Showing posts with label American Heart Association. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American Heart Association. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Heart Check Indeed: American Heart Association and Campbell Soup Company Sued

From Bloomberg:
Campbell Soup Company and the American Heart Association (AHA) were sued by a consumer who claimed the AHA fraudulently certifies the company’s products as healthy.

The association labels more than 30 of Campbell’s Healthy Request soups as “heart-healthy” even though a can has at least six times as much sodium as the organization recommends, according to a complaint filed yesterday by Kerry O’Shea in federal court in Camden, New Jersey. Those soups display the AHA’s “Heart-Check Mark” logo, which the organization licenses, according to the complaint.

Campbell, the world’s largest soup maker, and the heart association “falsely represent” that products with the logo have cardiovascular benefits lacking in other soups, according to the complaint.
Oh the irony, eh?

Who's next?  The Heart Truth® campaign, NHLBI, and the Coca Cola Company? 

- Wes

Thursday, February 02, 2012

Tomorrow is National Wear Red Day!

It's all about heart disease for the month of February and to commemorate the occassion the American Heart Association has designated tomorrow as "National Wear Red Day!"

As most of you know, I LOVE "Go Red" day and all its' marketing glitz that targets women (never mind that more men die of heart disease than women). It's not easy to find a politically-correct cause to piggy-back upon to sell more soups, Seiko watches and candles.

But I'm still behind the effort. Really I am. And so, once again in support of this important event, I'll be wearing red...

Rock on!

-Wes

Sunday, September 26, 2010

This Week's Cardiology Creativity Award

... has to go to Mark Glazer, M.D., who, along with colleagues from the Vanderbilt Heart and Vascular Institute, produced a music video to promote the American Heart Association's Heart Walk, scheduled for Saturday, Oct. 2:



Somehow, I expected a parody with more twang, it being Nashville and all...

But not bad. Not bad at all.

-Wes

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Super Sexy (Adult) CPR

Employment Alert: While there is no frank nudity, viewing video might be best done after hours.
Although this ad for lingerie might not be sanctioned by the American Heart Association, I'll bet you'll never forget CPR after seeing it:



Yeah, I know: I'm a dog. And the ad doesn't use the latest no-breath CPR technique.

Still, you have to admit...

... it beats the heck out of the Bee Gees...

-Wes

Monday, May 17, 2010

Wii: Now AHA-Approved - For A Price

Which one's approved by the American Heart Association:
Bicycles?
No.
Running shoes?
No.
Treadmills?
No.

Fried rice?
Yep. (Courtesy of the California Walnut Commission).
Nintendo's Wii? Yep. (Courtesy of another $1.5 million promotional fee).
While I'm all for a healthy lifestyle, we should really ask ourselves if we're sending the right message. But then again, I guess it's okay to get money from our Heart Association logos as long as the money's not from a pharmaceutical company.

-Wes

Friday, December 18, 2009

Can a Website Teach CPR?

The American Heart Association, in conjunction with a $1 million dollar grant from the Medtronic Foundation, thinks it can, especially if schools can win a thousand bucks for their effort promoting the idea:
Through the Be the Beat campaign, the Medtronic Foundation is providing $1,000 grants for school staff to help fund CPR and AED training outreach programs within their school or community. The deadline for application is January 15, 2010. More information is available in the “Teachers and Administration” section of the Be the Beat Web site, BetheBeat.heart.org/schools.

BetheBeat.heart.org engages 12- to 15-year-olds to learn the basics of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and how to use an automated external defibrillator (AED) through interactive games, videos and songs on the Web.
Sadly, the music selections that play at 100 beats/minute, (like "Stayin' Alive" and "Another One Bites the Dust") aren't available for download, but a expanded list of songs that play at that rate is included. Songs like U2's "I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For" or Simon and Garfunkle's "Cecilia" (yep, "Celilia, you're breakin' my heart, I'm down on my knees, beggin' you please, to come home, to come home!" made the list. This alone is sure to be a source of endless entertainment, though I'm not sure about the appropriateness of singing ABBA's "Dancin' Queen" during CPR...)

And while the games kids are expected to play on the website are right up there in challenge level with the first iteration of "Pong," the concept of getting a broader, younger demographic to even think thirty seconds about CPR and how to use an AED is a novel one.

-Wes

Monday, March 30, 2009

Guidelines: Our New Health Care Derivatives Market?

I didn’t attend the American College of Cardiology meeting in Orlando, FL this year, mainly because I am concerned about my ability to pay for my son’s college. I do not quality for financial assistance for his tuition so I cannot afford the luxury of attending every cardiovascular meeting each year right now.

I’m sure many Americans feel the same way, particularly those who have seen their retirement savings evaporate in current economic mess we’re in. People are angry, frustrated, and dumbfounded that our political and financial leadership failed to realize the consequence of their actions when they permitted banks to lend more than they had assets to cover. I mean, who knew, right?

But back in the not-so-distant “glory days” of banking, it was all about “OPM:” other people’s money. You know: using other people’s money to buy a house. Using other people’s money to leverage a shopping center. Using other people’s money to buy some risky asset and sell it to another person so you could all reap some profit. OPM was the financial way to get ahead at almost no downside risk to you. What was not to like? If things went bad, well, it was other people’s money!

And now, in retrospect, we see it for what it was: a time of overindulgence; a time of greed…

… all on the backs of OPM.

Health care is kind of like that, unfortunately. We use OPM all the time when we pay for expensive treatments and procedures and don’t have a clue what it costs. Now, though, we get ridiculously inflated prices sent to us on our “Explanation of Benefits” from our insurer and are all too relieved, yes, relieved I tell you, that OPM has picked up so much of the tab for our health care.

That is, until the OPM goes away and we’re stuck paying the inflated price. Then we’re pissed. And maybe even bankrupt because, unlike the federal government, you and I can’t just print money. It doesn’t work that way. As the old Smith Barney commercial used to say in their thick British accent, “We have to earn it.”

So it was with some amazement and plenty of dismay that I read the very recently-released ”focused” 2009 Heart Failure Guidelines, guidelines that form the cornerstone of the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association’s Hospital to Home (“H2H” as they call it) initiative to “reduce hospital heart failure re-admissions 20% by 2012.”

It’s a noble initiative, funded by OPM, to demonstrate our cardiology societies deep commitment to help President Barack Obama reduce health care costs.

But like most things with OPM, the details of the cost savings afforded by this initiative are quite vague: especially when the new guidelines include expensive medical devices to be used as therapy now, when in earlier guidelines, there were none.

Not to say that these devices may not have been shown to improve symptoms and longevity in heart failure. They certainly have. And to that extent, these guidelines are exceptional because they put the patient’s health first.

But at what cost?

When we use OPM, we don’t care about cost. OPM will pay for our guidelines’ implementation. Look how we’re helping our patients live longer! OPM will pay for the electronic medical record that will screen the chart for the patient’s ejection fraction and make sure the patient gets the proper test and therapy that is recommended by the guidelines. After all, our goal is to reduce heart failure readmissions by 20% in 2012! No need to worry what it will cost! What’s the risk? Hey, it’s OPM!

And unfortunately, just like the banking fiasco, this OPM will some day run out. The pot of gold is not limitless, but there are few doctors admitting this. We can’t. We are bound by ethics to preserve life that are in direct conflict with our duty to help our patients remain fiscally solvent.

And yet, with our children’s health care and our national economy on the brink, I wonder if we’re not being ethical to our future generations’ patients by not asking these tough questions right now.

-Wes

Thursday, February 05, 2009

Go Red for Men, Too

After literally hundreds of politically-correct publications and press releases regarding the Go Red for Women campaign sponsored, in part, by Merck, Macy's, Jiffy Lube, Campbell's Soup, Blue Diamond Almonds, Cutco, Clairol Professional, e-GLAM, Flooring America, Fresh Express / Chiquita, Geoffrey Beene, Hamilton Beach, Jafra, Ocean Spray, Prego Heart Smart, Rite Aide, Starkist, Supervalu, Swanson Premium Chuck Chicken, Swarovski, V8 Beverages, Yankee Candle, wireless carrriers AT&T, Nextel, Sprint, T-Mobile, U.S. Cellular and Verizon Wireless (they help you donate from your cell phone - just don't forget to text "STOP" to unsubscribe after you donate!), and oh yeah, the American Heart Association (whew!), I'd like to take a moment and be politically incorrect and say:

"Go Red for Men, Too!"

Here's some stats from the CDC on heart disease in men, lest the guys out there feel left out tomorrow:
  • In 2005, 322,841 men died from heart disease, the leading cause of death for men in the United States.

  • The age-adjusted death rate for heart disease in men was 260 per 100,000 population in 2005.

  • About 9.4% of all white men, 7.1% of black men, and 5.6% of Mexican American men live with coronary heart disease.

  • The average age of a first heart attack for men is 66 years.

  • Almost half of men who have a heart attack under age 65 die within 8 years.

  • Results from the Framingham Heart Study suggest that men have a 49% lifetime risk of developing coronary heart disease after the age of 40.

  • Between 70% and 89% of sudden cardiac events occur in men.

  • Major risk factors for heart disease include high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol, tobacco use, diabetes, physical inactivity, and poor nutrition.

  • In a large study of blood pressure treatment and control, an average reduction of 12 to 13 mm Hg in systolic blood pressure over 4 years of follow-up was associated with a 21% reduction in coronary heart disease, 37% reduction in stroke, and 13% reduction in all-cause mortality rates.

  • Studies suggest that a 10% decrease in total cholesterol levels may reduce the development of coronary heart disease by as much as 30%.
Although my feelings about the commercial nature of the Go Red for Women Campaign haven't changed much, as I read over these older statistics for heart disease, I sometimes wonder if guys should wear black tomorrow instead.

Nah. That would be too depressing.

Red, baby, red.

-Wes

Monday, August 04, 2008

Press Before Science

It's about 06:10 AM Monday and I'm checking the usual news feeds and stumble across this little tidbit that piques my interest. I read it and move to read the article.

Wait. What article?

It seems the American Heart Association has decided to publish this little "news release" before the article is published online on its Circulation website today.

Wow. Press before science.

One would think our professional organizations would be above this, but alas, no. Publication ratings are at stake, and hence, advertiser's revenue. And although the AHA boasts that only 6% of their revenue comes from corporate sponsors, it must be an awfully important 6%. You see, it's become too important to pre-feed the media and the throngs of news organizations hungry for the latest scientific tidbit with little sound bites from the author like:
“This is the first prospective study to examine light-to-moderate physical activity and the development of AF (atrial fibrillation),” Mozaffarian said. “The focus was on older adults, in whom most atrial fibrillation occurs: after age 65, almost one in five people will develop AF over 10 years.”
just to boost their journal's impact factor. With the wonders of the internet and RSS feeds, no doubt the study will be heralded on this morning's CBS Morning News before anyone with a scientific eye has a chance to read the study.

Hey, it's all about show biz, right?

-Wes

2030 CST Addendum: Here's the study.... finally. My take: The study is a prospective evaluation of the incidence of atrial fibrillation from self-reported questionaires and several spot-checks of EKG's and hospital discharge diagnoses from ICD-9 codes. As such, there are many flaws in the study's methodology, including its means of detecting atrial fibrillation, but the message they convey is: "light to moderate exercise is good in the over-65 crowd:" not exactly earth-shattering, but probably sage advice. Unfortunately, their assertion that such exercise is preventative for the development of atrial fibrillation is a stretch:
Our findings suggest that moderate physical activity may meaningfully reduce this risk and that up to one fourth of new cases of AF in older adults may be attributable to absence of moderate leisure-time activity and regular walking at a moderate distance and pace.
Given the study design, clustering exercise levels into "quintiles," poor sensitivity to the detection of afib (single EKG and chart review?) and the self-reported nature of the questionaire end-points, I'm not sure we should leap to such bold assertions. Still, moderate exercise is good for lots of reasons, folks, so keep at it. -Wes

Monday, May 19, 2008

Women's Heart Health: The Perils of Nonconformity

According to the American Heart Association, Minneapolis, MN, home of all three of the major medical device manufacturers (Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and St. Jude Medical) was the most "heart friendly" city in their recently-released ranking of the most Heart Friendly Cities for Women.*

Nashville, TN was heralded as the worst city. (St. Louis, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, Columbus, Cincinnati, Las Vegas, Cleveland and Indianapolis round out the loser list.)

Wow.

Now cities have rankings compiled by donation amounts to the American Heart Association! Go Red!

So come on now, Nashville and other bastions of womanly insensitivity. Stop being so policitally incorrect! Get your act straight, for goodness sake! Take it from us guys. Conform.

Or else you're going to keep getting, er, well, um, publically bitch-slapped by the American Heart Association.

-Wes

* Please note Minnesota's obesity ranking.

Friday, April 25, 2008

Screening ADHD Kids with EKGs

Boy, it didn't take long for UVa Hospital to hop on the EKG bandwagon for kids with Attention Deficit, Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) after the AHA released their recommendations for EKG screening in kids on stimulant medications based on retrospective literature review and gut feelings.

Sheesh. I think Dr. Rob had the appropriate amount of skepticism here.

Although I know and respect many of the doctors who were tasked with making the best recommendation they could with little data on the subject, the AHA does a huge disservice to the doctor-specialists' credibility when they cozy up to the pharmaceutical companies with "roundtables" prior to such proclamations. One wonders if the Adderal folks helped with the recommendations before their exclusive patent expires in 2009, eh? Further, as the literature upon which the recommendations are based describe about a 2.3-3.5% false positive rate of EKG's in kids, this recommendation is going to cost more than one family a pretty penny.

-Wes

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Doping Doctors

It's a move that will make even Major League Baseball's Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte take pause: doping doctors.

It seems there is a "crisis" afoot in America's hospitals: in-hospital cardiac arrests. According to the American Heart Association (AHA)'s National Registry of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (NRCPR) investigators and now rocketed to the media to increase the fear factor:
In-hospital cardiac arrest is a major public health problem. During 2005 and 2006, more than 21 000 in-hospital cardiac arrests were reported to the AHA NRCPR from approximately 10% of the hospitals in the United States. The principal finding of this study was that survival to discharge following in-hospital cardiac arrest was lower during nights and weekends compared with day/evening times on weekdays, even after accounting for many potentially confounding patient, arrest event, and hospital factors.
In an amazing move to justify their existence, the investigators' cardiac arrest database has identified the obvious: hospital wards staffed by the lowest numbers of individuals who have received the short-straw of night and weekend duty because of their junior status have poorer outcomes during cardiac arrests.

Well no kidding, ace. We needed a study to show this?

It seems so. Bureaucrats need to find things to "improve" in their ever-expanding quest to raise the cost of providing healthcare to our sick and injured while securing their fitful place in the Quality Assurance Hall of Fame.

But what was truly scary is not the problem; it was their solution proposed to fix this "major public health problem:"
Night staff proficiency in cardiac resuscitation could be enhanced by additional training, such as "mock codes" and cardiac resuscitation simulation training. Chronobiologic scheduling, naps, or use of medications such as modafinil may also improve nighttime staff performance.
That's right. Dope the doctors and the nurses.

These investigators, at a loss to offer concrete staffing solutions, feel the use of drugs is the way to go. They reference two other studies: one in ER doctors and the other from sleep researchers touting the benefits of modafinil. Never mind that this drug prevents fitful sleep. It seems there is a move afoot amongst our clipboard-carrying colleagues to promote performance-enhancing drugs as a means to improve physician and nursing performance in all sorts of arenas.

I can see it now: George Mitchell will soon be hired by the hospitals' Bud Selig look-alike, Richard Umbdenstock, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association. Patients will be aghast at the findings. News media lights will shine. The scandal will be exposed. Performance enhancing drugs will "sully" the very game that is healthcare today. Doctors will be called before Congress, or worse: called to the witness stand to explain their drug-seeking behaviour to a jury of their peers.

Ridiculous, you say?

Not really. It is a sad commentary that there are really bozo's who think that the use of drugs should be condoned to improve outcomes in cardiac arrest.

That, my friends, makes my heart stop.

-Wes

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Go Red?

Tomorrow, I'll be wearing a red sweater to support the Go Red for Women campaign, sponsored by the American Heart Association and the National Institutes of Health, but I do so with mixed emotion. While I support the concept of raising awareness of women's heart health, I get nauseated at the grotesque sums of money this campaign earns from corporate interests, especially when significant potential conflicts of interest arise in sponsorship. It's not to say that the movement's "near-term goal is nothing less than a 25% reduction in coronary heart disease and stroke risk by the year 2010" isn't noble. Certainly the new broader definition of myocardial infarction revealed this year will go a long way toward achieving that goal. In fact, given that new expanded definition, they can probably already proclaim victory in achieving their goal since heart attacks will be diagnosed more frequently next year compared to last year.

Also, zillions of nice "events" are planned for this day - each with tons of sponsors' paraphernalia - all sprinkled about the audience to raise awareness of heart disease, tune-ups, floor tile, and cutlery while corporations add to their marketing budgets. The conflicts that this bling brings to the event reminds me of the conflicts inherent to "free lunches" provided at Grand Rounds sponsored by drug companies.

Take for instance, Merck. They're one of the "Proud National Sponsors" of the Go Red for Women campaign.

But they're also interested in the controvertial promotion of Gardasil for women to prevent cervical cancer. Merck also sells Vioxx, Vytorin, and Zetia - several drugs without such great press lately in their quest to prevent heart disease.

Other corporate sponsors' motivations are less clear - like Jiffy Lube, Diet Coke, Campbell's Soup, Cutco, Brighton, Clairol Professional, Hamilton Beach, Flooring America, Starkist, Del Monte, Swanson's and RiteAid pharmacies. I mean, its so touchy feely and the women's purchasing power so important that corporations have jumped on this feel-good campaign like a tick on a bloodhound. Where exactly are their heart health motivations? In assuring sodium loading, cutlery, or toxic chemical exposures to women?

Or is this campaign really about funding research for the prevention of women's heart disease?

If so, can anyone point me to studies funded by this endeavor? Or does it just go to the general operating budget of the American Heart Association or NIMH for their big comfy corporate furniture, officer salaries, or office appointments? It's just not clear where all the money goes.

Maybe it goes for all those nice red dress pins or the Heart Checkup website? Seems like a heck of a lot of dough for that.

Yes, I'm jaded. I admit it. But I remember grocery store Green Stamps - that cute marketing invention of grocery store chains of the 1950's and 1960's that proported to help people save money if they just saved more stamps, yet actually made money for the sponsors because people never redeemed them. So I am skeptical of corporate marketing bonanzas like the Go Red Campaign that have yet to demonstrate tangible benefits to reducing women's heart disease while exacting considerable costs to our society.

So if you see me in red tomorrow, remember that I hope my red sweater raises awareness of the need for women to have a better appreciation of their heart health. I just hope it doesn't also advocate for the red budgets of families unable to afford healthcare and medications in America.


-Wes

Thursday, November 08, 2007

Other Important Trials from the AHA Meeting

A bunch of important "negatives" were found at the recent American Heart Association meeting:

RethinQ - Do patients with narrow-complex QRS complexes and Class III-IV CHF who are eligible for defibrillator implantation benefit from cardiac resynchronization therapy in regards to exercise capacity? In a word: No. (Published today).

MASCOT - Management of Atrial Fibrillation Suppression in AF-HF COmorbidity Therapy trial - Does atrial overdrive pacing in patients with heart failure reduce one-year development of permanent atrial fibrillation? Answer: No (but only 3.3% of patients in each arm developed atrial fibrillation during the trial, suggesting it was severely underpowered.)

AF-CHF trial - Is a rate control or rhythm control strategy (with anticoagulation) superior to mortality in patients with heart failure? Answer: There was no difference in the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death between the groups or the secondary endpoints of total mortality, stroke, or worsening heart failure.

Oh, and one more: reviewed in abstract form: women had a higher complication rate with ICD implants than did men. The takeaway? Smaller size (in general) means higher risk of ICD implantation.

-Wes

Reference: Cardiosource.com

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

The AHA and Medical Fear Mongering

If you have a pacemaker or implantable cardiac defibrillator, slipping an iPod into your shirt pocket, or walking past anti-theft equipment at the mall, could make your device go haywire - true or false?
This is the second question of a quiz (available online) from the August 2007 Heart Insight magazine, an official publication of the American Heart Association (AHA) published quarterly by Wolters Kluwer Health, a division if Lippincott Willliams & Wilkins publishers. It is a slick, glossy publication and was being offered for free to our patients:


So today, a patient left this for me on my desk:



It is the "answer" to the above question that appeared in their journal, circled by a patient with the question penciled beside it, "Is this true?"

Now on the surface, such a quiz seems innocent enough. After all, it's meant to inform. But look what it has done to one of my patients. THe patient is asking, Could this happen to me?" This person is concerned. Scared. Fearful.

This how our own AHA wants to get their message across, I guess.

But when one really looks at the information provided in the answer to the question, we find the real answer in amongst the confusing array of sound bites:
"Researchers found that MP3 players such as Apple's iPod, interfered with pacemaker function in half of the 83 patients who participated in the study; none of them experienced symptoms."
So there you have it. None of them experienced symptoms and, by the way, none of the patient's devices went "haywire."

Not one.

The supporting study (actually a case report) pertaining to the first part of this answer appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Heart Journal in June 2007. This case study studied the interference of an iPod held within two inches of pacemakers. It found very minor, non-lethal interference (usually undersensing of the patient's intrinsic heart rhythm) in most cases. No patient was harmed. In fact, no patient was tested with the device in their shirt pocket. From the article:
In our patient, oversensing did not result in pacemaker inhibition or noise reversion; it was evidenced only by pacemaker interrogation that showed high atrial or ventricular rates on rate histograms. This may lead the physician to conclude that the patient had experienced atrial fibrillation (Figure 4) or ventricular tachycardia (Figure 2) and result in unnecessary antiarrhythmic drug therapy or electrophysiologic investigations. These high rates also may be misinterpreted as suggesting loose set screws or intermittent lead fracture and may lead to unnecessary interventions. Interference caused by iPods appears to be reproducible from day to day, but whether repeated applications have a cumulative effect on rate histograms is not known.

We performed testing by applying the iPod approximately 2 inches above the pacemaker. This may appear to be somewhat artificial but is, in fact, quite realistic because iPod devices often are carried on an armband or in a shirt pocket during use. If the iPod is placed in an ipsilateral shirt pocket, it certainly may be close enough to cause interference. Furthermore, electromagnetic signals emitted by handheld devices probably are of low power, and the strength of the signal falls dramatically over distance. However, because iPod devices may be carried close to the pacemaker, there may be a potential for clinically significant interference.
Also, the article did not study ANYTHING about the interference of electronic surveillance systems in malls with pacemakers or defibrillators. But rather than be true to their readers (our patients), it seems the AHA had to add the bit more fear-factor by citing rare case studies (see references 1 and 2 below) where patients had to go to ER's for "malfunctions of the heart devices," even though other studies, while acknowledging that interference can occur, actually demonstrated the safety of patients walking through electronic surveillance systems with defibrillators. Once again, no devices went "haywire" but rather responded appropriately to the noise detected by the device.

So why does our own American Heart Association, in its new "official" publication, condone such fear mongering of our patients, even when their own website claims minimal risk to patients in these settings. What benefit does this serve? Is this medical marketing tactic in our patients' best interest? Shouldn't the AHA provide more journalistic oversight than appears on the Today Show?

Or is the sensationalist content more important to their egos?

-Wes

References:
(1)Peter A. Santucci, M.D., Janet Haw, R.N., Richard G. Trohman, M.D., and Sergio L. Pinski, M.D. Interference with an Implantable Defibrillator by an Electronic Antitheft-Surveillance Device New Engl J Med 1998; 339:1371-1374.

(2) Interactions between Cardiac Pacemakers and Antishoplifting Security Systems. New Engl J Med Nov 5, 1998: 339: 1394-1395.

(3) Harthorne, J. W., Barach, P., Baum, E., Santucci, P. A., Pinski, S. L., Trohman, R. G., McIvor, M. E., Sridhar, S. (1999). Implantable Defibrillators, Pacemakers, and Electronic Antitheft Devices. New Engl J Med 340: 1117-1119. A rebuttal to the first two case reports above.

(4) William J. Groh, MD; Scott A. Boschee, BS; Erica D. Engelstein, MD; William M. Miles, MD; M. Erick Burton, MD; Peter R. Foster, MD; Barry J. Crevey, MD; Douglas P. Zipes, MD Interactions Between Electronic Article Surveillance Systems and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators Circulation 1999; 100: 387-392.

(5) Mehul B. Patel, MD, Jay P. Thaker, Sujeeth Punnam, MD, Krit Jongnarangsin, MD. Pacemaker interference with an iPod. Heart Rhythm Volume 4, Issue 6: 781-784 (June 2007).

Monday, June 25, 2007

ACLS Recertification Issues

I recently recertified in Advanced Cardiac Life Support, and really wasn't doing to say much, but then, I blog.

Sooooo, I thought it might be informative to discuss a few issues I had with my ACLS recertification process this year.

The American Heart Association provides a course for health care professionals to learn the latest techniques for Advanced Cardiac Life Support in the event an individual collapses of cardiac or respiratory arrest. The certification process is partially performed by company called CardioConcepts (although now it looks like its called 'Scitent') based in Virginia. The recertification process demands a fee for their course and includes an online registration where doctors must now surrender their most personal information (address, phone number, e-mail) to their website on an electronic registration form. You can bet this information is sold, but I digress...

I have some constructive (I hope) criticisms.

If a company is going to teach ACLS instead of doctors, then either the members of this company must first learn EKG's - especially is I have to PAY for the priviledge of undertaking this experience every two years - or else the American Heart Association needs to do a better job proofing the work for hire for which they have contracted.

For the student's pre-test (available on a CD within the ACLS provider book), we find this tracing:

Click to enlarge

So what is this rhythm? The publishers of the student pre-test for ACLS would have you believe it was "Reentry Supraventricular Tachycardia." I wonder if these guys know basic medical terminology. The correct term should be "reentrant supraventricular tachycardia." *Sigh*

But that's not the real problem with this tracing. My guess this tracing is not even reentrant. (I'm open to what other cardiology and EP docs think, here). Look carefully at how this arrhythmia initiates - a slightly premature beat that looks quite similar to the sinus beat - followed in rapid succession by other P waves with a sudden onset with a "warm-up" phenomenon. See the small indentations in the T wave? These suggest a superimposed P wave. I have placed lines above the P waves below:


These findings seem most consistent with an atrial tachycardia to me. Atrial tachycardias usually have an automatic mechanism, not a reentrant one.

And don't get be started about this tracing of Torsade de Pointes which appears on the Student pre-test:


The correct answer (according to their student pre-test) was "Coarse Ventricular Fibrillation." Wrong again. Most texts and online resources I've seen have classified this as arrhythmia as one form of "Polymorphic Ventricular Tachycardia," not coarse ventricular fibrillation. Certainly the treatment for Torsades is very different (consider magnesium, pacing, isuprel, lidocaine, etc.) than for "coarse ventricular fibrillation" (shock, drugs and shock again) and should be recognized by everyone who cares for heart patients.

And I was surprised procainamide was removed from the Tachycardia with Pulses algorithm, especially for irregular, wide tachycardia algorithms as well. I've already discussed my preference for this drug (and why) in an earlier post (See Part I and Part II). Instead, they've decided a "Phone a Friend" option (actually, it says, "expert consultation advised") works best. But sometimes experts aren't there right away...

I do appreciate the folks at the American Heart Association's efforts. I can't imagine what an undertaking organizing the training of the nation's doctors must be like. But we must assure that we train folks correctly and give good examples.

After all, people's lives are at stake.

-Wes

Image credit.

Monday, April 23, 2007

Could A "Heart Healthy" Logo Backfire?

It seems some New Zealander's think it might contribute to obesity:
The Heart Foundation's campaign includes about 1000 food products that are low in total fat, saturated fat, sugar and sodium, and sometimes higher in fibre. Companies pay thousands to have their product go through the evaluation process before being able to wear the tick (logo).

The Obesity Action Coalition says many people who see the tick wrongly believe it means they can eat as much of the product as they want. Chairperson Bronwyn King says some smaller companies cannot afford to put their potentially healthier products through the assessment process.
Anyone know what the American Heart Association charges for their "heart healthy" logo to be used on package labeling here in the US?

Oh, you mean it's not free?

-Wes

Thursday, March 15, 2007

In Cardiac Arrest, Higher Defibrillation Energies Are Better

Take any drug, give more of it, then usually you’ll see a bigger physiologic response. Most of us in medical school knew this as a dose-response curve.

As a cardiac electrophysiologist, I have always been interested (but never had the patience to test) why the American Heart Association’s guidelines were always suggesting “start low and work your way up” with defibrillation (shock) energies when a patient has the life-threatening heart rhythm disturbance, ventricular fibrillation. During ventricular fibrillation, the heart is only barely quivering and generates no effective cardiac output or blood pressure. Time is of the essence when correcting this arrhythmia to improve patient survival: without cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) during ventricular fibrillation, irreversible brain injury can begin in just four to five minutes.

So it was refreshing to see the results of the effectiveness of out-of-hospital defibrillation with two different energy regimens tested side-by-side by Canadian researchers in this month’s Circulation. They compared fixed lower (150J-150J-150J) defibrillation versus higher escalating doses of defibrillation (200J-300J-360J) in 221 patients requiring more than one shock with a biphasic defibrillator during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Their results were predictable: higher energies work better. Much better. 25% vs. 37% better (p<0.035).

The dose-response curve held true: improved success was seen when higher defibrillation energies were applied.

Now the question becomes, why not just start delivering shocks at the maximum output of the defibrillators during cardiac arrest? If a 10% improvement was seen with escalating doses of defibrillation, could additional success be identified using a fixed maximum defibrillation energy? In animals, it has been demonstrated that ventricular fibrillation in the setting of acute ischemia (lack of blood flow to the heart) requires higher energies to achieve successful defibrillation than non-ischemic ventricular fibrillation.

I guess we’ll have to wait for another study for my answer. But for now, dial up those defibrillators when shocking ventricular fibrillation.

-Wes

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

New AHA Guidelines for Screening Athletes Excludes EKG

The new recommendations for screening of athletes for competitive sports was issued by the American Heart Association and endorsed by the Americal College of Cardiology yesterday in the journal Circulation and includes careful evaluation of personal symptoms of the patient, family history, and physical examination findings. The recommendations significantly differ from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) by excluding the requirement of an electrocardiogram (EKG).
Although the Switzerland-based IOC and the ESC have advocated that all young competitive athletes be screened routinely with a 12-lead ECG (in addition to history-taking and physical examination), the updated 2007 AHA guidelines do not make this recommendation. No federal or state laws currently mandate that American physicians adopt the ESC16 and IOC guidelines. American law permits US medical organizations and physicians to assess independently the relevant variables (including the current infeasibility of routinely performing ECGs on populations of asymptomatic US athletes) and to make their own recommendations about the appropriate nature and scope of cardiovascular screening. Thus, a US physician’s decision to follow the updated AHA recommendations rather than those of the ESC and IOC does not itself constitute medical malpractice.
Part of the reason for exclusion of the EKG from screening is logistics.
For the AHA to officially adopt (or even condone) the ESC screening recommendation for routine ECGs without a reasonable expectation that such a program could be implemented in the near future could have a paradoxic, chilling effect on US preparticipation screening. Practitioners involved with screening would be potentially compromised by being unable to comply with the proposed screening strategy incorporating an ECG. Therefore, it is possible that the willingness of qualified US physicians to participate in screening would be reduced if the ESC/IOC recommendations were mandated.
Part of the reason for the exlusion of the EKG is cost:
Given the theoretical cost of a mass cardiovascular screening program of $2 billion per year, the dollar amount attached to detecting each athlete with the suspected relevant cardiac diseases would be $330 000. Assuming that (more than) 10% of these 9000 athletes with cardiac disease (1800) would harbor evidence of increased risk for sudden death, then the cost of preventing each theoretical death would be $3.4 million. We recognize that some may not regard these estimated costs per athlete as excessive for detecting potentially lethal cardiovascular disease in young people; however, the fundamental issue defined by these calculations concerns the practicality and feasibility of establishing a continuous annual national program for many years at a cost of approximately $2 billion per year.
They conclude as follows:
Indeed, on humanitarian medical grounds, the AHA supports any public health initiative with the potential to identify adverse cardiac abnormalities. On the other hand, because the panel cannot ignore the many epidemiological, social, economic, and other issues that impact this screening proposal, it must view the European model in realistic terms from a US perspective. Therefore, for a number of reasons, it is difficult to consider the European-Italian strategy as potentially applicable to preparticipation screening in the United States.
So, although the EKG is out, practitioners must not forget to take a thorough personal and family history, listen for murmurs, check the blood pressure from the arm, check for femoral pulses in the legs (to exclude coarctation of the aorta), and note physical characteristics of Marfan's Syndrome.

-Wes