Vascular Specialist

The third membership deadline of 2019 is a few short days away on Sept. 1. SVS members enjoy many benefits such as SVSConnect, discounted pricing on publications and meeting registration, practice management resources and much more. Visit the membership page and start your application today. If you have any questions, please contact the SVS membership department at [email protected].

The third membership deadline of 2019 is a few short days away on Sept. 1. SVS members enjoy many benefits such as SVSConnect, discounted pricing on publications and meeting registration, practice management resources and much more. Visit the membership page and start your application today. If you have any questions, please contact the SVS membership department at [email protected].

The third membership deadline of 2019 is a few short days away on Sept. 1. SVS members enjoy many benefits such as SVSConnect, discounted pricing on publications and meeting registration, practice management resources and much more. Visit the membership page and start your application today. If you have any questions, please contact the SVS membership department at [email protected].

The Society for Vascular Surgery seeks proposals for invited sessions for the 2020 Vascular Annual Meeting, to be held June 17 to 20 in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Scientific sessions will be June 18 to 20 and exhibits will be open June 18 to 19. Proposals should include the session's educational benefit, a short outline of the program topic, session goals and target audience, among other information. Obtain the information/submission form here and send in before tomorrow, Aug. 28. Email completed forms to [email protected].

The Society for Vascular Surgery seeks proposals for invited sessions for the 2020 Vascular Annual Meeting, to be held June 17 to 20 in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Scientific sessions will be June 18 to 20 and exhibits will be open June 18 to 19. Proposals should include the session's educational benefit, a short outline of the program topic, session goals and target audience, among other information. Obtain the information/submission form here and send in before tomorrow, Aug. 28. Email completed forms to [email protected].

The Society for Vascular Surgery seeks proposals for invited sessions for the 2020 Vascular Annual Meeting, to be held June 17 to 20 in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Scientific sessions will be June 18 to 20 and exhibits will be open June 18 to 19. Proposals should include the session's educational benefit, a short outline of the program topic, session goals and target audience, among other information. Obtain the information/submission form here and send in before tomorrow, Aug. 28. Email completed forms to [email protected].

Last year, the SVS Foundation updated and rewrote its popular patient education fliers. These are designed to fulfill the Foundation’s mission to support patient education, vascular health and community awareness of vascular disease. SVS members are encouraged to download and print the fliers to use in their offices. If you’ve taken advantage of these fliers, we’d like to hear how you’ve benefited from them. Please take this short survey and provide your feedback. If you have yet to see the fliers, view them here.

Last year, the SVS Foundation updated and rewrote its popular patient education fliers. These are designed to fulfill the Foundation’s mission to support patient education, vascular health and community awareness of vascular disease. SVS members are encouraged to download and print the fliers to use in their offices. If you’ve taken advantage of these fliers, we’d like to hear how you’ve benefited from them. Please take this short survey and provide your feedback. If you have yet to see the fliers, view them here.

Last year, the SVS Foundation updated and rewrote its popular patient education fliers. These are designed to fulfill the Foundation’s mission to support patient education, vascular health and community awareness of vascular disease. SVS members are encouraged to download and print the fliers to use in their offices. If you’ve taken advantage of these fliers, we’d like to hear how you’ve benefited from them. Please take this short survey and provide your feedback. If you have yet to see the fliers, view them here.

PART I
Reports of sexual harassment and gender discrimination have dominated news headlines, and the #MeToo movement has brought the scope and severity of discriminatory behavior to the forefront of public consciousness. The #MeToo movement has raised national and global awareness of gender discrimination and sexual harassment in all industries and has given rise to Time’s Up initiative within health care.
Academic medicine has not been immune to workplace gender discrimination and sexual harassment as has been vastly reported in the literature and clearly documented in the 2018 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report, which points out that … “the cumulative effect of sexual harassment is a significant and costly loss of talent in academic science, engineering, and medicine, which has consequences for advancing the nation’s economic and social well-being and its overall public health.”1 
With the increasing recognition that healthcare is an environment especially prone to inequality, gender discrimination and sexual discrimination, the Time’s Up national organization, supported by the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund, launched the Time’s Up initiative for health care workers on March 1, 2019.2,3 The overarching goal of this initiative is to expose workplace inequalities; drive policy and legislative changes focused on equal pay, equal opportunity, and equal work environments; and support safe, fair, and dignified work for women in health care. 2,3
This article, presented over the next three issues of Vascular Specialist, will present data on the ongoing problem of sexual harassment in medicine, discuss why the problem is prevalent in academic medicine, and provide recommendations for mitigating the problem in our workplace.

Defining & Measuring Sexual Harassment
Although commonly referred to as “sex discrimination,” sexual harassment differs from sexual discrimination. Sex discrimination refers to an employees’ denial of civil rights, raises, job opportunities, employment or a demotion or other mistreatments based on sex. On the other hand, sexual harassment relates to behavior that is inappropriate or offensive. A 2018 report from the National Academies Press defined sexual harassment (a form of discrimination) as comprising three categories of behavior: gender harassment – verbal and nonverbal behaviors that convey hostility, objectification, exclusion, or second-class status about members of one sex; unwanted sexual attention – verbal or physical unwelcome sexual advances, which can include assault; and sexual coercion – when favorable professional or educational treatment is conditional based on sexual activity.1
During 1995-2016, more than 7,000 health care service employees filed claims of sexual harassment with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. While this number may seem large, the number of official reports severely undervalues the prevalence of sexual discrimination in U.S. health care.1 Prevalence is best determined using representative validated surveys that rely on firsthand experience or observation of the behavior(s) without requiring the respondent to label those behaviors.

Environments at Risk for Sexual Harassment 
Research reveals that academic settings in the fields of science exhibit characteristics that create high levels of risk for sexual harassment to occur. These environments historically are male dominated, tolerate sexually harassing behavior, and create a hierarchy in which men hold most of the positions of power and authority. Moreover, dependent relationships often exist between these gatekeepers and those subordinate to them, with gatekeepers directly influencing the career advancement of those subordinates.1
The greatest predictor of sexual harassment in the workplace is the organizational climate, which refers to the tolerance for sexual harassment and is measured on three elements: a lack of sanctions against offenders; a perceived risk to those who report sexually harassing behavior; and the perception that one’s report of sexually harassing behavior will not be taken seriously.1 Women are less likely to be directly harassed in environments that do not tolerate harassing behaviors or have a strong, clear, transparent consequence for these behaviors.  

Sexual Harassment in Academic Medicine
Academic medicine has the highest rate of gender and sexual harassment in the health care industry, with about 50% of female academic physicians reporting incidents of sexual harassment.1 A recent survey suggests that more than half (58%) of women surgeons experienced sexual harassment within just the previous year alone.4 The conditions that increase the risk of sexual harassment against women – male-dominated hierarchical environments and organizational tolerance of sexual harassment – still prevail in academic medicine. 
Higher-education environments are perceived as permissive environments in part because when targets report sexual harassment, they are retaliated against or there are few consequences for the perpetrator. Academic institutions are replete with cases in which the conduct of offenders is regarded as an open secret, but there are no sanctions for that bad behavior. These offenders often are perceived as superstars in their particular substantive area. Because they hold valued grants or national status within their specialty area, they often receive preferential treatment and are not held accountable for gender-biased and sexually harassing behavior. Interview data regarding sexual harassment in academic medicine reveals that interview respondents and other colleagues often know which individuals have a history of sexually harassing behavior. Both men and women warn colleagues of these perpetrators – knowing that calling out or reporting these behaviors is fruitless – and that the best manner for dealing with their behavior is to avoid or ignore it. This normalization of sexual harassment and gender bias was noted, unfortunately, to fuel similar behavior in new cohorts of medicine faculty.1 
Sexual harassment of women in academic medicine starts in medical school. Female medical students are significantly more likely to experience sexual harassment by faculty and staff than are graduate or undergraduate students. Sexual harassment continues into residency training with residency described as “breeding grounds for abusive behavior by superiors.”1 Interview studies report that both men and women trainees widely accept harassing behavior at this stage of their training. The expectation of abusive and grueling conditions during residency caused several respondents to view sexual harassment as part of a continuum that they were expected to endure. Female residents in surgery and emergency medicine are more likely to be harassed than those in other specialties because of the high value placed on a hierarchical and authoritative workplace. Once out of residency, the sexual harassment of women in the workplace continues. A recent meta-analysis reveals that 58% of women faculty experience sexual harassment at work. Academic medicine has the second-highest rate of sexual harassment, behind the military (69%), as compared with all other workplaces. Women physicians of color experience more harassment (as a combination of sexual and racial harassment) than do white women physicians.1 

Why Women Are Not Likely to Report Sexual Harassment
Only 25% of targets file formal reports with their employer, with even fewer taking claims to court. These numbers are even lower for women in the military and academic medicine, where formal reporting is the last resort for the victims. The reluctance to use formal reporting mechanisms is rooted in the “fear of blame, disbelief, inaction, retaliation, humiliation, ostracism, and the damage to one’s career and reputation.”1 Targets may perceive that there seem to be few benefits and high costs for reporting. Women and nonwhites often resist calling bad behavior “discrimination” because that increases their loss of control and victimhood.1 Women frequently perceive that grievance procedures favor the institution over the individual, and research has proven that women face retaliation, both professional and social, for speaking out. Furthermore, stark power differentials between the target and the perpetrator exacerbate the reluctance to report and the fear of retaliation. The overall effects can be long lasting. 

References:
1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC; 2018. doi. 10.17226/24994.
2. Choo EK et al. From #MeToo to #TimesUp in Health Care: Can a Culture of Accountability End Inequity and Harassment? Lancet. 2019 Feb 9;393(10171):499-502.
3. Choo EK et al. Time’s Up for Medicine? Only Time Will Tell. N Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 25;379(17):1592-3.
4. Medicine Has Its Own #MeToo Problems. Can Time’s Up Healthcare Fix It? 

Dr. Mitchell is a vascular surgeon at Salem (Ore.) Hospital; Dr. Drudi is as vascular surgery resident at McGill University, Montreal; Dr. Brown is a professor of surgery at the Medical College of Wisconsin. Milwaukee; Dr. Sachdev-Ost is an associate professor of surgery at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

PART I
Reports of sexual harassment and gender discrimination have dominated news headlines, and the #MeToo movement has brought the scope and severity of discriminatory behavior to the forefront of public consciousness. The #MeToo movement has raised national and global awareness of gender discrimination and sexual harassment in all industries and has given rise to Time’s Up initiative within health care.
Academic medicine has not been immune to workplace gender discrimination and sexual harassment as has been vastly reported in the literature and clearly documented in the 2018 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report, which points out that … “the cumulative effect of sexual harassment is a significant and costly loss of talent in academic science, engineering, and medicine, which has consequences for advancing the nation’s economic and social well-being and its overall public health.”1 
With the increasing recognition that healthcare is an environment especially prone to inequality, gender discrimination and sexual discrimination, the Time’s Up national organization, supported by the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund, launched the Time’s Up initiative for health care workers on March 1, 2019.2,3 The overarching goal of this initiative is to expose workplace inequalities; drive policy and legislative changes focused on equal pay, equal opportunity, and equal work environments; and support safe, fair, and dignified work for women in health care. 2,3
This article, presented over the next three issues of Vascular Specialist, will present data on the ongoing problem of sexual harassment in medicine, discuss why the problem is prevalent in academic medicine, and provide recommendations for mitigating the problem in our workplace.

Defining & Measuring Sexual Harassment
Although commonly referred to as “sex discrimination,” sexual harassment differs from sexual discrimination. Sex discrimination refers to an employees’ denial of civil rights, raises, job opportunities, employment or a demotion or other mistreatments based on sex. On the other hand, sexual harassment relates to behavior that is inappropriate or offensive. A 2018 report from the National Academies Press defined sexual harassment (a form of discrimination) as comprising three categories of behavior: gender harassment – verbal and nonverbal behaviors that convey hostility, objectification, exclusion, or second-class status about members of one sex; unwanted sexual attention – verbal or physical unwelcome sexual advances, which can include assault; and sexual coercion – when favorable professional or educational treatment is conditional based on sexual activity.1
During 1995-2016, more than 7,000 health care service employees filed claims of sexual harassment with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. While this number may seem large, the number of official reports severely undervalues the prevalence of sexual discrimination in U.S. health care.1 Prevalence is best determined using representative validated surveys that rely on firsthand experience or observation of the behavior(s) without requiring the respondent to label those behaviors.

Environments at Risk for Sexual Harassment 
Research reveals that academic settings in the fields of science exhibit characteristics that create high levels of risk for sexual harassment to occur. These environments historically are male dominated, tolerate sexually harassing behavior, and create a hierarchy in which men hold most of the positions of power and authority. Moreover, dependent relationships often exist between these gatekeepers and those subordinate to them, with gatekeepers directly influencing the career advancement of those subordinates.1
The greatest predictor of sexual harassment in the workplace is the organizational climate, which refers to the tolerance for sexual harassment and is measured on three elements: a lack of sanctions against offenders; a perceived risk to those who report sexually harassing behavior; and the perception that one’s report of sexually harassing behavior will not be taken seriously.1 Women are less likely to be directly harassed in environments that do not tolerate harassing behaviors or have a strong, clear, transparent consequence for these behaviors.  

Sexual Harassment in Academic Medicine
Academic medicine has the highest rate of gender and sexual harassment in the health care industry, with about 50% of female academic physicians reporting incidents of sexual harassment.1 A recent survey suggests that more than half (58%) of women surgeons experienced sexual harassment within just the previous year alone.4 The conditions that increase the risk of sexual harassment against women – male-dominated hierarchical environments and organizational tolerance of sexual harassment – still prevail in academic medicine. 
Higher-education environments are perceived as permissive environments in part because when targets report sexual harassment, they are retaliated against or there are few consequences for the perpetrator. Academic institutions are replete with cases in which the conduct of offenders is regarded as an open secret, but there are no sanctions for that bad behavior. These offenders often are perceived as superstars in their particular substantive area. Because they hold valued grants or national status within their specialty area, they often receive preferential treatment and are not held accountable for gender-biased and sexually harassing behavior. Interview data regarding sexual harassment in academic medicine reveals that interview respondents and other colleagues often know which individuals have a history of sexually harassing behavior. Both men and women warn colleagues of these perpetrators – knowing that calling out or reporting these behaviors is fruitless – and that the best manner for dealing with their behavior is to avoid or ignore it. This normalization of sexual harassment and gender bias was noted, unfortunately, to fuel similar behavior in new cohorts of medicine faculty.1 
Sexual harassment of women in academic medicine starts in medical school. Female medical students are significantly more likely to experience sexual harassment by faculty and staff than are graduate or undergraduate students. Sexual harassment continues into residency training with residency described as “breeding grounds for abusive behavior by superiors.”1 Interview studies report that both men and women trainees widely accept harassing behavior at this stage of their training. The expectation of abusive and grueling conditions during residency caused several respondents to view sexual harassment as part of a continuum that they were expected to endure. Female residents in surgery and emergency medicine are more likely to be harassed than those in other specialties because of the high value placed on a hierarchical and authoritative workplace. Once out of residency, the sexual harassment of women in the workplace continues. A recent meta-analysis reveals that 58% of women faculty experience sexual harassment at work. Academic medicine has the second-highest rate of sexual harassment, behind the military (69%), as compared with all other workplaces. Women physicians of color experience more harassment (as a combination of sexual and racial harassment) than do white women physicians.1 

Why Women Are Not Likely to Report Sexual Harassment
Only 25% of targets file formal reports with their employer, with even fewer taking claims to court. These numbers are even lower for women in the military and academic medicine, where formal reporting is the last resort for the victims. The reluctance to use formal reporting mechanisms is rooted in the “fear of blame, disbelief, inaction, retaliation, humiliation, ostracism, and the damage to one’s career and reputation.”1 Targets may perceive that there seem to be few benefits and high costs for reporting. Women and nonwhites often resist calling bad behavior “discrimination” because that increases their loss of control and victimhood.1 Women frequently perceive that grievance procedures favor the institution over the individual, and research has proven that women face retaliation, both professional and social, for speaking out. Furthermore, stark power differentials between the target and the perpetrator exacerbate the reluctance to report and the fear of retaliation. The overall effects can be long lasting. 

References:
1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC; 2018. doi. 10.17226/24994.
2. Choo EK et al. From #MeToo to #TimesUp in Health Care: Can a Culture of Accountability End Inequity and Harassment? Lancet. 2019 Feb 9;393(10171):499-502.
3. Choo EK et al. Time’s Up for Medicine? Only Time Will Tell. N Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 25;379(17):1592-3.
4. Medicine Has Its Own #MeToo Problems. Can Time’s Up Healthcare Fix It? 

Dr. Mitchell is a vascular surgeon at Salem (Ore.) Hospital; Dr. Drudi is as vascular surgery resident at McGill University, Montreal; Dr. Brown is a professor of surgery at the Medical College of Wisconsin. Milwaukee; Dr. Sachdev-Ost is an associate professor of surgery at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

PART I
Reports of sexual harassment and gender discrimination have dominated news headlines, and the #MeToo movement has brought the scope and severity of discriminatory behavior to the forefront of public consciousness. The #MeToo movement has raised national and global awareness of gender discrimination and sexual harassment in all industries and has given rise to Time’s Up initiative within health care.
Academic medicine has not been immune to workplace gender discrimination and sexual harassment as has been vastly reported in the literature and clearly documented in the 2018 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report, which points out that … “the cumulative effect of sexual harassment is a significant and costly loss of talent in academic science, engineering, and medicine, which has consequences for advancing the nation’s economic and social well-being and its overall public health.”1 
With the increasing recognition that healthcare is an environment especially prone to inequality, gender discrimination and sexual discrimination, the Time’s Up national organization, supported by the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund, launched the Time’s Up initiative for health care workers on March 1, 2019.2,3 The overarching goal of this initiative is to expose workplace inequalities; drive policy and legislative changes focused on equal pay, equal opportunity, and equal work environments; and support safe, fair, and dignified work for women in health care. 2,3
This article, presented over the next three issues of Vascular Specialist, will present data on the ongoing problem of sexual harassment in medicine, discuss why the problem is prevalent in academic medicine, and provide recommendations for mitigating the problem in our workplace.

Defining & Measuring Sexual Harassment
Although commonly referred to as “sex discrimination,” sexual harassment differs from sexual discrimination. Sex discrimination refers to an employees’ denial of civil rights, raises, job opportunities, employment or a demotion or other mistreatments based on sex. On the other hand, sexual harassment relates to behavior that is inappropriate or offensive. A 2018 report from the National Academies Press defined sexual harassment (a form of discrimination) as comprising three categories of behavior: gender harassment – verbal and nonverbal behaviors that convey hostility, objectification, exclusion, or second-class status about members of one sex; unwanted sexual attention – verbal or physical unwelcome sexual advances, which can include assault; and sexual coercion – when favorable professional or educational treatment is conditional based on sexual activity.1
During 1995-2016, more than 7,000 health care service employees filed claims of sexual harassment with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. While this number may seem large, the number of official reports severely undervalues the prevalence of sexual discrimination in U.S. health care.1 Prevalence is best determined using representative validated surveys that rely on firsthand experience or observation of the behavior(s) without requiring the respondent to label those behaviors.

Environments at Risk for Sexual Harassment 
Research reveals that academic settings in the fields of science exhibit characteristics that create high levels of risk for sexual harassment to occur. These environments historically are male dominated, tolerate sexually harassing behavior, and create a hierarchy in which men hold most of the positions of power and authority. Moreover, dependent relationships often exist between these gatekeepers and those subordinate to them, with gatekeepers directly influencing the career advancement of those subordinates.1
The greatest predictor of sexual harassment in the workplace is the organizational climate, which refers to the tolerance for sexual harassment and is measured on three elements: a lack of sanctions against offenders; a perceived risk to those who report sexually harassing behavior; and the perception that one’s report of sexually harassing behavior will not be taken seriously.1 Women are less likely to be directly harassed in environments that do not tolerate harassing behaviors or have a strong, clear, transparent consequence for these behaviors.  

Sexual Harassment in Academic Medicine
Academic medicine has the highest rate of gender and sexual harassment in the health care industry, with about 50% of female academic physicians reporting incidents of sexual harassment.1 A recent survey suggests that more than half (58%) of women surgeons experienced sexual harassment within just the previous year alone.4 The conditions that increase the risk of sexual harassment against women – male-dominated hierarchical environments and organizational tolerance of sexual harassment – still prevail in academic medicine. 
Higher-education environments are perceived as permissive environments in part because when targets report sexual harassment, they are retaliated against or there are few consequences for the perpetrator. Academic institutions are replete with cases in which the conduct of offenders is regarded as an open secret, but there are no sanctions for that bad behavior. These offenders often are perceived as superstars in their particular substantive area. Because they hold valued grants or national status within their specialty area, they often receive preferential treatment and are not held accountable for gender-biased and sexually harassing behavior. Interview data regarding sexual harassment in academic medicine reveals that interview respondents and other colleagues often know which individuals have a history of sexually harassing behavior. Both men and women warn colleagues of these perpetrators – knowing that calling out or reporting these behaviors is fruitless – and that the best manner for dealing with their behavior is to avoid or ignore it. This normalization of sexual harassment and gender bias was noted, unfortunately, to fuel similar behavior in new cohorts of medicine faculty.1 
Sexual harassment of women in academic medicine starts in medical school. Female medical students are significantly more likely to experience sexual harassment by faculty and staff than are graduate or undergraduate students. Sexual harassment continues into residency training with residency described as “breeding grounds for abusive behavior by superiors.”1 Interview studies report that both men and women trainees widely accept harassing behavior at this stage of their training. The expectation of abusive and grueling conditions during residency caused several respondents to view sexual harassment as part of a continuum that they were expected to endure. Female residents in surgery and emergency medicine are more likely to be harassed than those in other specialties because of the high value placed on a hierarchical and authoritative workplace. Once out of residency, the sexual harassment of women in the workplace continues. A recent meta-analysis reveals that 58% of women faculty experience sexual harassment at work. Academic medicine has the second-highest rate of sexual harassment, behind the military (69%), as compared with all other workplaces. Women physicians of color experience more harassment (as a combination of sexual and racial harassment) than do white women physicians.1 

Why Women Are Not Likely to Report Sexual Harassment
Only 25% of targets file formal reports with their employer, with even fewer taking claims to court. These numbers are even lower for women in the military and academic medicine, where formal reporting is the last resort for the victims. The reluctance to use formal reporting mechanisms is rooted in the “fear of blame, disbelief, inaction, retaliation, humiliation, ostracism, and the damage to one’s career and reputation.”1 Targets may perceive that there seem to be few benefits and high costs for reporting. Women and nonwhites often resist calling bad behavior “discrimination” because that increases their loss of control and victimhood.1 Women frequently perceive that grievance procedures favor the institution over the individual, and research has proven that women face retaliation, both professional and social, for speaking out. Furthermore, stark power differentials between the target and the perpetrator exacerbate the reluctance to report and the fear of retaliation. The overall effects can be long lasting. 

References:
1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC; 2018. doi. 10.17226/24994.
2. Choo EK et al. From #MeToo to #TimesUp in Health Care: Can a Culture of Accountability End Inequity and Harassment? Lancet. 2019 Feb 9;393(10171):499-502.
3. Choo EK et al. Time’s Up for Medicine? Only Time Will Tell. N Engl J Med. 2018 Oct 25;379(17):1592-3.
4. Medicine Has Its Own #MeToo Problems. Can Time’s Up Healthcare Fix It? 

Dr. Mitchell is a vascular surgeon at Salem (Ore.) Hospital; Dr. Drudi is as vascular surgery resident at McGill University, Montreal; Dr. Brown is a professor of surgery at the Medical College of Wisconsin. Milwaukee; Dr. Sachdev-Ost is an associate professor of surgery at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

Quitting smoking significantly reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease, but past smokers are still at elevated cardiovascular risk, compared with nonsmokers, for up to 25 years after smoking cessation, research in JAMA suggests.

AtnoYdur/Thinkstock

A retrospective analysis of data from 8,770 individuals in the Framingham Heart Study compared the incidence of myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, or cardiovascular death in ever-smokers with that of never smokers.

Only 40% of the total cohort had never smoked. Of the 4,115 current smokers at baseline, 38.6% quit during the course of the study and did not relapse but 51.4% continued to smoke until they developed cardiovascular disease or dropped out of the study.

Current smokers had a significant 4.68-fold higher incidence of cardiovascular disease, compared with those who had never smoked, but those who stopped smoking showed a 39% decline in their risk of cardiovascular disease within 5 years of cessation.

However, individuals who were formerly heavy smokers – defined as at least 20 pack-years of smoking – retained a risk of cardiovascular disease 25% higher than that of never smokers until 10-15 years after quitting smoking. At 16 years, the 95% confidence interval for cardiovascular disease risk among former smokers versus that of never smokers finally and consistently included the null value of 1.

The study pooled two cohorts; the original cohort, who attended their fourth examination during 1954-1958 and an offspring cohort who attended their first examination during 1971-1975. The authors saw a difference between the two cohorts in the time course of cardiovascular disease risk in heavy smokers.

In the original cohort, former heavy smoking ceased to be significantly associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk within 5-10 years of cessation, but in the offspring cohort, it took 25 years after cessation for the incidence to decline to the same level of risk seen in never smokers.

“The upper estimate of this time course is a decade longer than that of the Nurses’ Health Study results for coronary heart disease and cardiovascular death and more than 20 years longer than in some prior reports for coronary heart disease and stroke,” wrote Meredith S. Duncan from the division of cardiovascular medicine at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., and coauthors. “Although the exact amount of time after quitting at which former smokers’ CVD risk ceases to differ significantly from that of never smokers is unknown (and may further depend on cumulative exposure), these findings support a longer time course of risk reduction than was previously thought, yielding implications for CVD risk stratification of former smokers.”

However, they did note that the study could not account for environmental tobacco smoke exposure and that the participants were mostly of white European ancestry, which limited the generalizability of the findings to other populations.

The Framingham Health Study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. One author declared a consultancy with a pharmaceutical company on a proposed clinical trial. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Duncan M et al. JAMA 2019. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10298.

Quitting smoking significantly reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease, but past smokers are still at elevated cardiovascular risk, compared with nonsmokers, for up to 25 years after smoking cessation, research in JAMA suggests.

AtnoYdur/Thinkstock

A retrospective analysis of data from 8,770 individuals in the Framingham Heart Study compared the incidence of myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, or cardiovascular death in ever-smokers with that of never smokers.

Only 40% of the total cohort had never smoked. Of the 4,115 current smokers at baseline, 38.6% quit during the course of the study and did not relapse but 51.4% continued to smoke until they developed cardiovascular disease or dropped out of the study.

Current smokers had a significant 4.68-fold higher incidence of cardiovascular disease, compared with those who had never smoked, but those who stopped smoking showed a 39% decline in their risk of cardiovascular disease within 5 years of cessation.

However, individuals who were formerly heavy smokers – defined as at least 20 pack-years of smoking – retained a risk of cardiovascular disease 25% higher than that of never smokers until 10-15 years after quitting smoking. At 16 years, the 95% confidence interval for cardiovascular disease risk among former smokers versus that of never smokers finally and consistently included the null value of 1.

The study pooled two cohorts; the original cohort, who attended their fourth examination during 1954-1958 and an offspring cohort who attended their first examination during 1971-1975. The authors saw a difference between the two cohorts in the time course of cardiovascular disease risk in heavy smokers.

In the original cohort, former heavy smoking ceased to be significantly associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk within 5-10 years of cessation, but in the offspring cohort, it took 25 years after cessation for the incidence to decline to the same level of risk seen in never smokers.

“The upper estimate of this time course is a decade longer than that of the Nurses’ Health Study results for coronary heart disease and cardiovascular death and more than 20 years longer than in some prior reports for coronary heart disease and stroke,” wrote Meredith S. Duncan from the division of cardiovascular medicine at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., and coauthors. “Although the exact amount of time after quitting at which former smokers’ CVD risk ceases to differ significantly from that of never smokers is unknown (and may further depend on cumulative exposure), these findings support a longer time course of risk reduction than was previously thought, yielding implications for CVD risk stratification of former smokers.”

However, they did note that the study could not account for environmental tobacco smoke exposure and that the participants were mostly of white European ancestry, which limited the generalizability of the findings to other populations.

The Framingham Health Study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. One author declared a consultancy with a pharmaceutical company on a proposed clinical trial. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Duncan M et al. JAMA 2019. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10298.

Quitting smoking significantly reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease, but past smokers are still at elevated cardiovascular risk, compared with nonsmokers, for up to 25 years after smoking cessation, research in JAMA suggests.

AtnoYdur/Thinkstock

A retrospective analysis of data from 8,770 individuals in the Framingham Heart Study compared the incidence of myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, or cardiovascular death in ever-smokers with that of never smokers.

Only 40% of the total cohort had never smoked. Of the 4,115 current smokers at baseline, 38.6% quit during the course of the study and did not relapse but 51.4% continued to smoke until they developed cardiovascular disease or dropped out of the study.

Current smokers had a significant 4.68-fold higher incidence of cardiovascular disease, compared with those who had never smoked, but those who stopped smoking showed a 39% decline in their risk of cardiovascular disease within 5 years of cessation.

However, individuals who were formerly heavy smokers – defined as at least 20 pack-years of smoking – retained a risk of cardiovascular disease 25% higher than that of never smokers until 10-15 years after quitting smoking. At 16 years, the 95% confidence interval for cardiovascular disease risk among former smokers versus that of never smokers finally and consistently included the null value of 1.

The study pooled two cohorts; the original cohort, who attended their fourth examination during 1954-1958 and an offspring cohort who attended their first examination during 1971-1975. The authors saw a difference between the two cohorts in the time course of cardiovascular disease risk in heavy smokers.

In the original cohort, former heavy smoking ceased to be significantly associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk within 5-10 years of cessation, but in the offspring cohort, it took 25 years after cessation for the incidence to decline to the same level of risk seen in never smokers.

“The upper estimate of this time course is a decade longer than that of the Nurses’ Health Study results for coronary heart disease and cardiovascular death and more than 20 years longer than in some prior reports for coronary heart disease and stroke,” wrote Meredith S. Duncan from the division of cardiovascular medicine at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., and coauthors. “Although the exact amount of time after quitting at which former smokers’ CVD risk ceases to differ significantly from that of never smokers is unknown (and may further depend on cumulative exposure), these findings support a longer time course of risk reduction than was previously thought, yielding implications for CVD risk stratification of former smokers.”

However, they did note that the study could not account for environmental tobacco smoke exposure and that the participants were mostly of white European ancestry, which limited the generalizability of the findings to other populations.

The Framingham Health Study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. One author declared a consultancy with a pharmaceutical company on a proposed clinical trial. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Duncan M et al. JAMA 2019. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.10298.

Question: Driver D strikes a pedestrian after losing control of his vehicle from insulin-induced hypoglycemia. Both Driver D and pedestrian were seriously injured. Driver D was recently diagnosed with diabetes, and his physician had started him on insulin, but did not warn of driving risks associated with hypoglycemia. The injured pedestrian is a total stranger to both Driver D and his doctor. Given these facts, which one of the following choices is correct?

A. Driver D can sue his doctor for failure to disclose hypoglycemic risk of insulin therapy under the doctrine of informed consent.

B. The pedestrian can sue Driver D for negligent driving.

C. The pedestrian may succeed in suing Driver D’s doctor for failure to warn of hypoglycemia.

D. The pedestrian’s lawsuit against Driver D’s doctor may fail in a jurisdiction that does not recognize a doctor’s legal duty to an unidentifiable, nonpatient third party.

E. All statements above are correct.
 

Answer: E. A doctor owes a duty of care only to his/her own patients. This legal duty grows out of the doctor-patient relationship, and is normally owed to the patient and to no one else. However, in limited circumstances, it may be extended to other individuals, so-called third parties, who may be total strangers. Injured nonpatient third parties from driving accidents have successfully sued doctors for failing to warn their patients that their medical conditions and/or medications can adversely affect driving ability.

Vizzoni v. Mulford-Dera is a New Jersey malpractice case that is currently before the state’s appellate court. The issue is whether Dr. Lerner, a psychiatrist, can be found negligent for the death of a bicyclist caused by the psychiatrist’s patient, Ms. Mulford-Dera, whose car struck and killed the cyclist. The decedent’s estate alleged that the physician should have warned the patient of the risks of driving while taking psychotropic medications. Dr. Lerner had been treating Ms. Mulford-Dera for psychological conditions, including major depression, panic disorder, and attention deficit disorder. As part of her treatment, Dr. Lerner prescribed several medications, allegedly without disclosing their potential adverse impact on driving. The trial court granted summary judgment and dismissed the case, ruling that the doctor owed no direct or indirect duty to the victim.

The case is currently on appeal. The AMA has filed an amicus brief in support of Dr. Lerner,¹ pointing out that third-party claims had previously been rejected in New Jersey, where the injured victim is not readily identifiable. The brief emphasizes the folly of placing the physician or therapist in the untenable position of serving two potentially competing interests when a physician’s priority should be providing care to the patient. It referenced a similar case in Kansas, where a motorist who had fallen asleep at the wheel struck a bicyclist. The motorist was being treated by a neurologist for a sleep disorder.² The Kansas Supreme Court held that there was no special relationship between the doctor and the cyclist that would impose a duty to warn the motorist about harming a third party.

Other jurisdictions have likewise rejected attempts at “derivative duties” in automobile accident cases. The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled³ that doctors are immune from third party traffic accident lawsuits, as such litigation would detract from what’s best for the patient (“a physician’s desire to avoid lawsuits may result in far more restrictive advice than necessary for the patient’s well-being”). In that case, the defendant-gastroenterologist, Dr. Troncale, was treating a patient with hepatic encephalopathy and had not warned of the associated risk of driving. And an Illinois court dismissed a third party’s case against a hospital when one of its physicians fell asleep at the wheel after working excessive hours.⁴

In contrast, other jurisdictions have found a legal duty for physicians toward nonpatient victims. For example, in McKenzie v. Hawaii Permanente Medical Group,⁵ a car suddenly veered across five lanes of traffic, striking an 11-year-old girl and crushing her against a cement planter. The driver alleged that the prescription medication, Prazosin, caused him to lose control of the car, and that the treating physician was negligent, first in prescribing an inappropriate type and dose of medication, and second in failing to warn of potential side effects that could affect driving ability. The Hawaii Supreme Court emphasized that the risk of tort liability to an individual physician already discourages negligent prescribing; therefore, a physician does not have a duty to third parties where the alleged negligence involves prescribing decisions, i.e., whether to prescribe medication at all, which medication to prescribe, and what dosage to use. On the other hand, physicians have a duty to their patients to warn of potential adverse effects and this responsibility should therefore extend to third parties. Thus, liability would attach to injuries of innocent third parties as a result of failing to warn of a medication’s effects on driving—unless a reasonable person could be expected to be aware of this risk without the warning.

A foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm is an important but not the only decisive factor in construing the existence of legal duty. Under some circumstances, the term “special relationship” has been employed based on a consideration of existing social values, customs, and policy considerations. In a Massachusetts case,⁶ a family physician had failed to warn his patient of the risk of diabetes drugs when operating a vehicle. Some 45 minutes after the patient’s discharge from the hospital, he developed hypoglycemia, losing consciousness and injuring a motorcyclist who then sued the doctor. The court invoked the “special relationship” rationale in ruling that the doctor owed a duty to the motorcyclist for public policy reasons.
 

Dr. Tan is professor of medicine and former adjunct professor of law at the University of Hawaii. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute medical, ethical, or legal advice. For additional information, readers may contact the author at [email protected].

References

1. Vizzoni v. Mulford-Dera, In the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division, Docket No. A-001255-18T3.

2. Calwell v. Hassan, 925 P.2d 422, 430 (Kan. 1996).

3. Jarmie v. Troncale, 50 A.3d 802 (Conn. 2012).

4. Brewster v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Med. Ctr., 836 N.E.2d 635 (Ill. Ct. App. 2005).

5. McKenzie v. Hawaii Permanente Medical Group, 47 P.3d 1209 (Haw. 2002).

6. Arsenault v. McConarty, 21 Mass. L. Rptr. 500 (2006).

Question: Driver D strikes a pedestrian after losing control of his vehicle from insulin-induced hypoglycemia. Both Driver D and pedestrian were seriously injured. Driver D was recently diagnosed with diabetes, and his physician had started him on insulin, but did not warn of driving risks associated with hypoglycemia. The injured pedestrian is a total stranger to both Driver D and his doctor. Given these facts, which one of the following choices is correct?

A. Driver D can sue his doctor for failure to disclose hypoglycemic risk of insulin therapy under the doctrine of informed consent.

B. The pedestrian can sue Driver D for negligent driving.

C. The pedestrian may succeed in suing Driver D’s doctor for failure to warn of hypoglycemia.

D. The pedestrian’s lawsuit against Driver D’s doctor may fail in a jurisdiction that does not recognize a doctor’s legal duty to an unidentifiable, nonpatient third party.

E. All statements above are correct.
 

Answer: E. A doctor owes a duty of care only to his/her own patients. This legal duty grows out of the doctor-patient relationship, and is normally owed to the patient and to no one else. However, in limited circumstances, it may be extended to other individuals, so-called third parties, who may be total strangers. Injured nonpatient third parties from driving accidents have successfully sued doctors for failing to warn their patients that their medical conditions and/or medications can adversely affect driving ability.

Vizzoni v. Mulford-Dera is a New Jersey malpractice case that is currently before the state’s appellate court. The issue is whether Dr. Lerner, a psychiatrist, can be found negligent for the death of a bicyclist caused by the psychiatrist’s patient, Ms. Mulford-Dera, whose car struck and killed the cyclist. The decedent’s estate alleged that the physician should have warned the patient of the risks of driving while taking psychotropic medications. Dr. Lerner had been treating Ms. Mulford-Dera for psychological conditions, including major depression, panic disorder, and attention deficit disorder. As part of her treatment, Dr. Lerner prescribed several medications, allegedly without disclosing their potential adverse impact on driving. The trial court granted summary judgment and dismissed the case, ruling that the doctor owed no direct or indirect duty to the victim.

The case is currently on appeal. The AMA has filed an amicus brief in support of Dr. Lerner,¹ pointing out that third-party claims had previously been rejected in New Jersey, where the injured victim is not readily identifiable. The brief emphasizes the folly of placing the physician or therapist in the untenable position of serving two potentially competing interests when a physician’s priority should be providing care to the patient. It referenced a similar case in Kansas, where a motorist who had fallen asleep at the wheel struck a bicyclist. The motorist was being treated by a neurologist for a sleep disorder.² The Kansas Supreme Court held that there was no special relationship between the doctor and the cyclist that would impose a duty to warn the motorist about harming a third party.

Other jurisdictions have likewise rejected attempts at “derivative duties” in automobile accident cases. The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled³ that doctors are immune from third party traffic accident lawsuits, as such litigation would detract from what’s best for the patient (“a physician’s desire to avoid lawsuits may result in far more restrictive advice than necessary for the patient’s well-being”). In that case, the defendant-gastroenterologist, Dr. Troncale, was treating a patient with hepatic encephalopathy and had not warned of the associated risk of driving. And an Illinois court dismissed a third party’s case against a hospital when one of its physicians fell asleep at the wheel after working excessive hours.⁴

In contrast, other jurisdictions have found a legal duty for physicians toward nonpatient victims. For example, in McKenzie v. Hawaii Permanente Medical Group,⁵ a car suddenly veered across five lanes of traffic, striking an 11-year-old girl and crushing her against a cement planter. The driver alleged that the prescription medication, Prazosin, caused him to lose control of the car, and that the treating physician was negligent, first in prescribing an inappropriate type and dose of medication, and second in failing to warn of potential side effects that could affect driving ability. The Hawaii Supreme Court emphasized that the risk of tort liability to an individual physician already discourages negligent prescribing; therefore, a physician does not have a duty to third parties where the alleged negligence involves prescribing decisions, i.e., whether to prescribe medication at all, which medication to prescribe, and what dosage to use. On the other hand, physicians have a duty to their patients to warn of potential adverse effects and this responsibility should therefore extend to third parties. Thus, liability would attach to injuries of innocent third parties as a result of failing to warn of a medication’s effects on driving—unless a reasonable person could be expected to be aware of this risk without the warning.

A foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm is an important but not the only decisive factor in construing the existence of legal duty. Under some circumstances, the term “special relationship” has been employed based on a consideration of existing social values, customs, and policy considerations. In a Massachusetts case,⁶ a family physician had failed to warn his patient of the risk of diabetes drugs when operating a vehicle. Some 45 minutes after the patient’s discharge from the hospital, he developed hypoglycemia, losing consciousness and injuring a motorcyclist who then sued the doctor. The court invoked the “special relationship” rationale in ruling that the doctor owed a duty to the motorcyclist for public policy reasons.
 

Dr. Tan is professor of medicine and former adjunct professor of law at the University of Hawaii. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute medical, ethical, or legal advice. For additional information, readers may contact the author at [email protected].

References

1. Vizzoni v. Mulford-Dera, In the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division, Docket No. A-001255-18T3.

2. Calwell v. Hassan, 925 P.2d 422, 430 (Kan. 1996).

3. Jarmie v. Troncale, 50 A.3d 802 (Conn. 2012).

4. Brewster v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Med. Ctr., 836 N.E.2d 635 (Ill. Ct. App. 2005).

5. McKenzie v. Hawaii Permanente Medical Group, 47 P.3d 1209 (Haw. 2002).

6. Arsenault v. McConarty, 21 Mass. L. Rptr. 500 (2006).

Question: Driver D strikes a pedestrian after losing control of his vehicle from insulin-induced hypoglycemia. Both Driver D and pedestrian were seriously injured. Driver D was recently diagnosed with diabetes, and his physician had started him on insulin, but did not warn of driving risks associated with hypoglycemia. The injured pedestrian is a total stranger to both Driver D and his doctor. Given these facts, which one of the following choices is correct?

A. Driver D can sue his doctor for failure to disclose hypoglycemic risk of insulin therapy under the doctrine of informed consent.

B. The pedestrian can sue Driver D for negligent driving.

C. The pedestrian may succeed in suing Driver D’s doctor for failure to warn of hypoglycemia.

D. The pedestrian’s lawsuit against Driver D’s doctor may fail in a jurisdiction that does not recognize a doctor’s legal duty to an unidentifiable, nonpatient third party.

E. All statements above are correct.
 

Answer: E. A doctor owes a duty of care only to his/her own patients. This legal duty grows out of the doctor-patient relationship, and is normally owed to the patient and to no one else. However, in limited circumstances, it may be extended to other individuals, so-called third parties, who may be total strangers. Injured nonpatient third parties from driving accidents have successfully sued doctors for failing to warn their patients that their medical conditions and/or medications can adversely affect driving ability.

Vizzoni v. Mulford-Dera is a New Jersey malpractice case that is currently before the state’s appellate court. The issue is whether Dr. Lerner, a psychiatrist, can be found negligent for the death of a bicyclist caused by the psychiatrist’s patient, Ms. Mulford-Dera, whose car struck and killed the cyclist. The decedent’s estate alleged that the physician should have warned the patient of the risks of driving while taking psychotropic medications. Dr. Lerner had been treating Ms. Mulford-Dera for psychological conditions, including major depression, panic disorder, and attention deficit disorder. As part of her treatment, Dr. Lerner prescribed several medications, allegedly without disclosing their potential adverse impact on driving. The trial court granted summary judgment and dismissed the case, ruling that the doctor owed no direct or indirect duty to the victim.

The case is currently on appeal. The AMA has filed an amicus brief in support of Dr. Lerner,¹ pointing out that third-party claims had previously been rejected in New Jersey, where the injured victim is not readily identifiable. The brief emphasizes the folly of placing the physician or therapist in the untenable position of serving two potentially competing interests when a physician’s priority should be providing care to the patient. It referenced a similar case in Kansas, where a motorist who had fallen asleep at the wheel struck a bicyclist. The motorist was being treated by a neurologist for a sleep disorder.² The Kansas Supreme Court held that there was no special relationship between the doctor and the cyclist that would impose a duty to warn the motorist about harming a third party.

Other jurisdictions have likewise rejected attempts at “derivative duties” in automobile accident cases. The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled³ that doctors are immune from third party traffic accident lawsuits, as such litigation would detract from what’s best for the patient (“a physician’s desire to avoid lawsuits may result in far more restrictive advice than necessary for the patient’s well-being”). In that case, the defendant-gastroenterologist, Dr. Troncale, was treating a patient with hepatic encephalopathy and had not warned of the associated risk of driving. And an Illinois court dismissed a third party’s case against a hospital when one of its physicians fell asleep at the wheel after working excessive hours.⁴

In contrast, other jurisdictions have found a legal duty for physicians toward nonpatient victims. For example, in McKenzie v. Hawaii Permanente Medical Group,⁵ a car suddenly veered across five lanes of traffic, striking an 11-year-old girl and crushing her against a cement planter. The driver alleged that the prescription medication, Prazosin, caused him to lose control of the car, and that the treating physician was negligent, first in prescribing an inappropriate type and dose of medication, and second in failing to warn of potential side effects that could affect driving ability. The Hawaii Supreme Court emphasized that the risk of tort liability to an individual physician already discourages negligent prescribing; therefore, a physician does not have a duty to third parties where the alleged negligence involves prescribing decisions, i.e., whether to prescribe medication at all, which medication to prescribe, and what dosage to use. On the other hand, physicians have a duty to their patients to warn of potential adverse effects and this responsibility should therefore extend to third parties. Thus, liability would attach to injuries of innocent third parties as a result of failing to warn of a medication’s effects on driving—unless a reasonable person could be expected to be aware of this risk without the warning.

A foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm is an important but not the only decisive factor in construing the existence of legal duty. Under some circumstances, the term “special relationship” has been employed based on a consideration of existing social values, customs, and policy considerations. In a Massachusetts case,⁶ a family physician had failed to warn his patient of the risk of diabetes drugs when operating a vehicle. Some 45 minutes after the patient’s discharge from the hospital, he developed hypoglycemia, losing consciousness and injuring a motorcyclist who then sued the doctor. The court invoked the “special relationship” rationale in ruling that the doctor owed a duty to the motorcyclist for public policy reasons.
 

Dr. Tan is professor of medicine and former adjunct professor of law at the University of Hawaii. This article is meant to be educational and does not constitute medical, ethical, or legal advice. For additional information, readers may contact the author at [email protected].

References

1. Vizzoni v. Mulford-Dera, In the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division, Docket No. A-001255-18T3.

2. Calwell v. Hassan, 925 P.2d 422, 430 (Kan. 1996).

3. Jarmie v. Troncale, 50 A.3d 802 (Conn. 2012).

4. Brewster v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Med. Ctr., 836 N.E.2d 635 (Ill. Ct. App. 2005).

5. McKenzie v. Hawaii Permanente Medical Group, 47 P.3d 1209 (Haw. 2002).

6. Arsenault v. McConarty, 21 Mass. L. Rptr. 500 (2006).

The third membership deadline of 2019 is less than one month away on Sept. 1. SVS members enjoy many benefits such as SVSConnect, discounted pricing on publications and meeting registration, practice management resources and much more. Visit the membership page and start your application today. If you have any questions, please contact the SVS membership department at [email protected].

The third membership deadline of 2019 is less than one month away on Sept. 1. SVS members enjoy many benefits such as SVSConnect, discounted pricing on publications and meeting registration, practice management resources and much more. Visit the membership page and start your application today. If you have any questions, please contact the SVS membership department at [email protected].

The third membership deadline of 2019 is less than one month away on Sept. 1. SVS members enjoy many benefits such as SVSConnect, discounted pricing on publications and meeting registration, practice management resources and much more. Visit the membership page and start your application today. If you have any questions, please contact the SVS membership department at [email protected].

A new assessment statement from the American Heart Association reviewed the strengths and limitations of current imaging techniques for critical limb ischemia (CLI), the severest form of peripheral arterial disease (PAD).

The main techniques discussed were the ankle-brachial index (ABI), toe-brachial index (TBI), toe systolic pressure, transcutaneous oximetry (TcPO₂) and skin perfusion pressure (SPP). The literature review also identified what the authors saw as opportunities for technology improvement.

“No single vascular test has been identified as the most important predictor of wound healing or major amputation for the threatened limb,” wrote Sanjay Misra, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and colleagues, on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease, the Council on Clinical Cardiology, and the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing.

Of particular concern were limitations seen in the use of ABI, the most widely used assessment method. “Although ABI was first described to diagnose PAD, it has not been shown to be an accurate predictor of wound healing or major adverse limb events. Clearly, the ABI provides important prognostic information, including the risk of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke ... and should be performed in all patients suspected of having PAD,” but in about 30% of patients with angiographically documented CLI, the ABI is normal or noncompressible, the authors wrote.

And, although recent data indicate that toe pressure may be a better predictor of major adverse limb events and tibial disease in patients with CLI, especially among those with isolated below-knee disease, there was no solid evidence that ABI or TBI have the sensitivity or specificity to be used as perfusion tools to assess wound healing or limb salvage, the authors stated.

However, there may be some technological improvements on the horizon for assessing limb perfusion that might provide eventual benefits, according to the reviewers. These include the use of indigo carmine angiography to evaluate microcirculation and angiosomal revascularization, the use of CT perfusion or MRI to quantify perfusion and monitor treatment response, the use of contrast-enhanced ultrasound to assess calf muscle perfusion, and hyperspectral imaging.

Among the other issues of concern raised in the AHA statement were the significant demographic disparities that occur in detection and treatment of CLI. The authors noted differences in how CLI is diagnosed, the coexisting conditions that were present, and the disparities in treatment given based on sex and racial differences. For example, women were more likely to experience emergency hospitalization, have differences in blood flow, and have higher disability and death rates.

As for racial disparities, the reviewers found that black and Hispanic patients with CLI were more likely to have diabetes and chronic kidney disease, and were more likely to develop gangrene, compared with white patients, who were more likely to have ulcers and pain in their legs while at rest.

In terms of treatment, black patients were 78% more likely to receive lower extremity amputation for CLI, compared with their white peers, even after adjustment for socioeconomic status, access to facilities with revascularization services, and other factors, according to the report, which was published online in Circulation.

“CLI is a complex disease process with great morbidity. This statement highlights the importance of incorporating perfusion assessment into the care of CLI patients. Despite the high prevalence of CLI, strategies for perfusion assessment remain limited. New technologies offer potential opportunities to improve the precision and quality of CLI management,” the researchers concluded.

Dr. Misra and the majority of the authors reported having no relevant disclosures. Several authors reported receiving funding from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Chandra S. et al. Circulation. 2019;140:00-00. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000708.

A new assessment statement from the American Heart Association reviewed the strengths and limitations of current imaging techniques for critical limb ischemia (CLI), the severest form of peripheral arterial disease (PAD).

The main techniques discussed were the ankle-brachial index (ABI), toe-brachial index (TBI), toe systolic pressure, transcutaneous oximetry (TcPO₂) and skin perfusion pressure (SPP). The literature review also identified what the authors saw as opportunities for technology improvement.

“No single vascular test has been identified as the most important predictor of wound healing or major amputation for the threatened limb,” wrote Sanjay Misra, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and colleagues, on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease, the Council on Clinical Cardiology, and the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing.

Of particular concern were limitations seen in the use of ABI, the most widely used assessment method. “Although ABI was first described to diagnose PAD, it has not been shown to be an accurate predictor of wound healing or major adverse limb events. Clearly, the ABI provides important prognostic information, including the risk of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke ... and should be performed in all patients suspected of having PAD,” but in about 30% of patients with angiographically documented CLI, the ABI is normal or noncompressible, the authors wrote.

And, although recent data indicate that toe pressure may be a better predictor of major adverse limb events and tibial disease in patients with CLI, especially among those with isolated below-knee disease, there was no solid evidence that ABI or TBI have the sensitivity or specificity to be used as perfusion tools to assess wound healing or limb salvage, the authors stated.

However, there may be some technological improvements on the horizon for assessing limb perfusion that might provide eventual benefits, according to the reviewers. These include the use of indigo carmine angiography to evaluate microcirculation and angiosomal revascularization, the use of CT perfusion or MRI to quantify perfusion and monitor treatment response, the use of contrast-enhanced ultrasound to assess calf muscle perfusion, and hyperspectral imaging.

Among the other issues of concern raised in the AHA statement were the significant demographic disparities that occur in detection and treatment of CLI. The authors noted differences in how CLI is diagnosed, the coexisting conditions that were present, and the disparities in treatment given based on sex and racial differences. For example, women were more likely to experience emergency hospitalization, have differences in blood flow, and have higher disability and death rates.

As for racial disparities, the reviewers found that black and Hispanic patients with CLI were more likely to have diabetes and chronic kidney disease, and were more likely to develop gangrene, compared with white patients, who were more likely to have ulcers and pain in their legs while at rest.

In terms of treatment, black patients were 78% more likely to receive lower extremity amputation for CLI, compared with their white peers, even after adjustment for socioeconomic status, access to facilities with revascularization services, and other factors, according to the report, which was published online in Circulation.

“CLI is a complex disease process with great morbidity. This statement highlights the importance of incorporating perfusion assessment into the care of CLI patients. Despite the high prevalence of CLI, strategies for perfusion assessment remain limited. New technologies offer potential opportunities to improve the precision and quality of CLI management,” the researchers concluded.

Dr. Misra and the majority of the authors reported having no relevant disclosures. Several authors reported receiving funding from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Chandra S. et al. Circulation. 2019;140:00-00. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000708.

A new assessment statement from the American Heart Association reviewed the strengths and limitations of current imaging techniques for critical limb ischemia (CLI), the severest form of peripheral arterial disease (PAD).

The main techniques discussed were the ankle-brachial index (ABI), toe-brachial index (TBI), toe systolic pressure, transcutaneous oximetry (TcPO₂) and skin perfusion pressure (SPP). The literature review also identified what the authors saw as opportunities for technology improvement.

“No single vascular test has been identified as the most important predictor of wound healing or major amputation for the threatened limb,” wrote Sanjay Misra, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and colleagues, on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease, the Council on Clinical Cardiology, and the Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing.

Of particular concern were limitations seen in the use of ABI, the most widely used assessment method. “Although ABI was first described to diagnose PAD, it has not been shown to be an accurate predictor of wound healing or major adverse limb events. Clearly, the ABI provides important prognostic information, including the risk of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke ... and should be performed in all patients suspected of having PAD,” but in about 30% of patients with angiographically documented CLI, the ABI is normal or noncompressible, the authors wrote.

And, although recent data indicate that toe pressure may be a better predictor of major adverse limb events and tibial disease in patients with CLI, especially among those with isolated below-knee disease, there was no solid evidence that ABI or TBI have the sensitivity or specificity to be used as perfusion tools to assess wound healing or limb salvage, the authors stated.

However, there may be some technological improvements on the horizon for assessing limb perfusion that might provide eventual benefits, according to the reviewers. These include the use of indigo carmine angiography to evaluate microcirculation and angiosomal revascularization, the use of CT perfusion or MRI to quantify perfusion and monitor treatment response, the use of contrast-enhanced ultrasound to assess calf muscle perfusion, and hyperspectral imaging.

Among the other issues of concern raised in the AHA statement were the significant demographic disparities that occur in detection and treatment of CLI. The authors noted differences in how CLI is diagnosed, the coexisting conditions that were present, and the disparities in treatment given based on sex and racial differences. For example, women were more likely to experience emergency hospitalization, have differences in blood flow, and have higher disability and death rates.

As for racial disparities, the reviewers found that black and Hispanic patients with CLI were more likely to have diabetes and chronic kidney disease, and were more likely to develop gangrene, compared with white patients, who were more likely to have ulcers and pain in their legs while at rest.

In terms of treatment, black patients were 78% more likely to receive lower extremity amputation for CLI, compared with their white peers, even after adjustment for socioeconomic status, access to facilities with revascularization services, and other factors, according to the report, which was published online in Circulation.

“CLI is a complex disease process with great morbidity. This statement highlights the importance of incorporating perfusion assessment into the care of CLI patients. Despite the high prevalence of CLI, strategies for perfusion assessment remain limited. New technologies offer potential opportunities to improve the precision and quality of CLI management,” the researchers concluded.

Dr. Misra and the majority of the authors reported having no relevant disclosures. Several authors reported receiving funding from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Chandra S. et al. Circulation. 2019;140:00-00. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000708.

The vascular specialty has had many coding changes over the past five to six years. It is sometimes difficult to keep up with the changes from year to year, but attending the SVS Coding & Reimbursement workshop, to be held on Sept. 20-21 in Rosemont, Ill., is sure to help. Coding is critical in every practice model – whether it be private, academic or employed. If it is not done accurately, money will be lost. This intensive course will give attendees the knowledge they need to make a positive impact on their coding procedures. All those who wish to improve and expand their knowledge of accurate coding and reimbursement for vascular surgery should attend. Learn more and register here.

The vascular specialty has had many coding changes over the past five to six years. It is sometimes difficult to keep up with the changes from year to year, but attending the SVS Coding & Reimbursement workshop, to be held on Sept. 20-21 in Rosemont, Ill., is sure to help. Coding is critical in every practice model – whether it be private, academic or employed. If it is not done accurately, money will be lost. This intensive course will give attendees the knowledge they need to make a positive impact on their coding procedures. All those who wish to improve and expand their knowledge of accurate coding and reimbursement for vascular surgery should attend. Learn more and register here.

The vascular specialty has had many coding changes over the past five to six years. It is sometimes difficult to keep up with the changes from year to year, but attending the SVS Coding & Reimbursement workshop, to be held on Sept. 20-21 in Rosemont, Ill., is sure to help. Coding is critical in every practice model – whether it be private, academic or employed. If it is not done accurately, money will be lost. This intensive course will give attendees the knowledge they need to make a positive impact on their coding procedures. All those who wish to improve and expand their knowledge of accurate coding and reimbursement for vascular surgery should attend. Learn more and register here.

People with type 2 diabetes whose diet followed a “Mediterranean” pattern – high in vegetables, legumes, fish, and unsaturated fats – saw global cognitive improvements over a 2-year period, compared with individuals with different eating patterns, even if the latter incorporated healthy dietary features. In addition, effective glycemic control seemed to have a role in sustaining the benefits associated with the Mediterranean-type diet.

Adults without type 2 diabetes, meanwhile, did not see the cognitive improvements associated with a Mediterranean diet, suggesting that the pathways linking diet to cognition may be different for individuals with and without diabetes, according to Josiemer Mattei, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston and colleagues.

The investigators used data from the Boston Puerto Rican Health Study, a longitudinal cohort of about 1,499 adults aged 45-75 years who lived in Boston and identified as Puerto Rican, for their research, which was published in Diabetes Care.

At baseline, participants were administered a questionnaire to capture their eating patterns. Four diet-quality scores – Mediterranean Diet Score, Healthy Eating Index, Alternate Healthy Eating Index, and DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) were analyzed. The participants were also screened for diabetes, and nearly 40% of them were found to have type 2 diabetes at baseline (74% uncontrolled). They underwent a battery of cognitive tests, including the Mini-Mental State Exam and tests for verbal fluency, executive function, word recognition, and figure copying. The study endpoints included 2-year change in global cognitive function as well as executive and memory function. At 2 years, data was available for 913 participants.

Among participants with type 2 diabetes, greater adherence to a Mediterranean-style diet was significantly associated with a higher positive change at the 2-year follow-up in global cognitive function score (0.027 [SD, 0.011]; P = .016), the Mini-Mental State Exam, and other individual tests. The association was significant for those who were under glycemic control at baseline and who remained stable or improved over 2 years, but not for those with poor or worsening glycemic control.

“The Mediterranean diet explained as much or more of the variability in predicting changes in cognitive function in our study as did age, especially for participants with type 2 diabetes under glycemic control. ... This dietary pattern may provide more cognitive benefits [in this patient group] than other modifiable and nonmodifiable factors,” the authors wrote in their analysis. They stressed that a Mediterranean dietary pattern can be realized through foods and dishes that are already standard in many Puerto Rican households.

In participants who did not have diabetes, improvement in memory function measures was seen in association with a Mediterranean diet, but also with adherence to other eating patterns that are deemed healthy. That suggests that for this subgroup, any evidence-based healthy diet – not just the Mediterranean diet – may have some benefits for memory function.

“Dietary recommendations for cognitive health may need to be tailored for individuals with versus without type 2 diabetes,” the authors concluded.

Dr. Mattei and colleagues acknowledged as a limitation of their study its observational design.

The study received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institute on Aging; and Harvard University. The authors reported no financial conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Mattei et al. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(8):1372-9.

People with type 2 diabetes whose diet followed a “Mediterranean” pattern – high in vegetables, legumes, fish, and unsaturated fats – saw global cognitive improvements over a 2-year period, compared with individuals with different eating patterns, even if the latter incorporated healthy dietary features. In addition, effective glycemic control seemed to have a role in sustaining the benefits associated with the Mediterranean-type diet.

Adults without type 2 diabetes, meanwhile, did not see the cognitive improvements associated with a Mediterranean diet, suggesting that the pathways linking diet to cognition may be different for individuals with and without diabetes, according to Josiemer Mattei, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston and colleagues.

The investigators used data from the Boston Puerto Rican Health Study, a longitudinal cohort of about 1,499 adults aged 45-75 years who lived in Boston and identified as Puerto Rican, for their research, which was published in Diabetes Care.

At baseline, participants were administered a questionnaire to capture their eating patterns. Four diet-quality scores – Mediterranean Diet Score, Healthy Eating Index, Alternate Healthy Eating Index, and DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) were analyzed. The participants were also screened for diabetes, and nearly 40% of them were found to have type 2 diabetes at baseline (74% uncontrolled). They underwent a battery of cognitive tests, including the Mini-Mental State Exam and tests for verbal fluency, executive function, word recognition, and figure copying. The study endpoints included 2-year change in global cognitive function as well as executive and memory function. At 2 years, data was available for 913 participants.

Among participants with type 2 diabetes, greater adherence to a Mediterranean-style diet was significantly associated with a higher positive change at the 2-year follow-up in global cognitive function score (0.027 [SD, 0.011]; P = .016), the Mini-Mental State Exam, and other individual tests. The association was significant for those who were under glycemic control at baseline and who remained stable or improved over 2 years, but not for those with poor or worsening glycemic control.

“The Mediterranean diet explained as much or more of the variability in predicting changes in cognitive function in our study as did age, especially for participants with type 2 diabetes under glycemic control. ... This dietary pattern may provide more cognitive benefits [in this patient group] than other modifiable and nonmodifiable factors,” the authors wrote in their analysis. They stressed that a Mediterranean dietary pattern can be realized through foods and dishes that are already standard in many Puerto Rican households.

In participants who did not have diabetes, improvement in memory function measures was seen in association with a Mediterranean diet, but also with adherence to other eating patterns that are deemed healthy. That suggests that for this subgroup, any evidence-based healthy diet – not just the Mediterranean diet – may have some benefits for memory function.

“Dietary recommendations for cognitive health may need to be tailored for individuals with versus without type 2 diabetes,” the authors concluded.

Dr. Mattei and colleagues acknowledged as a limitation of their study its observational design.

The study received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institute on Aging; and Harvard University. The authors reported no financial conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Mattei et al. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(8):1372-9.

People with type 2 diabetes whose diet followed a “Mediterranean” pattern – high in vegetables, legumes, fish, and unsaturated fats – saw global cognitive improvements over a 2-year period, compared with individuals with different eating patterns, even if the latter incorporated healthy dietary features. In addition, effective glycemic control seemed to have a role in sustaining the benefits associated with the Mediterranean-type diet.

Adults without type 2 diabetes, meanwhile, did not see the cognitive improvements associated with a Mediterranean diet, suggesting that the pathways linking diet to cognition may be different for individuals with and without diabetes, according to Josiemer Mattei, PhD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston and colleagues.

The investigators used data from the Boston Puerto Rican Health Study, a longitudinal cohort of about 1,499 adults aged 45-75 years who lived in Boston and identified as Puerto Rican, for their research, which was published in Diabetes Care.

At baseline, participants were administered a questionnaire to capture their eating patterns. Four diet-quality scores – Mediterranean Diet Score, Healthy Eating Index, Alternate Healthy Eating Index, and DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) were analyzed. The participants were also screened for diabetes, and nearly 40% of them were found to have type 2 diabetes at baseline (74% uncontrolled). They underwent a battery of cognitive tests, including the Mini-Mental State Exam and tests for verbal fluency, executive function, word recognition, and figure copying. The study endpoints included 2-year change in global cognitive function as well as executive and memory function. At 2 years, data was available for 913 participants.

Among participants with type 2 diabetes, greater adherence to a Mediterranean-style diet was significantly associated with a higher positive change at the 2-year follow-up in global cognitive function score (0.027 [SD, 0.011]; P = .016), the Mini-Mental State Exam, and other individual tests. The association was significant for those who were under glycemic control at baseline and who remained stable or improved over 2 years, but not for those with poor or worsening glycemic control.

“The Mediterranean diet explained as much or more of the variability in predicting changes in cognitive function in our study as did age, especially for participants with type 2 diabetes under glycemic control. ... This dietary pattern may provide more cognitive benefits [in this patient group] than other modifiable and nonmodifiable factors,” the authors wrote in their analysis. They stressed that a Mediterranean dietary pattern can be realized through foods and dishes that are already standard in many Puerto Rican households.

In participants who did not have diabetes, improvement in memory function measures was seen in association with a Mediterranean diet, but also with adherence to other eating patterns that are deemed healthy. That suggests that for this subgroup, any evidence-based healthy diet – not just the Mediterranean diet – may have some benefits for memory function.

“Dietary recommendations for cognitive health may need to be tailored for individuals with versus without type 2 diabetes,” the authors concluded.

Dr. Mattei and colleagues acknowledged as a limitation of their study its observational design.

The study received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the National Institute on Aging; and Harvard University. The authors reported no financial conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Mattei et al. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(8):1372-9.