been 10 years? What did I have to do to maintain my certification?

As I investigated what it would take to maintain certification, I discovered that the recertification process provided more flexibility, compared with original board certification. I now had the option to recertify in internal medicine with a Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine (FPHM). Beginning in 2014, ABIM offered hospitalists, or internists whose clinical practice is mainly in the inpatient setting, the option to recertify in internal medicine, but with the designation that highlighted their clinical practice in the inpatient setting.

The first step in recertification for me was deciding to recertify with the focus in hospital medicine or maintain the traditional internal medicine certification. I talked with several colleagues who are also practicing hospitalists and weighed their reasons for opting for FPHM. Ultimately, my decision to pursue a recertification with a focus in hospital medicine relied on three factors: First, my clinical practice since completing residency was exclusively in the inpatient setting. Day in and day out, I care for patients who are acutely ill and require inpatient medical care. Second, I wanted my board certification to reflect what I consider to be my area of clinical expertise, which is inpatient adult medicine. Pursuing the FPHM would provide that recognition. Finally, I wanted to study and be tested on topics that I could utilize in my day-to-day practice. Because I exclusively practiced hospital medicine since graduation, areas of clinical internal medicine that I did not frequently encounter in my daily practice became less accessible in my knowledge base.

The next step then was to enter the FPHM Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program.

The ABIM requires two attestations to verify that I met the requirements to be a hospitalist. First was a self-attestation confirming at least 3 years of unsupervised inpatient care practice experience, and meeting patient encounter thresholds in the inpatient setting. The second attestation was from a “Senior Hospital Officer” confirming the information in the self-attestation was accurate.

Once entered into the program and having an unrestricted medical license to practice, I had to complete the remaining requirements of earning MOC points and then passing a knowledge-based assessment. I had to accumulate a total of 100 MOC points in the past 5 years, which I succeeded in doing through participating in quality improvement projects, recording CME credits, studying for the exam, and even taking the exam. I could track my point totals through the ABIM Physician Portal, which updated my point tally automatically for activities that counted toward MOC, such as attending SHM’s annual conference.

The final component was to pass the knowledge assessment, the dreaded exam. In 2018, I had the option to take the 10-year FPHM exam or do a general internal medicine Knowledge Check-In. Beginning in 2020, candidates will be able to sit for either the 10-year Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine exam or begin the Hospital Medicine Knowledge Check-In pathway. I had already decided to pursue FPHM and began to prepare to sit for an exam. I scheduled my exam through the ABIM portal at a local testing center.

The exam was scheduled for a full day, consisting of four sections broken up by a lunch break and section breaks. Specifically, the 220 single best answer, multiple-choice exam covered diagnosis, testing, treatment decisions, epidemiology, and basic science content through patient scenarios that reflected the scope of practice of a hospitalist. The ABIM provided an exam blueprint that detailed the specific clinical topics and the likelihood that a question pertaining to that topic would show up on the exam. Content was described as high, medium, or low importance and the number of questions related to the content was 75% for high importance, no more than 25% for medium importance, and no questions for low-importance content. In addition, content was distributed in a way that was reflective of my clinical practice as a hospitalist: 63.5% inpatient and traditional care; 6.5% palliative care; 15% consultative comanagement; and 15% quality, safety, and clinical reasoning.

Beginning 6 months prior to my scheduled exam, I purchased two critical resources to guide my studying efforts: the SHM Spark Self-Assessment Tool and the American College of Physicians Medical Knowledge Self-Assessment Program to review subject matter content and also do practice questions.

The latest version of SHM’s program, Spark Edition 2, provides updated questions and resources tailored to the hospital medicine exams. I appreciated the ability to answer questions online, as well as on my phone so I could do questions on the go. Moreover, I was able to track which content areas were stronger or weaker for me, and focus attention on areas that needed more work. Importantly, the questions I answered using the Spark self-assessment tool closely aligned with the subject matter I encountered in the exam, as well as the clinical cases I encounter every day in my practice.

While the day-long exam was challenging, I was gratified to receive notice from the ABIM that I had successfully recertified in internal medicine with a Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine!

Dr. Tad-y is a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and associate vice chair of quality in the department of medicine at the University of Colorado.

Everyone always told me that my time in residency would fly by, and the 3 years of internal medicine training really did seem to pass in just a few moments. Before I knew it, I had passed my internal medicine boards and practiced hospital medicine at an academic medical center.

One day last fall, I received notice from the American Board of Internal Medicine that it was time to recertify. I was surprised – had it already been 10 years? What did I have to do to maintain my certification?

As I investigated what it would take to maintain certification, I discovered that the recertification process provided more flexibility, compared with original board certification. I now had the option to recertify in internal medicine with a Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine (FPHM). Beginning in 2014, ABIM offered hospitalists, or internists whose clinical practice is mainly in the inpatient setting, the option to recertify in internal medicine, but with the designation that highlighted their clinical practice in the inpatient setting.

The first step in recertification for me was deciding to recertify with the focus in hospital medicine or maintain the traditional internal medicine certification. I talked with several colleagues who are also practicing hospitalists and weighed their reasons for opting for FPHM. Ultimately, my decision to pursue a recertification with a focus in hospital medicine relied on three factors: First, my clinical practice since completing residency was exclusively in the inpatient setting. Day in and day out, I care for patients who are acutely ill and require inpatient medical care. Second, I wanted my board certification to reflect what I consider to be my area of clinical expertise, which is inpatient adult medicine. Pursuing the FPHM would provide that recognition. Finally, I wanted to study and be tested on topics that I could utilize in my day-to-day practice. Because I exclusively practiced hospital medicine since graduation, areas of clinical internal medicine that I did not frequently encounter in my daily practice became less accessible in my knowledge base.

The next step then was to enter the FPHM Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program.

The ABIM requires two attestations to verify that I met the requirements to be a hospitalist. First was a self-attestation confirming at least 3 years of unsupervised inpatient care practice experience, and meeting patient encounter thresholds in the inpatient setting. The second attestation was from a “Senior Hospital Officer” confirming the information in the self-attestation was accurate.

Once entered into the program and having an unrestricted medical license to practice, I had to complete the remaining requirements of earning MOC points and then passing a knowledge-based assessment. I had to accumulate a total of 100 MOC points in the past 5 years, which I succeeded in doing through participating in quality improvement projects, recording CME credits, studying for the exam, and even taking the exam. I could track my point totals through the ABIM Physician Portal, which updated my point tally automatically for activities that counted toward MOC, such as attending SHM’s annual conference.

The final component was to pass the knowledge assessment, the dreaded exam. In 2018, I had the option to take the 10-year FPHM exam or do a general internal medicine Knowledge Check-In. Beginning in 2020, candidates will be able to sit for either the 10-year Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine exam or begin the Hospital Medicine Knowledge Check-In pathway. I had already decided to pursue FPHM and began to prepare to sit for an exam. I scheduled my exam through the ABIM portal at a local testing center.

The exam was scheduled for a full day, consisting of four sections broken up by a lunch break and section breaks. Specifically, the 220 single best answer, multiple-choice exam covered diagnosis, testing, treatment decisions, epidemiology, and basic science content through patient scenarios that reflected the scope of practice of a hospitalist. The ABIM provided an exam blueprint that detailed the specific clinical topics and the likelihood that a question pertaining to that topic would show up on the exam. Content was described as high, medium, or low importance and the number of questions related to the content was 75% for high importance, no more than 25% for medium importance, and no questions for low-importance content. In addition, content was distributed in a way that was reflective of my clinical practice as a hospitalist: 63.5% inpatient and traditional care; 6.5% palliative care; 15% consultative comanagement; and 15% quality, safety, and clinical reasoning.

Beginning 6 months prior to my scheduled exam, I purchased two critical resources to guide my studying efforts: the SHM Spark Self-Assessment Tool and the American College of Physicians Medical Knowledge Self-Assessment Program to review subject matter content and also do practice questions.

The latest version of SHM’s program, Spark Edition 2, provides updated questions and resources tailored to the hospital medicine exams. I appreciated the ability to answer questions online, as well as on my phone so I could do questions on the go. Moreover, I was able to track which content areas were stronger or weaker for me, and focus attention on areas that needed more work. Importantly, the questions I answered using the Spark self-assessment tool closely aligned with the subject matter I encountered in the exam, as well as the clinical cases I encounter every day in my practice.

While the day-long exam was challenging, I was gratified to receive notice from the ABIM that I had successfully recertified in internal medicine with a Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine!

Dr. Tad-y is a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and associate vice chair of quality in the department of medicine at the University of Colorado.

Everyone always told me that my time in residency would fly by, and the 3 years of internal medicine training really did seem to pass in just a few moments. Before I knew it, I had passed my internal medicine boards and practiced hospital medicine at an academic medical center.

One day last fall, I received notice from the American Board of Internal Medicine that it was time to recertify. I was surprised – had it already been 10 years? What did I have to do to maintain my certification?

As I investigated what it would take to maintain certification, I discovered that the recertification process provided more flexibility, compared with original board certification. I now had the option to recertify in internal medicine with a Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine (FPHM). Beginning in 2014, ABIM offered hospitalists, or internists whose clinical practice is mainly in the inpatient setting, the option to recertify in internal medicine, but with the designation that highlighted their clinical practice in the inpatient setting.

The first step in recertification for me was deciding to recertify with the focus in hospital medicine or maintain the traditional internal medicine certification. I talked with several colleagues who are also practicing hospitalists and weighed their reasons for opting for FPHM. Ultimately, my decision to pursue a recertification with a focus in hospital medicine relied on three factors: First, my clinical practice since completing residency was exclusively in the inpatient setting. Day in and day out, I care for patients who are acutely ill and require inpatient medical care. Second, I wanted my board certification to reflect what I consider to be my area of clinical expertise, which is inpatient adult medicine. Pursuing the FPHM would provide that recognition. Finally, I wanted to study and be tested on topics that I could utilize in my day-to-day practice. Because I exclusively practiced hospital medicine since graduation, areas of clinical internal medicine that I did not frequently encounter in my daily practice became less accessible in my knowledge base.

The next step then was to enter the FPHM Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program.

The ABIM requires two attestations to verify that I met the requirements to be a hospitalist. First was a self-attestation confirming at least 3 years of unsupervised inpatient care practice experience, and meeting patient encounter thresholds in the inpatient setting. The second attestation was from a “Senior Hospital Officer” confirming the information in the self-attestation was accurate.

Once entered into the program and having an unrestricted medical license to practice, I had to complete the remaining requirements of earning MOC points and then passing a knowledge-based assessment. I had to accumulate a total of 100 MOC points in the past 5 years, which I succeeded in doing through participating in quality improvement projects, recording CME credits, studying for the exam, and even taking the exam. I could track my point totals through the ABIM Physician Portal, which updated my point tally automatically for activities that counted toward MOC, such as attending SHM’s annual conference.

The final component was to pass the knowledge assessment, the dreaded exam. In 2018, I had the option to take the 10-year FPHM exam or do a general internal medicine Knowledge Check-In. Beginning in 2020, candidates will be able to sit for either the 10-year Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine exam or begin the Hospital Medicine Knowledge Check-In pathway. I had already decided to pursue FPHM and began to prepare to sit for an exam. I scheduled my exam through the ABIM portal at a local testing center.

The exam was scheduled for a full day, consisting of four sections broken up by a lunch break and section breaks. Specifically, the 220 single best answer, multiple-choice exam covered diagnosis, testing, treatment decisions, epidemiology, and basic science content through patient scenarios that reflected the scope of practice of a hospitalist. The ABIM provided an exam blueprint that detailed the specific clinical topics and the likelihood that a question pertaining to that topic would show up on the exam. Content was described as high, medium, or low importance and the number of questions related to the content was 75% for high importance, no more than 25% for medium importance, and no questions for low-importance content. In addition, content was distributed in a way that was reflective of my clinical practice as a hospitalist: 63.5% inpatient and traditional care; 6.5% palliative care; 15% consultative comanagement; and 15% quality, safety, and clinical reasoning.

Beginning 6 months prior to my scheduled exam, I purchased two critical resources to guide my studying efforts: the SHM Spark Self-Assessment Tool and the American College of Physicians Medical Knowledge Self-Assessment Program to review subject matter content and also do practice questions.

The latest version of SHM’s program, Spark Edition 2, provides updated questions and resources tailored to the hospital medicine exams. I appreciated the ability to answer questions online, as well as on my phone so I could do questions on the go. Moreover, I was able to track which content areas were stronger or weaker for me, and focus attention on areas that needed more work. Importantly, the questions I answered using the Spark self-assessment tool closely aligned with the subject matter I encountered in the exam, as well as the clinical cases I encounter every day in my practice.

While the day-long exam was challenging, I was gratified to receive notice from the ABIM that I had successfully recertified in internal medicine with a Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine!

Dr. Tad-y is a hospitalist at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and associate vice chair of quality in the department of medicine at the University of Colorado.

Physician employment contracts increasingly include value- and quality-based metrics as bases for production bonuses, according to an analysis of recruitment searches from April 1, 2018, to March 31, 2019.

Metrics such as physician satisfaction rates, proper use of EHRs, following treatment protocols, and others that don’t directly measure volume are becoming more commonplace in employment contracts, though volume measures still are included, according to Phil Miller, vice president of communications at health care recruiting firm Merritt Hawkins and author of the company’s 2019 report on physician and advanced practitioner recruiting incentives, released July 8.

Of 70% of searches that offered a production bonus, 56% featured a bonus based at least in part on quality metrics, up from 43% in 2018. The finding represents the highest percent of contracts offering a quality-based bonus that the company has tracked, according to the report.

Merritt Hawkins’ review is based on a sample of the 3,131 permanent physician and advanced practitioner search assignments that Merritt Hawkins and its sister physician staffing companies at AMN Healthcare have ongoing or were engaged to conduct from April 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019.

Other common value-based metrics include reduction in hospital readmissions, cost containment, and proper coding.

While value-based incentives are on the rise, “facilities that employ physicians want to ensure they stay productive, and ‘productivity’ still is measured in part by what are essentially fee-for-service metrics, including relative value units [RVUs], net collections, and number of patients seen.”

RVUs were used in 70% of production formulas tracked in the 2019 review, up from 50% in the previous year and also a record high.

Mr. Miller noted that employers are seeking the “Goldilocks’ zone,” a balance point between traditional productivity measures and value-based metrics, very much a work in progress right now.

A possible corollary to the increase in production bonuses is a flattening of signing bonuses. During the current review period, 71% of contracts came with a signing bonus, up slightly from 70% in the previous year’s report and down from 76% 2 years ago.

Signing bonuses in the review period for the 2019 report averaged $32,692, down from $33,707 during the 2018 report’s review period.

Overall, family practice physicians remain the highest in demand for job searches, but specialty practice is gaining ground.

For the 2018-2019 review, family medicine was the most requested search by specialty, with 457 searches requested. While the ranking remains No. 1, as it has for the past 13 years, the number of searches has been on a steady decline. Last year, there were 497 searches, which was down from 607 2 years ago and 734 4 years ago.

Mr. Miller said there were a few reasons for the lower number of searches. “One is just the momentum shifts that are kind of inherent to recruiting. People put all of their resources into one area, typically, and in this case it was primary care and they realized, ‘Hey wait a minute, we need some specialists for these doctors to refer to, so now we have to put some of our chips in the specialty basket.’ ”

The Baby Boomers also is having an effect – as they age and are experiencing more health issues, more specialists are needed.

“[Older patients] visit the doctor twice or three times the rate of a younger person and they also generate a much higher percentage of inpatient procedures and tests and diagnoses,” he said.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, “younger people are less likely to have a primary care doctor who coordinates their care,” Mr. Miller said. “What they typically do is go to an urgent care center, a retail clinic, maybe even [use] telemedicine so they are not accessing the system in the same way or necessarily through the same provider.”

Demand for psychiatrists remained strong for the fourth year in a row, but the number of searches has declined for the last several years. For the current review period, there were 199 searches, down from 243 the previous year, 256 2 years ago, and 250 3 years ago.

There is “pretty much a crisis in behavioral health care now because there are so few psychiatrists and the demand has increased,” Mr. Miller noted.

[email protected]

Physician employment contracts increasingly include value- and quality-based metrics as bases for production bonuses, according to an analysis of recruitment searches from April 1, 2018, to March 31, 2019.

Metrics such as physician satisfaction rates, proper use of EHRs, following treatment protocols, and others that don’t directly measure volume are becoming more commonplace in employment contracts, though volume measures still are included, according to Phil Miller, vice president of communications at health care recruiting firm Merritt Hawkins and author of the company’s 2019 report on physician and advanced practitioner recruiting incentives, released July 8.

Of 70% of searches that offered a production bonus, 56% featured a bonus based at least in part on quality metrics, up from 43% in 2018. The finding represents the highest percent of contracts offering a quality-based bonus that the company has tracked, according to the report.

Merritt Hawkins’ review is based on a sample of the 3,131 permanent physician and advanced practitioner search assignments that Merritt Hawkins and its sister physician staffing companies at AMN Healthcare have ongoing or were engaged to conduct from April 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019.

Other common value-based metrics include reduction in hospital readmissions, cost containment, and proper coding.

While value-based incentives are on the rise, “facilities that employ physicians want to ensure they stay productive, and ‘productivity’ still is measured in part by what are essentially fee-for-service metrics, including relative value units [RVUs], net collections, and number of patients seen.”

RVUs were used in 70% of production formulas tracked in the 2019 review, up from 50% in the previous year and also a record high.

Mr. Miller noted that employers are seeking the “Goldilocks’ zone,” a balance point between traditional productivity measures and value-based metrics, very much a work in progress right now.

A possible corollary to the increase in production bonuses is a flattening of signing bonuses. During the current review period, 71% of contracts came with a signing bonus, up slightly from 70% in the previous year’s report and down from 76% 2 years ago.

Signing bonuses in the review period for the 2019 report averaged $32,692, down from $33,707 during the 2018 report’s review period.

Overall, family practice physicians remain the highest in demand for job searches, but specialty practice is gaining ground.

For the 2018-2019 review, family medicine was the most requested search by specialty, with 457 searches requested. While the ranking remains No. 1, as it has for the past 13 years, the number of searches has been on a steady decline. Last year, there were 497 searches, which was down from 607 2 years ago and 734 4 years ago.

Mr. Miller said there were a few reasons for the lower number of searches. “One is just the momentum shifts that are kind of inherent to recruiting. People put all of their resources into one area, typically, and in this case it was primary care and they realized, ‘Hey wait a minute, we need some specialists for these doctors to refer to, so now we have to put some of our chips in the specialty basket.’ ”

The Baby Boomers also is having an effect – as they age and are experiencing more health issues, more specialists are needed.

“[Older patients] visit the doctor twice or three times the rate of a younger person and they also generate a much higher percentage of inpatient procedures and tests and diagnoses,” he said.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, “younger people are less likely to have a primary care doctor who coordinates their care,” Mr. Miller said. “What they typically do is go to an urgent care center, a retail clinic, maybe even [use] telemedicine so they are not accessing the system in the same way or necessarily through the same provider.”

Demand for psychiatrists remained strong for the fourth year in a row, but the number of searches has declined for the last several years. For the current review period, there were 199 searches, down from 243 the previous year, 256 2 years ago, and 250 3 years ago.

There is “pretty much a crisis in behavioral health care now because there are so few psychiatrists and the demand has increased,” Mr. Miller noted.

[email protected]

Physician employment contracts increasingly include value- and quality-based metrics as bases for production bonuses, according to an analysis of recruitment searches from April 1, 2018, to March 31, 2019.

Metrics such as physician satisfaction rates, proper use of EHRs, following treatment protocols, and others that don’t directly measure volume are becoming more commonplace in employment contracts, though volume measures still are included, according to Phil Miller, vice president of communications at health care recruiting firm Merritt Hawkins and author of the company’s 2019 report on physician and advanced practitioner recruiting incentives, released July 8.

Of 70% of searches that offered a production bonus, 56% featured a bonus based at least in part on quality metrics, up from 43% in 2018. The finding represents the highest percent of contracts offering a quality-based bonus that the company has tracked, according to the report.

Merritt Hawkins’ review is based on a sample of the 3,131 permanent physician and advanced practitioner search assignments that Merritt Hawkins and its sister physician staffing companies at AMN Healthcare have ongoing or were engaged to conduct from April 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019.

Other common value-based metrics include reduction in hospital readmissions, cost containment, and proper coding.

While value-based incentives are on the rise, “facilities that employ physicians want to ensure they stay productive, and ‘productivity’ still is measured in part by what are essentially fee-for-service metrics, including relative value units [RVUs], net collections, and number of patients seen.”

RVUs were used in 70% of production formulas tracked in the 2019 review, up from 50% in the previous year and also a record high.

Mr. Miller noted that employers are seeking the “Goldilocks’ zone,” a balance point between traditional productivity measures and value-based metrics, very much a work in progress right now.

A possible corollary to the increase in production bonuses is a flattening of signing bonuses. During the current review period, 71% of contracts came with a signing bonus, up slightly from 70% in the previous year’s report and down from 76% 2 years ago.

Signing bonuses in the review period for the 2019 report averaged $32,692, down from $33,707 during the 2018 report’s review period.

Overall, family practice physicians remain the highest in demand for job searches, but specialty practice is gaining ground.

For the 2018-2019 review, family medicine was the most requested search by specialty, with 457 searches requested. While the ranking remains No. 1, as it has for the past 13 years, the number of searches has been on a steady decline. Last year, there were 497 searches, which was down from 607 2 years ago and 734 4 years ago.

Mr. Miller said there were a few reasons for the lower number of searches. “One is just the momentum shifts that are kind of inherent to recruiting. People put all of their resources into one area, typically, and in this case it was primary care and they realized, ‘Hey wait a minute, we need some specialists for these doctors to refer to, so now we have to put some of our chips in the specialty basket.’ ”

The Baby Boomers also is having an effect – as they age and are experiencing more health issues, more specialists are needed.

“[Older patients] visit the doctor twice or three times the rate of a younger person and they also generate a much higher percentage of inpatient procedures and tests and diagnoses,” he said.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, “younger people are less likely to have a primary care doctor who coordinates their care,” Mr. Miller said. “What they typically do is go to an urgent care center, a retail clinic, maybe even [use] telemedicine so they are not accessing the system in the same way or necessarily through the same provider.”

Demand for psychiatrists remained strong for the fourth year in a row, but the number of searches has declined for the last several years. For the current review period, there were 199 searches, down from 243 the previous year, 256 2 years ago, and 250 3 years ago.

There is “pretty much a crisis in behavioral health care now because there are so few psychiatrists and the demand has increased,” Mr. Miller noted.

[email protected]

AUSTIN, TEX. – The majority of skin-related pediatric inpatient admissions in the United States involve treatment for cellulitis, results from a large study of national data showed.

“Skin conditions significantly affect pediatric inpatients, and dermatologists ought be accessible for consultation to enhance care and costs,” the study’s first author, Marcus L. Elias, said in an interview prior to the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

According to Mr. Elias, who is a 4th-year medical student at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School–Newark, few national studies on skin diseases for pediatric inpatients have been published in the medical literature. Earlier this year, researchers examined inpatient dermatologic conditions in patients aged 18 years and older (J Am Acad Dermatol 2019;80[2]:425-32), but Mr. Elias and associates set out to analyze the burden of inpatient pediatric dermatologic conditions on a national basis. “We wanted to see if the same conditions that were hospitalizing adults were also hospitalizing kids,” he said. “We found that this was indeed the case.”

The researchers queried the National Inpatient Sample database for all cases involving patients aged 18 years and younger during 2001-2013. The search yielded a sample of 16,837,857 patients. From this, the researchers analyzed diagnosis-related groups for dermatologic conditions denoting the principal diagnosis at discharge, which left a final sample of 84,090 patients. Frequency and chi-squared tests were used to analyze categorical variables.

More than half of patients (54%) were male, 36% were white, 48% had Medicaid insurance, and 43% had private insurance. Mr. Elias reported that the median length of stay for patients was 2 days and the median cost of care was $6,289.50 for each case. More than three-quarters of pediatric inpatients with dermatologic diagnoses were treated for “cellulitis” (66,147 cases, or 79%), with most cases involving the legs (16,875 cases, or 20%). Other pediatric inpatients were admitted for “minor skin disorder without complications” (5,458 cases, or 7%), and “minor skin disorder with complications” (2,822 cases, or 3%). A total of 64 patients died during the study period. Of these, 31 cases (50%) involved “skin graft and/or debridement of skin ulcer or cellulitis without complications,” the study found.

“We were surprised that the major cause of mortality for our patients was classified as ‘skin graft and/or debridement of skin ulcer or cellulitis without complications,’ as a similar diagnosis-related groupings exist denoting that complications did arise,” Mr. Elias said. “Still, it is not possible for us to determine if the mortality was from the skin graft/debridement or another cause entirely. It is possible that the procedure was without complications, only to have the patient succumb to an ancillary process.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that the function of dermatologic consults for hospitalized patients was not examined. “We also cannot draw conclusions as to whether improved outpatient therapy reduces the need for hospitalization,” he said. Mr. Elias reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

AUSTIN, TEX. – The majority of skin-related pediatric inpatient admissions in the United States involve treatment for cellulitis, results from a large study of national data showed.

“Skin conditions significantly affect pediatric inpatients, and dermatologists ought be accessible for consultation to enhance care and costs,” the study’s first author, Marcus L. Elias, said in an interview prior to the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

According to Mr. Elias, who is a 4th-year medical student at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School–Newark, few national studies on skin diseases for pediatric inpatients have been published in the medical literature. Earlier this year, researchers examined inpatient dermatologic conditions in patients aged 18 years and older (J Am Acad Dermatol 2019;80[2]:425-32), but Mr. Elias and associates set out to analyze the burden of inpatient pediatric dermatologic conditions on a national basis. “We wanted to see if the same conditions that were hospitalizing adults were also hospitalizing kids,” he said. “We found that this was indeed the case.”

The researchers queried the National Inpatient Sample database for all cases involving patients aged 18 years and younger during 2001-2013. The search yielded a sample of 16,837,857 patients. From this, the researchers analyzed diagnosis-related groups for dermatologic conditions denoting the principal diagnosis at discharge, which left a final sample of 84,090 patients. Frequency and chi-squared tests were used to analyze categorical variables.

More than half of patients (54%) were male, 36% were white, 48% had Medicaid insurance, and 43% had private insurance. Mr. Elias reported that the median length of stay for patients was 2 days and the median cost of care was $6,289.50 for each case. More than three-quarters of pediatric inpatients with dermatologic diagnoses were treated for “cellulitis” (66,147 cases, or 79%), with most cases involving the legs (16,875 cases, or 20%). Other pediatric inpatients were admitted for “minor skin disorder without complications” (5,458 cases, or 7%), and “minor skin disorder with complications” (2,822 cases, or 3%). A total of 64 patients died during the study period. Of these, 31 cases (50%) involved “skin graft and/or debridement of skin ulcer or cellulitis without complications,” the study found.

“We were surprised that the major cause of mortality for our patients was classified as ‘skin graft and/or debridement of skin ulcer or cellulitis without complications,’ as a similar diagnosis-related groupings exist denoting that complications did arise,” Mr. Elias said. “Still, it is not possible for us to determine if the mortality was from the skin graft/debridement or another cause entirely. It is possible that the procedure was without complications, only to have the patient succumb to an ancillary process.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that the function of dermatologic consults for hospitalized patients was not examined. “We also cannot draw conclusions as to whether improved outpatient therapy reduces the need for hospitalization,” he said. Mr. Elias reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

AUSTIN, TEX. – The majority of skin-related pediatric inpatient admissions in the United States involve treatment for cellulitis, results from a large study of national data showed.

“Skin conditions significantly affect pediatric inpatients, and dermatologists ought be accessible for consultation to enhance care and costs,” the study’s first author, Marcus L. Elias, said in an interview prior to the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

According to Mr. Elias, who is a 4th-year medical student at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School–Newark, few national studies on skin diseases for pediatric inpatients have been published in the medical literature. Earlier this year, researchers examined inpatient dermatologic conditions in patients aged 18 years and older (J Am Acad Dermatol 2019;80[2]:425-32), but Mr. Elias and associates set out to analyze the burden of inpatient pediatric dermatologic conditions on a national basis. “We wanted to see if the same conditions that were hospitalizing adults were also hospitalizing kids,” he said. “We found that this was indeed the case.”

The researchers queried the National Inpatient Sample database for all cases involving patients aged 18 years and younger during 2001-2013. The search yielded a sample of 16,837,857 patients. From this, the researchers analyzed diagnosis-related groups for dermatologic conditions denoting the principal diagnosis at discharge, which left a final sample of 84,090 patients. Frequency and chi-squared tests were used to analyze categorical variables.

More than half of patients (54%) were male, 36% were white, 48% had Medicaid insurance, and 43% had private insurance. Mr. Elias reported that the median length of stay for patients was 2 days and the median cost of care was $6,289.50 for each case. More than three-quarters of pediatric inpatients with dermatologic diagnoses were treated for “cellulitis” (66,147 cases, or 79%), with most cases involving the legs (16,875 cases, or 20%). Other pediatric inpatients were admitted for “minor skin disorder without complications” (5,458 cases, or 7%), and “minor skin disorder with complications” (2,822 cases, or 3%). A total of 64 patients died during the study period. Of these, 31 cases (50%) involved “skin graft and/or debridement of skin ulcer or cellulitis without complications,” the study found.

“We were surprised that the major cause of mortality for our patients was classified as ‘skin graft and/or debridement of skin ulcer or cellulitis without complications,’ as a similar diagnosis-related groupings exist denoting that complications did arise,” Mr. Elias said. “Still, it is not possible for us to determine if the mortality was from the skin graft/debridement or another cause entirely. It is possible that the procedure was without complications, only to have the patient succumb to an ancillary process.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that the function of dermatologic consults for hospitalized patients was not examined. “We also cannot draw conclusions as to whether improved outpatient therapy reduces the need for hospitalization,” he said. Mr. Elias reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]