User login
For MD-IQ use only
Finding the optimal fluid strategies for sepsis
The document offers guidance on the four forms of fluid use; assessing whether intravenous fluid administration is indicated; and fluid therapy goals, timing, type, and other clinical parameters. The recommendations are based on a literature search that included 28 randomized clinical trials, 7 secondary analyses of RCTs, 20 observational studies, 5 systematic reviews or meta-analyses, 1 scoping review, 1 practice guideline, and 14 references from a reference review.
“Our review highlights that crystalloids should remain the standard of care for most critically ill patients, especially during early resuscitation,” Fernando G. Zampieri, MD, PhD, assistant adjunct professor of critical care medicine at the University of Alberta and Alberta Health Services, both in Edmonton, said in an interview. “In particular, starches should not be used in critically ill patients. Balanced solutions might be better for most patients, except for patients with traumatic brain injury, where 0.9% saline is recommended.”
The review was published online in JAMA.
Four therapeutic phases
Approximately 20%-30% of patients admitted to an intensive care unit have sepsis, and fluid therapy is a key component of their treatment. Although intravenous fluid can increase cardiac output and blood pressure, maintain or increase intravascular fluid volume, and deliver medications, too much fluid or the wrong type of fluid may cause harm.
“Deciding which type of fluid is the best for a patient [with sepsis] can be challenging,” said Dr. Zampieri.
Fluid therapy can be conceptualized as encompassing four overlapping phases from early illness through resolution of sepsis, according to the review. These phases include resuscitation (rapidly administering fluid to restore perfusion), optimization (assessing risks and benefits of additional fluids to treat shock and ensure organ perfusion), stabilization (using fluid therapy only when there is a signal of fluid responsiveness), and evacuation (eliminating excess fluid accumulated during treatment).
The review described the studies that underpin its key recommendations for management in these phases. Three RCTs included 3,723 patients with sepsis who received 1-2 L of fluid. They found that goal-directed therapy with administration of fluid boluses to attain a central venous pressure of 8-12 mm Hg, vasopressors to attain a mean arterial blood pressure of 65-90 mm Hg, and red blood cell transfusions or inotropes to attain a central venous oxygen saturation of at least 70% did not decrease mortality, compared with unstructured clinical care (24.9% vs. 25.4%, P = .68).
One RCT with 1,563 patients with sepsis and hypotension who received 1 L of fluid found that favoring vasopressor treatment did not improve mortality, compared with further fluid administration (14.0% vs. 14.9%, P = .61).
In another RCT, among 1,554 patients with septic shock who were treated in the ICU with at least 1 L of fluid, restricting fluid administration in the absence of severe hypoperfusion did not reduce mortality, compared with more liberal fluid administration (42.3% vs. 42.1%, P = .96).
An RCT of 1,000 patients with acute respiratory distress during the evacuation phase found that limiting fluid administration and giving diuretics improved the number of days alive without mechanical ventilation, compared with fluid treatment to attain higher intracardiac pressure (14.6 vs. 12.1 days, P < .001).
This study also found that hydroxyethyl starch significantly increased the incidence of kidney replacement therapy, compared with saline (7.0% vs. 5.8%, P = .04), Ringer lactate, or Ringer acetate.
Ultrasonography lacks validation
The authors summarized the key concerns about fluid therapy. Fluid therapy should be initiated for patients with evidence of sepsis-induced hypoperfusion who are likely to have increased cardiac output with fluid administration. Fluid administration should be discontinued when evidence of hypoperfusion resolves, the patient no longer responds to fluid, or the patient shows evidence of fluid overload.
Balanced solutions should be selected over 0.9% saline for fluid therapy, according to the review. Hydroxyethyl starches should not be used.
Fluid removal should be considered after the resuscitation and optimization phases and when a patient has stabilized, the authors wrote. Diuretics are first-line therapy to facilitate fluid elimination.
Kidney replacement therapy may be considered for patients with severe acute kidney injury who have complications from fluid overload and are unresponsive to diuretic therapy.
“The use of ultrasonography as a bedside tool to guide fluid resuscitation is promising but lacks validation in robust randomized controlled trials,” said Dr. Zampieri. “Point-of-care ultrasound may be useful to assess causes of shock and [helping to exclude] a life-threatening diagnosis at presentation, such as cardiac tamponade.”
Pending the emergence of further evidence, the authors suggest that clinicians prescribe fluids judiciously, preferably at aliquots followed by frequent reassessment. “Defining a resuscitation target (such as capillary refill time or lactate, among others) and performing fluid challenges to correct them while no overt signs of fluid overload (such as pulmonary edema) occur is a common practice that is also sustained by clinical research,” said Dr. Zampieri.
He added that the review’s recommendations are based on research conducted mainly in high-income settings, and that generalizability will depend on factors such as local standards of care and resource availability.
“Our review provides an overall guidance, but caution is warranted before extrapolating the suggestion to every possible clinical scenario,” he concluded.
Fluids as drugs
Commenting on the review, Hernando Gomez, MD, MPH, an associate professor of critical care medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, said: “I agree with the conclusions and commend the authors for this very practical revision of the literature.” Dr. Gomez was not involved in the review.
“I would like to stress the point, however, that although fluids can be harmful, particularly when not indicated and when used in excess, fluid resuscitation in patients with sepsis who have evidence of hypoperfusion is paramount,” he said.
“The association between fluid accumulation and poor outcomes is truly a Goldilocks problem, often described in the literature as a ‘U’ shape, where too little fluid (i.e., a very restrictive strategy) or too much fluid (i.e., use in excess and in discordance with the patient’s needs) can be harmful,” said Dr. Gomez.
Furthermore, every strategy to assess fluid responsiveness has limitations. “It is key that clinicians resist the temptation to dismiss these limitations, because decisions made on flawed data are as dangerous as not assessing fluid responsiveness in the first place,” he said.
Based on the evidence, clinicians should “think of fluids as a drug and carefully assess risks and benefits before deciding to administer fluids to their patients,” Dr. Gomez added. It is also important to separate the question “Does my patient need fluids?” from the question “Is my patient fluid responsive?”
“These are two different questions that often get conflated,” Dr. Gomez said. “If a bolus of fluid given to a patient who needs fluids and is fluid-responsive does not improve tissue perfusion, then fluids should not be given.”
No funding was reported for the review. Dr. Zampieri reported receiving fluids and logistics from Baxter Hospitalar during the conduct of the BaSICS trial, personal fees from Bactiguard for statistical consulting and from Baxter for participating in an advisory board, grants from Ionis Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work, and serving as lead investigator of the BaSICS trial. Dr. Gomez reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The document offers guidance on the four forms of fluid use; assessing whether intravenous fluid administration is indicated; and fluid therapy goals, timing, type, and other clinical parameters. The recommendations are based on a literature search that included 28 randomized clinical trials, 7 secondary analyses of RCTs, 20 observational studies, 5 systematic reviews or meta-analyses, 1 scoping review, 1 practice guideline, and 14 references from a reference review.
“Our review highlights that crystalloids should remain the standard of care for most critically ill patients, especially during early resuscitation,” Fernando G. Zampieri, MD, PhD, assistant adjunct professor of critical care medicine at the University of Alberta and Alberta Health Services, both in Edmonton, said in an interview. “In particular, starches should not be used in critically ill patients. Balanced solutions might be better for most patients, except for patients with traumatic brain injury, where 0.9% saline is recommended.”
The review was published online in JAMA.
Four therapeutic phases
Approximately 20%-30% of patients admitted to an intensive care unit have sepsis, and fluid therapy is a key component of their treatment. Although intravenous fluid can increase cardiac output and blood pressure, maintain or increase intravascular fluid volume, and deliver medications, too much fluid or the wrong type of fluid may cause harm.
“Deciding which type of fluid is the best for a patient [with sepsis] can be challenging,” said Dr. Zampieri.
Fluid therapy can be conceptualized as encompassing four overlapping phases from early illness through resolution of sepsis, according to the review. These phases include resuscitation (rapidly administering fluid to restore perfusion), optimization (assessing risks and benefits of additional fluids to treat shock and ensure organ perfusion), stabilization (using fluid therapy only when there is a signal of fluid responsiveness), and evacuation (eliminating excess fluid accumulated during treatment).
The review described the studies that underpin its key recommendations for management in these phases. Three RCTs included 3,723 patients with sepsis who received 1-2 L of fluid. They found that goal-directed therapy with administration of fluid boluses to attain a central venous pressure of 8-12 mm Hg, vasopressors to attain a mean arterial blood pressure of 65-90 mm Hg, and red blood cell transfusions or inotropes to attain a central venous oxygen saturation of at least 70% did not decrease mortality, compared with unstructured clinical care (24.9% vs. 25.4%, P = .68).
One RCT with 1,563 patients with sepsis and hypotension who received 1 L of fluid found that favoring vasopressor treatment did not improve mortality, compared with further fluid administration (14.0% vs. 14.9%, P = .61).
In another RCT, among 1,554 patients with septic shock who were treated in the ICU with at least 1 L of fluid, restricting fluid administration in the absence of severe hypoperfusion did not reduce mortality, compared with more liberal fluid administration (42.3% vs. 42.1%, P = .96).
An RCT of 1,000 patients with acute respiratory distress during the evacuation phase found that limiting fluid administration and giving diuretics improved the number of days alive without mechanical ventilation, compared with fluid treatment to attain higher intracardiac pressure (14.6 vs. 12.1 days, P < .001).
This study also found that hydroxyethyl starch significantly increased the incidence of kidney replacement therapy, compared with saline (7.0% vs. 5.8%, P = .04), Ringer lactate, or Ringer acetate.
Ultrasonography lacks validation
The authors summarized the key concerns about fluid therapy. Fluid therapy should be initiated for patients with evidence of sepsis-induced hypoperfusion who are likely to have increased cardiac output with fluid administration. Fluid administration should be discontinued when evidence of hypoperfusion resolves, the patient no longer responds to fluid, or the patient shows evidence of fluid overload.
Balanced solutions should be selected over 0.9% saline for fluid therapy, according to the review. Hydroxyethyl starches should not be used.
Fluid removal should be considered after the resuscitation and optimization phases and when a patient has stabilized, the authors wrote. Diuretics are first-line therapy to facilitate fluid elimination.
Kidney replacement therapy may be considered for patients with severe acute kidney injury who have complications from fluid overload and are unresponsive to diuretic therapy.
“The use of ultrasonography as a bedside tool to guide fluid resuscitation is promising but lacks validation in robust randomized controlled trials,” said Dr. Zampieri. “Point-of-care ultrasound may be useful to assess causes of shock and [helping to exclude] a life-threatening diagnosis at presentation, such as cardiac tamponade.”
Pending the emergence of further evidence, the authors suggest that clinicians prescribe fluids judiciously, preferably at aliquots followed by frequent reassessment. “Defining a resuscitation target (such as capillary refill time or lactate, among others) and performing fluid challenges to correct them while no overt signs of fluid overload (such as pulmonary edema) occur is a common practice that is also sustained by clinical research,” said Dr. Zampieri.
He added that the review’s recommendations are based on research conducted mainly in high-income settings, and that generalizability will depend on factors such as local standards of care and resource availability.
“Our review provides an overall guidance, but caution is warranted before extrapolating the suggestion to every possible clinical scenario,” he concluded.
Fluids as drugs
Commenting on the review, Hernando Gomez, MD, MPH, an associate professor of critical care medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, said: “I agree with the conclusions and commend the authors for this very practical revision of the literature.” Dr. Gomez was not involved in the review.
“I would like to stress the point, however, that although fluids can be harmful, particularly when not indicated and when used in excess, fluid resuscitation in patients with sepsis who have evidence of hypoperfusion is paramount,” he said.
“The association between fluid accumulation and poor outcomes is truly a Goldilocks problem, often described in the literature as a ‘U’ shape, where too little fluid (i.e., a very restrictive strategy) or too much fluid (i.e., use in excess and in discordance with the patient’s needs) can be harmful,” said Dr. Gomez.
Furthermore, every strategy to assess fluid responsiveness has limitations. “It is key that clinicians resist the temptation to dismiss these limitations, because decisions made on flawed data are as dangerous as not assessing fluid responsiveness in the first place,” he said.
Based on the evidence, clinicians should “think of fluids as a drug and carefully assess risks and benefits before deciding to administer fluids to their patients,” Dr. Gomez added. It is also important to separate the question “Does my patient need fluids?” from the question “Is my patient fluid responsive?”
“These are two different questions that often get conflated,” Dr. Gomez said. “If a bolus of fluid given to a patient who needs fluids and is fluid-responsive does not improve tissue perfusion, then fluids should not be given.”
No funding was reported for the review. Dr. Zampieri reported receiving fluids and logistics from Baxter Hospitalar during the conduct of the BaSICS trial, personal fees from Bactiguard for statistical consulting and from Baxter for participating in an advisory board, grants from Ionis Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work, and serving as lead investigator of the BaSICS trial. Dr. Gomez reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The document offers guidance on the four forms of fluid use; assessing whether intravenous fluid administration is indicated; and fluid therapy goals, timing, type, and other clinical parameters. The recommendations are based on a literature search that included 28 randomized clinical trials, 7 secondary analyses of RCTs, 20 observational studies, 5 systematic reviews or meta-analyses, 1 scoping review, 1 practice guideline, and 14 references from a reference review.
“Our review highlights that crystalloids should remain the standard of care for most critically ill patients, especially during early resuscitation,” Fernando G. Zampieri, MD, PhD, assistant adjunct professor of critical care medicine at the University of Alberta and Alberta Health Services, both in Edmonton, said in an interview. “In particular, starches should not be used in critically ill patients. Balanced solutions might be better for most patients, except for patients with traumatic brain injury, where 0.9% saline is recommended.”
The review was published online in JAMA.
Four therapeutic phases
Approximately 20%-30% of patients admitted to an intensive care unit have sepsis, and fluid therapy is a key component of their treatment. Although intravenous fluid can increase cardiac output and blood pressure, maintain or increase intravascular fluid volume, and deliver medications, too much fluid or the wrong type of fluid may cause harm.
“Deciding which type of fluid is the best for a patient [with sepsis] can be challenging,” said Dr. Zampieri.
Fluid therapy can be conceptualized as encompassing four overlapping phases from early illness through resolution of sepsis, according to the review. These phases include resuscitation (rapidly administering fluid to restore perfusion), optimization (assessing risks and benefits of additional fluids to treat shock and ensure organ perfusion), stabilization (using fluid therapy only when there is a signal of fluid responsiveness), and evacuation (eliminating excess fluid accumulated during treatment).
The review described the studies that underpin its key recommendations for management in these phases. Three RCTs included 3,723 patients with sepsis who received 1-2 L of fluid. They found that goal-directed therapy with administration of fluid boluses to attain a central venous pressure of 8-12 mm Hg, vasopressors to attain a mean arterial blood pressure of 65-90 mm Hg, and red blood cell transfusions or inotropes to attain a central venous oxygen saturation of at least 70% did not decrease mortality, compared with unstructured clinical care (24.9% vs. 25.4%, P = .68).
One RCT with 1,563 patients with sepsis and hypotension who received 1 L of fluid found that favoring vasopressor treatment did not improve mortality, compared with further fluid administration (14.0% vs. 14.9%, P = .61).
In another RCT, among 1,554 patients with septic shock who were treated in the ICU with at least 1 L of fluid, restricting fluid administration in the absence of severe hypoperfusion did not reduce mortality, compared with more liberal fluid administration (42.3% vs. 42.1%, P = .96).
An RCT of 1,000 patients with acute respiratory distress during the evacuation phase found that limiting fluid administration and giving diuretics improved the number of days alive without mechanical ventilation, compared with fluid treatment to attain higher intracardiac pressure (14.6 vs. 12.1 days, P < .001).
This study also found that hydroxyethyl starch significantly increased the incidence of kidney replacement therapy, compared with saline (7.0% vs. 5.8%, P = .04), Ringer lactate, or Ringer acetate.
Ultrasonography lacks validation
The authors summarized the key concerns about fluid therapy. Fluid therapy should be initiated for patients with evidence of sepsis-induced hypoperfusion who are likely to have increased cardiac output with fluid administration. Fluid administration should be discontinued when evidence of hypoperfusion resolves, the patient no longer responds to fluid, or the patient shows evidence of fluid overload.
Balanced solutions should be selected over 0.9% saline for fluid therapy, according to the review. Hydroxyethyl starches should not be used.
Fluid removal should be considered after the resuscitation and optimization phases and when a patient has stabilized, the authors wrote. Diuretics are first-line therapy to facilitate fluid elimination.
Kidney replacement therapy may be considered for patients with severe acute kidney injury who have complications from fluid overload and are unresponsive to diuretic therapy.
“The use of ultrasonography as a bedside tool to guide fluid resuscitation is promising but lacks validation in robust randomized controlled trials,” said Dr. Zampieri. “Point-of-care ultrasound may be useful to assess causes of shock and [helping to exclude] a life-threatening diagnosis at presentation, such as cardiac tamponade.”
Pending the emergence of further evidence, the authors suggest that clinicians prescribe fluids judiciously, preferably at aliquots followed by frequent reassessment. “Defining a resuscitation target (such as capillary refill time or lactate, among others) and performing fluid challenges to correct them while no overt signs of fluid overload (such as pulmonary edema) occur is a common practice that is also sustained by clinical research,” said Dr. Zampieri.
He added that the review’s recommendations are based on research conducted mainly in high-income settings, and that generalizability will depend on factors such as local standards of care and resource availability.
“Our review provides an overall guidance, but caution is warranted before extrapolating the suggestion to every possible clinical scenario,” he concluded.
Fluids as drugs
Commenting on the review, Hernando Gomez, MD, MPH, an associate professor of critical care medicine at the University of Pittsburgh, said: “I agree with the conclusions and commend the authors for this very practical revision of the literature.” Dr. Gomez was not involved in the review.
“I would like to stress the point, however, that although fluids can be harmful, particularly when not indicated and when used in excess, fluid resuscitation in patients with sepsis who have evidence of hypoperfusion is paramount,” he said.
“The association between fluid accumulation and poor outcomes is truly a Goldilocks problem, often described in the literature as a ‘U’ shape, where too little fluid (i.e., a very restrictive strategy) or too much fluid (i.e., use in excess and in discordance with the patient’s needs) can be harmful,” said Dr. Gomez.
Furthermore, every strategy to assess fluid responsiveness has limitations. “It is key that clinicians resist the temptation to dismiss these limitations, because decisions made on flawed data are as dangerous as not assessing fluid responsiveness in the first place,” he said.
Based on the evidence, clinicians should “think of fluids as a drug and carefully assess risks and benefits before deciding to administer fluids to their patients,” Dr. Gomez added. It is also important to separate the question “Does my patient need fluids?” from the question “Is my patient fluid responsive?”
“These are two different questions that often get conflated,” Dr. Gomez said. “If a bolus of fluid given to a patient who needs fluids and is fluid-responsive does not improve tissue perfusion, then fluids should not be given.”
No funding was reported for the review. Dr. Zampieri reported receiving fluids and logistics from Baxter Hospitalar during the conduct of the BaSICS trial, personal fees from Bactiguard for statistical consulting and from Baxter for participating in an advisory board, grants from Ionis Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work, and serving as lead investigator of the BaSICS trial. Dr. Gomez reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA
Peripartum cardiomyopathy raises risks at future pregnancy despite LV recovery
, a new study suggests.
Researchers looked at the long-term outcomes in a cohort of women who had developed PPCM and became pregnant again several years later, comparing those with LV function that had “normalized” in the interim against those with persisting LV dysfunction.
In their analysis, adverse maternal outcomes 5 years after an index pregnancy were significantly worse among those in whom LV dysfunction had persisted, compared with those with recovered LV function. The risk of relapsed PPCM persisted out to 8 years. Mortality remained high in both groups through the follow-up.
The study suggests that “women with PPCM need long-term follow-up by cardiology, as mortality does not abate over time,” Kalgi Modi, MD, Louisiana State University, Shreveport, said in an interview.
Women with a history of PPCM, she said, need “multidisciplinary and shared decision-making for family planning, because normalization of left ventricular function after index pregnancy does not guarantee a favorable outcome in the subsequent pregnancies.”
Dr. Modi is senior author on the study published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The current findings are important to women with a history of PPCM who are “contemplating future pregnancy,” Afshan Hameed, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist and cardiologist at the University of California, Irvine, said in an interview. The investigators suggest that “complete recovery of cardiac function after PPCM does not guarantee a favorable outcome in future pregnancy,” agreed Dr. Hameed, who was not involved in the current study. Future pregnancies must therefore “be highly discouraged or considered with caution even in patients who have recovered their cardiac function.”
To investigate the impact of PPCM on risk at subsequent pregnancies, the researchers studied 45 patients with PPCM who had gone on to have at least one more pregnancy, the first a median of 28 months later. Their mean age was 27 and 80% were Black; they were followed a median of 8 years.
Peripartum cardiomyopathy, defined as idiopathic heart failure with LV ejection fraction (LVEF) 45% or less in the last month of pregnancy through the following 5 months, was diagnosed post partum in 93.3% and antepartum in the remaining 6.7% (mean time of diagnosis, 6 weeks post partum).
The mean LVEF fell from 45.1% at the index pregnancy to 41.2% (P = .009) at subsequent pregnancies. The “recovery group” included the 30 women with LVEF recovery to 50% or higher after the index pregnancy, and the remaining 15 with persisting LV dysfunction – defined as LVEF < 50% – made up the “nonrecovery group.”
Recovery of LVEF was associated with a reduced risk of persisting LV dysfunction, the report states, at a hazard ratio of 0.08 (95% CI, 0.01-0.64; P = .02) after adjustment for hypertension, diabetes, and history of preeclampsia. But that risk went up sharply in association with illicit drug use, similarly adjusted, with an HR of 9.08 (95% CI, 1.38-59.8; P = .02).
The nonrecovery group, compared with the recovery group, experienced significantly higher rates of adverse maternal outcomes (53.3% vs. 20.0%; P = .04) – a composite endpoint that included relapse PPCM (33.3% vs. 3.3%; P = .01), HF (53.3% vs. 20.0%; P = .03), cardiogenic shock, thromboembolic events, and death – at 5 years. However, all-cause mortality was nonsignificantly different between the two groups (13.3% vs. 3.3%; P = .25)
All-cause mortality was nonsignificantly different between the two groups at a median of 8 years (20.0% vs. 20.0%; P = 1.00), and the difference in overall adverse maternal outcomes had gone from significant to nonsignificant (53.3% vs. 33.3%; P = .20). The difference in relapse PPCM between groups remained significant after 8 years (53.3% vs. 23.3%; P = .04)
The study is limited by its retrospective nature, a relatively small population, and lack of racial diversity, the report notes.
Indeed, most of the study’s subjects were Black, and previous studies have demonstrated a “different phenotypic presentation and outcome in African American women with PPCM, compared with non–African American women,” an accompanying editorial states.
Therefore, applicability of its findings to other populations “needs to be examined by urgently needed national prospective registries with long-term follow-up,” writes Uri Elkayam, MD, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Moreover, the study questions “whether the reverse remodeling and improvement of [LVEF] in women with PPCM represent a true recovery.” Prior studies “have shown an impaired contractile reserve as well as abnormal myocardial strain and reduced exercise capacity and even mortality in women with PPCM after RLV,” Dr. Elkayam notes.
It’s therefore possible – as with other forms of dilated cardiomyopathy – that LVEF normalization “does not represent a true recovery but a new steady state with subclinical myocardial dysfunction that is prone to development of recurrent [LV dysfunction] and clinical deterioration in response to various triggers such as long-standing hypertension, obesity, diabetes, illicit drug use,” and, “more importantly,” subsequent pregnancies.
The study points to “the need for a close long-term follow-up of women with PPCM” and provides “a rationale for early initiation of guideline-directed medical therapy after the diagnosis of PPCM and possible continuation even after improvement of LVEF.”
No funding source was reported. Dr. Modi and coauthors, Dr. Elkayam, and Dr. Hameed declare no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new study suggests.
Researchers looked at the long-term outcomes in a cohort of women who had developed PPCM and became pregnant again several years later, comparing those with LV function that had “normalized” in the interim against those with persisting LV dysfunction.
In their analysis, adverse maternal outcomes 5 years after an index pregnancy were significantly worse among those in whom LV dysfunction had persisted, compared with those with recovered LV function. The risk of relapsed PPCM persisted out to 8 years. Mortality remained high in both groups through the follow-up.
The study suggests that “women with PPCM need long-term follow-up by cardiology, as mortality does not abate over time,” Kalgi Modi, MD, Louisiana State University, Shreveport, said in an interview.
Women with a history of PPCM, she said, need “multidisciplinary and shared decision-making for family planning, because normalization of left ventricular function after index pregnancy does not guarantee a favorable outcome in the subsequent pregnancies.”
Dr. Modi is senior author on the study published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The current findings are important to women with a history of PPCM who are “contemplating future pregnancy,” Afshan Hameed, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist and cardiologist at the University of California, Irvine, said in an interview. The investigators suggest that “complete recovery of cardiac function after PPCM does not guarantee a favorable outcome in future pregnancy,” agreed Dr. Hameed, who was not involved in the current study. Future pregnancies must therefore “be highly discouraged or considered with caution even in patients who have recovered their cardiac function.”
To investigate the impact of PPCM on risk at subsequent pregnancies, the researchers studied 45 patients with PPCM who had gone on to have at least one more pregnancy, the first a median of 28 months later. Their mean age was 27 and 80% were Black; they were followed a median of 8 years.
Peripartum cardiomyopathy, defined as idiopathic heart failure with LV ejection fraction (LVEF) 45% or less in the last month of pregnancy through the following 5 months, was diagnosed post partum in 93.3% and antepartum in the remaining 6.7% (mean time of diagnosis, 6 weeks post partum).
The mean LVEF fell from 45.1% at the index pregnancy to 41.2% (P = .009) at subsequent pregnancies. The “recovery group” included the 30 women with LVEF recovery to 50% or higher after the index pregnancy, and the remaining 15 with persisting LV dysfunction – defined as LVEF < 50% – made up the “nonrecovery group.”
Recovery of LVEF was associated with a reduced risk of persisting LV dysfunction, the report states, at a hazard ratio of 0.08 (95% CI, 0.01-0.64; P = .02) after adjustment for hypertension, diabetes, and history of preeclampsia. But that risk went up sharply in association with illicit drug use, similarly adjusted, with an HR of 9.08 (95% CI, 1.38-59.8; P = .02).
The nonrecovery group, compared with the recovery group, experienced significantly higher rates of adverse maternal outcomes (53.3% vs. 20.0%; P = .04) – a composite endpoint that included relapse PPCM (33.3% vs. 3.3%; P = .01), HF (53.3% vs. 20.0%; P = .03), cardiogenic shock, thromboembolic events, and death – at 5 years. However, all-cause mortality was nonsignificantly different between the two groups (13.3% vs. 3.3%; P = .25)
All-cause mortality was nonsignificantly different between the two groups at a median of 8 years (20.0% vs. 20.0%; P = 1.00), and the difference in overall adverse maternal outcomes had gone from significant to nonsignificant (53.3% vs. 33.3%; P = .20). The difference in relapse PPCM between groups remained significant after 8 years (53.3% vs. 23.3%; P = .04)
The study is limited by its retrospective nature, a relatively small population, and lack of racial diversity, the report notes.
Indeed, most of the study’s subjects were Black, and previous studies have demonstrated a “different phenotypic presentation and outcome in African American women with PPCM, compared with non–African American women,” an accompanying editorial states.
Therefore, applicability of its findings to other populations “needs to be examined by urgently needed national prospective registries with long-term follow-up,” writes Uri Elkayam, MD, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Moreover, the study questions “whether the reverse remodeling and improvement of [LVEF] in women with PPCM represent a true recovery.” Prior studies “have shown an impaired contractile reserve as well as abnormal myocardial strain and reduced exercise capacity and even mortality in women with PPCM after RLV,” Dr. Elkayam notes.
It’s therefore possible – as with other forms of dilated cardiomyopathy – that LVEF normalization “does not represent a true recovery but a new steady state with subclinical myocardial dysfunction that is prone to development of recurrent [LV dysfunction] and clinical deterioration in response to various triggers such as long-standing hypertension, obesity, diabetes, illicit drug use,” and, “more importantly,” subsequent pregnancies.
The study points to “the need for a close long-term follow-up of women with PPCM” and provides “a rationale for early initiation of guideline-directed medical therapy after the diagnosis of PPCM and possible continuation even after improvement of LVEF.”
No funding source was reported. Dr. Modi and coauthors, Dr. Elkayam, and Dr. Hameed declare no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new study suggests.
Researchers looked at the long-term outcomes in a cohort of women who had developed PPCM and became pregnant again several years later, comparing those with LV function that had “normalized” in the interim against those with persisting LV dysfunction.
In their analysis, adverse maternal outcomes 5 years after an index pregnancy were significantly worse among those in whom LV dysfunction had persisted, compared with those with recovered LV function. The risk of relapsed PPCM persisted out to 8 years. Mortality remained high in both groups through the follow-up.
The study suggests that “women with PPCM need long-term follow-up by cardiology, as mortality does not abate over time,” Kalgi Modi, MD, Louisiana State University, Shreveport, said in an interview.
Women with a history of PPCM, she said, need “multidisciplinary and shared decision-making for family planning, because normalization of left ventricular function after index pregnancy does not guarantee a favorable outcome in the subsequent pregnancies.”
Dr. Modi is senior author on the study published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The current findings are important to women with a history of PPCM who are “contemplating future pregnancy,” Afshan Hameed, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist and cardiologist at the University of California, Irvine, said in an interview. The investigators suggest that “complete recovery of cardiac function after PPCM does not guarantee a favorable outcome in future pregnancy,” agreed Dr. Hameed, who was not involved in the current study. Future pregnancies must therefore “be highly discouraged or considered with caution even in patients who have recovered their cardiac function.”
To investigate the impact of PPCM on risk at subsequent pregnancies, the researchers studied 45 patients with PPCM who had gone on to have at least one more pregnancy, the first a median of 28 months later. Their mean age was 27 and 80% were Black; they were followed a median of 8 years.
Peripartum cardiomyopathy, defined as idiopathic heart failure with LV ejection fraction (LVEF) 45% or less in the last month of pregnancy through the following 5 months, was diagnosed post partum in 93.3% and antepartum in the remaining 6.7% (mean time of diagnosis, 6 weeks post partum).
The mean LVEF fell from 45.1% at the index pregnancy to 41.2% (P = .009) at subsequent pregnancies. The “recovery group” included the 30 women with LVEF recovery to 50% or higher after the index pregnancy, and the remaining 15 with persisting LV dysfunction – defined as LVEF < 50% – made up the “nonrecovery group.”
Recovery of LVEF was associated with a reduced risk of persisting LV dysfunction, the report states, at a hazard ratio of 0.08 (95% CI, 0.01-0.64; P = .02) after adjustment for hypertension, diabetes, and history of preeclampsia. But that risk went up sharply in association with illicit drug use, similarly adjusted, with an HR of 9.08 (95% CI, 1.38-59.8; P = .02).
The nonrecovery group, compared with the recovery group, experienced significantly higher rates of adverse maternal outcomes (53.3% vs. 20.0%; P = .04) – a composite endpoint that included relapse PPCM (33.3% vs. 3.3%; P = .01), HF (53.3% vs. 20.0%; P = .03), cardiogenic shock, thromboembolic events, and death – at 5 years. However, all-cause mortality was nonsignificantly different between the two groups (13.3% vs. 3.3%; P = .25)
All-cause mortality was nonsignificantly different between the two groups at a median of 8 years (20.0% vs. 20.0%; P = 1.00), and the difference in overall adverse maternal outcomes had gone from significant to nonsignificant (53.3% vs. 33.3%; P = .20). The difference in relapse PPCM between groups remained significant after 8 years (53.3% vs. 23.3%; P = .04)
The study is limited by its retrospective nature, a relatively small population, and lack of racial diversity, the report notes.
Indeed, most of the study’s subjects were Black, and previous studies have demonstrated a “different phenotypic presentation and outcome in African American women with PPCM, compared with non–African American women,” an accompanying editorial states.
Therefore, applicability of its findings to other populations “needs to be examined by urgently needed national prospective registries with long-term follow-up,” writes Uri Elkayam, MD, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Moreover, the study questions “whether the reverse remodeling and improvement of [LVEF] in women with PPCM represent a true recovery.” Prior studies “have shown an impaired contractile reserve as well as abnormal myocardial strain and reduced exercise capacity and even mortality in women with PPCM after RLV,” Dr. Elkayam notes.
It’s therefore possible – as with other forms of dilated cardiomyopathy – that LVEF normalization “does not represent a true recovery but a new steady state with subclinical myocardial dysfunction that is prone to development of recurrent [LV dysfunction] and clinical deterioration in response to various triggers such as long-standing hypertension, obesity, diabetes, illicit drug use,” and, “more importantly,” subsequent pregnancies.
The study points to “the need for a close long-term follow-up of women with PPCM” and provides “a rationale for early initiation of guideline-directed medical therapy after the diagnosis of PPCM and possible continuation even after improvement of LVEF.”
No funding source was reported. Dr. Modi and coauthors, Dr. Elkayam, and Dr. Hameed declare no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Family doctors provide most care for several chronic diseases
A population-based retrospective cohort study examined data from nearly 1 million patients with common chronic conditions in Alberta, Canada. Family doctors were the sole providers of care for 85.7% of patients with hypertension and 70.9% of those with diabetes.
The study is part of efforts to encourage more research “by primary care, for primary care,” study author Jessica Kirkwood, MD, family physician and assistant professor of family medicine at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, said in an interview. The prevalence of primary care involvement demonstrates the importance of involving family physicians in creating guidelines for management and developing clinical trials, Dr. Kirkwood said.
The study was published in Canadian Family Physician.
Who provides care?
The study focused on care provided from 2013 to 2017 for seven chronic conditions. The information collected consisted of data from administrative health databases, which track medical services provided by Alberta’s government-funded universal health care system.
Most patients’ care was managed by family physicians alone in four of the conditions studied: hypertension (85.7%), diabetes (70.9%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (59.8%), and asthma (65.5%).
Specialists were more involved in the remaining three diseases. They provided the sole management in 49.1% of patients with ischemic heart disease, 42.2% of those with chronic kidney disease, and 35.6% of those with heart failure. For these conditions, family physicians remained involved in the care for a large proportion of patients. Specialist involvement may be more common with these diseases because they sometimes involve interventions that only specialists offer, like angiography and dialysis, said Dr. Kirkwood.
The study also found that nurse practitioners were involved in care for very few patients (less than 1%), in accordance with the small number of nurse practitioners working in primary care settings.
Dr. Kirkwood acknowledged that the data come with certain limitations because they were not intended for research purposes. One limitation is that some conditions may not have been recorded because of “shadow billing.” Salaried physicians and practitioners do not have an incentive to include all diagnostic codes in their records. By comparison, clinicians operating under a fee-for-service model would be likely to indicate all diagnoses.
Developing guidelines
Despite the widespread management of chronic conditions by family physicians, these doctors represented about 17% of the experts who contribute to guidelines and recommendations, according to a 2015 study that the investigators cited.
“Frankly, that’s concerning,” said Dr. Kirkwood, regarding the disconnect between the people creating the recommendations and the people using them. The guidelines should include the perspective of clinicians who regularly work with patients, she said. Providing that perspective would also make the design of clinical trials on interventions more informative, the researchers concluded.
“I know as a family doctor myself that some recommendations are completely overwhelming,” especially given the range of issues that primary care clinicians see, said Dr. Kirkwood. Including primary care representatives who are familiar with the demands of the position “hopefully will make the recommendations much more applicable to the people that they will affect,” she said.
Dr. Kirkwood also noted the need for sufficient support for family doctors to contribute to guideline creation and research, especially for doctors in rural communities who are not already affiliated with a university.
The involvement of primary care providers in research settings is a primary goal of Patients, Experience, Evidence and Research (PEER), a primary care-led group that collaborates with the College of Family Physicians of Canada. The current investigators are members of PEER.
Additional conditions
Commenting on the study, Martin Fortin, MD, clinical teaching professor at the University of Sherbrooke, Quebec, said, “This is a good opportunity to advocate for more studies to be done in the primary care context, where the majority of chronic disease management is done.”
However, Dr. Fortin wishes that more diagnoses had been included in the study, such as mental health and musculoskeletal conditions like back pain and osteoarthritis. These conditions are also commonly seen by primary care clinicians, according to Dr. Fortin.
Because the number of conditions studied is limited, the data may not reflect the true prevalence of multimorbidity, Dr. Fortin added.
Primary care doctors provide a broad perspective on the overall health of patients, compared with specialists who focus on particular conditions. Similarly, during drug trials, pharmaceutical companies aim to reduce complicating factors, even though the medications are prescribed for conditions where multimorbidity is common. “Medication should be tested in the real environment,” said Dr. Fortin.
Ultimately, he added, the study cannot address the complexity of the patients, but it nevertheless sheds light on who is providing care and where the research on these conditions should be done.
The study was conducted without outside funding. Dr. Kirkwood and Dr. Fortin reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A population-based retrospective cohort study examined data from nearly 1 million patients with common chronic conditions in Alberta, Canada. Family doctors were the sole providers of care for 85.7% of patients with hypertension and 70.9% of those with diabetes.
The study is part of efforts to encourage more research “by primary care, for primary care,” study author Jessica Kirkwood, MD, family physician and assistant professor of family medicine at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, said in an interview. The prevalence of primary care involvement demonstrates the importance of involving family physicians in creating guidelines for management and developing clinical trials, Dr. Kirkwood said.
The study was published in Canadian Family Physician.
Who provides care?
The study focused on care provided from 2013 to 2017 for seven chronic conditions. The information collected consisted of data from administrative health databases, which track medical services provided by Alberta’s government-funded universal health care system.
Most patients’ care was managed by family physicians alone in four of the conditions studied: hypertension (85.7%), diabetes (70.9%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (59.8%), and asthma (65.5%).
Specialists were more involved in the remaining three diseases. They provided the sole management in 49.1% of patients with ischemic heart disease, 42.2% of those with chronic kidney disease, and 35.6% of those with heart failure. For these conditions, family physicians remained involved in the care for a large proportion of patients. Specialist involvement may be more common with these diseases because they sometimes involve interventions that only specialists offer, like angiography and dialysis, said Dr. Kirkwood.
The study also found that nurse practitioners were involved in care for very few patients (less than 1%), in accordance with the small number of nurse practitioners working in primary care settings.
Dr. Kirkwood acknowledged that the data come with certain limitations because they were not intended for research purposes. One limitation is that some conditions may not have been recorded because of “shadow billing.” Salaried physicians and practitioners do not have an incentive to include all diagnostic codes in their records. By comparison, clinicians operating under a fee-for-service model would be likely to indicate all diagnoses.
Developing guidelines
Despite the widespread management of chronic conditions by family physicians, these doctors represented about 17% of the experts who contribute to guidelines and recommendations, according to a 2015 study that the investigators cited.
“Frankly, that’s concerning,” said Dr. Kirkwood, regarding the disconnect between the people creating the recommendations and the people using them. The guidelines should include the perspective of clinicians who regularly work with patients, she said. Providing that perspective would also make the design of clinical trials on interventions more informative, the researchers concluded.
“I know as a family doctor myself that some recommendations are completely overwhelming,” especially given the range of issues that primary care clinicians see, said Dr. Kirkwood. Including primary care representatives who are familiar with the demands of the position “hopefully will make the recommendations much more applicable to the people that they will affect,” she said.
Dr. Kirkwood also noted the need for sufficient support for family doctors to contribute to guideline creation and research, especially for doctors in rural communities who are not already affiliated with a university.
The involvement of primary care providers in research settings is a primary goal of Patients, Experience, Evidence and Research (PEER), a primary care-led group that collaborates with the College of Family Physicians of Canada. The current investigators are members of PEER.
Additional conditions
Commenting on the study, Martin Fortin, MD, clinical teaching professor at the University of Sherbrooke, Quebec, said, “This is a good opportunity to advocate for more studies to be done in the primary care context, where the majority of chronic disease management is done.”
However, Dr. Fortin wishes that more diagnoses had been included in the study, such as mental health and musculoskeletal conditions like back pain and osteoarthritis. These conditions are also commonly seen by primary care clinicians, according to Dr. Fortin.
Because the number of conditions studied is limited, the data may not reflect the true prevalence of multimorbidity, Dr. Fortin added.
Primary care doctors provide a broad perspective on the overall health of patients, compared with specialists who focus on particular conditions. Similarly, during drug trials, pharmaceutical companies aim to reduce complicating factors, even though the medications are prescribed for conditions where multimorbidity is common. “Medication should be tested in the real environment,” said Dr. Fortin.
Ultimately, he added, the study cannot address the complexity of the patients, but it nevertheless sheds light on who is providing care and where the research on these conditions should be done.
The study was conducted without outside funding. Dr. Kirkwood and Dr. Fortin reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A population-based retrospective cohort study examined data from nearly 1 million patients with common chronic conditions in Alberta, Canada. Family doctors were the sole providers of care for 85.7% of patients with hypertension and 70.9% of those with diabetes.
The study is part of efforts to encourage more research “by primary care, for primary care,” study author Jessica Kirkwood, MD, family physician and assistant professor of family medicine at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, said in an interview. The prevalence of primary care involvement demonstrates the importance of involving family physicians in creating guidelines for management and developing clinical trials, Dr. Kirkwood said.
The study was published in Canadian Family Physician.
Who provides care?
The study focused on care provided from 2013 to 2017 for seven chronic conditions. The information collected consisted of data from administrative health databases, which track medical services provided by Alberta’s government-funded universal health care system.
Most patients’ care was managed by family physicians alone in four of the conditions studied: hypertension (85.7%), diabetes (70.9%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (59.8%), and asthma (65.5%).
Specialists were more involved in the remaining three diseases. They provided the sole management in 49.1% of patients with ischemic heart disease, 42.2% of those with chronic kidney disease, and 35.6% of those with heart failure. For these conditions, family physicians remained involved in the care for a large proportion of patients. Specialist involvement may be more common with these diseases because they sometimes involve interventions that only specialists offer, like angiography and dialysis, said Dr. Kirkwood.
The study also found that nurse practitioners were involved in care for very few patients (less than 1%), in accordance with the small number of nurse practitioners working in primary care settings.
Dr. Kirkwood acknowledged that the data come with certain limitations because they were not intended for research purposes. One limitation is that some conditions may not have been recorded because of “shadow billing.” Salaried physicians and practitioners do not have an incentive to include all diagnostic codes in their records. By comparison, clinicians operating under a fee-for-service model would be likely to indicate all diagnoses.
Developing guidelines
Despite the widespread management of chronic conditions by family physicians, these doctors represented about 17% of the experts who contribute to guidelines and recommendations, according to a 2015 study that the investigators cited.
“Frankly, that’s concerning,” said Dr. Kirkwood, regarding the disconnect between the people creating the recommendations and the people using them. The guidelines should include the perspective of clinicians who regularly work with patients, she said. Providing that perspective would also make the design of clinical trials on interventions more informative, the researchers concluded.
“I know as a family doctor myself that some recommendations are completely overwhelming,” especially given the range of issues that primary care clinicians see, said Dr. Kirkwood. Including primary care representatives who are familiar with the demands of the position “hopefully will make the recommendations much more applicable to the people that they will affect,” she said.
Dr. Kirkwood also noted the need for sufficient support for family doctors to contribute to guideline creation and research, especially for doctors in rural communities who are not already affiliated with a university.
The involvement of primary care providers in research settings is a primary goal of Patients, Experience, Evidence and Research (PEER), a primary care-led group that collaborates with the College of Family Physicians of Canada. The current investigators are members of PEER.
Additional conditions
Commenting on the study, Martin Fortin, MD, clinical teaching professor at the University of Sherbrooke, Quebec, said, “This is a good opportunity to advocate for more studies to be done in the primary care context, where the majority of chronic disease management is done.”
However, Dr. Fortin wishes that more diagnoses had been included in the study, such as mental health and musculoskeletal conditions like back pain and osteoarthritis. These conditions are also commonly seen by primary care clinicians, according to Dr. Fortin.
Because the number of conditions studied is limited, the data may not reflect the true prevalence of multimorbidity, Dr. Fortin added.
Primary care doctors provide a broad perspective on the overall health of patients, compared with specialists who focus on particular conditions. Similarly, during drug trials, pharmaceutical companies aim to reduce complicating factors, even though the medications are prescribed for conditions where multimorbidity is common. “Medication should be tested in the real environment,” said Dr. Fortin.
Ultimately, he added, the study cannot address the complexity of the patients, but it nevertheless sheds light on who is providing care and where the research on these conditions should be done.
The study was conducted without outside funding. Dr. Kirkwood and Dr. Fortin reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM CANADIAN FAMILY PHYSICIAN
A tiny patch may someday do your patients’ lab work
A smartwatch can tell a lot about a person’s health, but for guarding against big threats like diabetes and heart disease, blood tests remain the gold standard – for now.
Someday, a wearable patch could give patients and doctors the same information, minus the poke in the arm and the schlep to the medical lab.
The patch will track markers in interstitial fluid.
Continuous glucose monitors have already provided this glimpse into the future, by using interstitial fluid to track blood glucose levels in real time.
Now scientists are asking: What else could this tech help us measure?
“The vision is eventually to develop a lab under the skin,” said Joseph Wang, PhD, professor of nanoengineering at the University of California San Diego.
The result:
How does it work?
Sweat and saliva may be easier to get to, but interstitial fluid is a better mirror for blood. It leaks from tiny blood vessels (capillaries), and it carries nutrients to and removes waste from your skin.
To capture this fluid, each monitor has either a tiny wire or an array of less-than-a-millimeter-long microneedles that penetrate the skin for days, weeks, or however long you wear it. “You don’t feel it,” Dr. Wang said. “Once you place it on the skin, you forget about it.”
The microneedles or wires are made from a polymer that sucks up the fluid, which flows to a biochemical sensor targeting the marker you want to measure.
The earliest patents for this technology date back to the 1990s (the first wearable glucose monitors for home use rolled out in the 2000s), but sensors have come a long way since then, becoming smaller, more accurate, and more sophisticated.
Glucose sensors use an enzyme that reacts to glucose to reveal its concentration in the blood. Researcher Jason Heikenfeld, PhD, and his team at the University of Cincinnati focus on “aptamers,” short single strands of DNA that bind to target molecules. “You can leverage the body’s own ability to generate stuff to grab a needle in a haystack,” he said.
The bigger picture
As our population ages and health care costs spiral, and our medical infrastructure and labor force are stretched thin, we’re seeing a push for decentralized medicine, Dr. Heikenfeld said. Like other at-home monitoring technologies, interstitial fluid sensing promises convenience and better access to care.
“There’s a lot you can do over telemedicine, over the phone,” said Justin T. Baca, MD, PhD, associate professor at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. “But we still haven’t figured out how to collect reliable biosamples and analyze them remotely.”
Unlike a traditional blood test, which gives a health snapshot for a single point in time, these devices track data continuously, revealing trends and helping you spot oncoming threats earlier.
Take ketones, for example. Dr. Baca and others are using interstitial fluid to continuously detect ketone levels in the blood, potentially enabling us to catch diabetic ketoacidosis sooner.
“It’s potentially like an early warning sign that somebody needs to get either checked out or get rehydrated or get some insulin; kind of an early diagnostic to avoid hospital visits later on,” Dr. Baca said.
Here’s what else this tech could help us do:
Chronic disease management
Seeing the health impact of medication and diet in real time could motivate patients to stick to their treatment plans, Dr. Heikenfeld said. Researchers in Taiwan are developing a test that could help people with chronic kidney disease track levels of cystatin C, a protein that goes up as kidney function declines. Heart disease patients could watch their cholesterol levels drop over time, and of course, diabetes patients can already track glucose.
Prescription drug monitoring
Providers could monitor drug levels in a patient’s body – like antibiotics for an infection – to see how it’s being metabolized, and adjust the dose as needed, Dr. Heikenfeld said.
Stress and hormone therapy
Interstitial fluid could help us measure hormone levels, such as the stress hormone cortisol.
Scientists in the United Kingdom and Norway developed a waist-worn device that collects interstitial fluid samples continuously for up to 3 days. In their study, samples were sent out for analysis, but someday the device could be equipped with a sensor to monitor a single hormone in real time, said study author Thomas Upton, PhD, a clinical research fellow at the University of Bristol in England. “There is a lot of interest in real-time cortisol monitoring,” he said.
Among those who could benefit: patients with hormone deficiencies, night shift workers with disturbed circadian rhythms, or anyone who wants to keep tabs on their stress response.
Human performance and wellness
Athletes could use glucose and lactate monitors to optimize training, recovery time, and diet. For those on the keto diet, a monitor could help them adjust their carb intake based on their ketone levels. Abbott’s Analyte Ventures group is working on blood alcohol sensors, helpful to anyone who wants to avoid overindulging.
When will this be ready for clinical use?
Early research has been promising, but much more is needed before interstitial fluid sensors can be verified and approved.
Manufacturing will be a challenge. Producing these sensors at scale, without sacrificing consistency or quality, won’t be cheap, said Dr. Heikenfeld. Today’s continuous glucose monitors took decades and hundreds of millions of dollars to develop.
Still, the groundwork has been laid.
“As we all pivot more towards interstitial fluid, there’s a proven roadmap of success that the big diagnostic companies over decades have cut their teeth on,” said Dr. Heikenfeld.
For now, scientists are refining sensors and figuring out how to protect them from other body fluids while in use, Dr. Wang said. But if it all comes together, the result could be game-changing.
Dr. Wang’s lab is developing a system that can monitor glucose and lactate or glucose and alcohol – which could become available in as little as 2 years, he said.
In the next decade, Dr. Wang predicted, we’ll be able to measure a dozen markers with one simple patch.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
A smartwatch can tell a lot about a person’s health, but for guarding against big threats like diabetes and heart disease, blood tests remain the gold standard – for now.
Someday, a wearable patch could give patients and doctors the same information, minus the poke in the arm and the schlep to the medical lab.
The patch will track markers in interstitial fluid.
Continuous glucose monitors have already provided this glimpse into the future, by using interstitial fluid to track blood glucose levels in real time.
Now scientists are asking: What else could this tech help us measure?
“The vision is eventually to develop a lab under the skin,” said Joseph Wang, PhD, professor of nanoengineering at the University of California San Diego.
The result:
How does it work?
Sweat and saliva may be easier to get to, but interstitial fluid is a better mirror for blood. It leaks from tiny blood vessels (capillaries), and it carries nutrients to and removes waste from your skin.
To capture this fluid, each monitor has either a tiny wire or an array of less-than-a-millimeter-long microneedles that penetrate the skin for days, weeks, or however long you wear it. “You don’t feel it,” Dr. Wang said. “Once you place it on the skin, you forget about it.”
The microneedles or wires are made from a polymer that sucks up the fluid, which flows to a biochemical sensor targeting the marker you want to measure.
The earliest patents for this technology date back to the 1990s (the first wearable glucose monitors for home use rolled out in the 2000s), but sensors have come a long way since then, becoming smaller, more accurate, and more sophisticated.
Glucose sensors use an enzyme that reacts to glucose to reveal its concentration in the blood. Researcher Jason Heikenfeld, PhD, and his team at the University of Cincinnati focus on “aptamers,” short single strands of DNA that bind to target molecules. “You can leverage the body’s own ability to generate stuff to grab a needle in a haystack,” he said.
The bigger picture
As our population ages and health care costs spiral, and our medical infrastructure and labor force are stretched thin, we’re seeing a push for decentralized medicine, Dr. Heikenfeld said. Like other at-home monitoring technologies, interstitial fluid sensing promises convenience and better access to care.
“There’s a lot you can do over telemedicine, over the phone,” said Justin T. Baca, MD, PhD, associate professor at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. “But we still haven’t figured out how to collect reliable biosamples and analyze them remotely.”
Unlike a traditional blood test, which gives a health snapshot for a single point in time, these devices track data continuously, revealing trends and helping you spot oncoming threats earlier.
Take ketones, for example. Dr. Baca and others are using interstitial fluid to continuously detect ketone levels in the blood, potentially enabling us to catch diabetic ketoacidosis sooner.
“It’s potentially like an early warning sign that somebody needs to get either checked out or get rehydrated or get some insulin; kind of an early diagnostic to avoid hospital visits later on,” Dr. Baca said.
Here’s what else this tech could help us do:
Chronic disease management
Seeing the health impact of medication and diet in real time could motivate patients to stick to their treatment plans, Dr. Heikenfeld said. Researchers in Taiwan are developing a test that could help people with chronic kidney disease track levels of cystatin C, a protein that goes up as kidney function declines. Heart disease patients could watch their cholesterol levels drop over time, and of course, diabetes patients can already track glucose.
Prescription drug monitoring
Providers could monitor drug levels in a patient’s body – like antibiotics for an infection – to see how it’s being metabolized, and adjust the dose as needed, Dr. Heikenfeld said.
Stress and hormone therapy
Interstitial fluid could help us measure hormone levels, such as the stress hormone cortisol.
Scientists in the United Kingdom and Norway developed a waist-worn device that collects interstitial fluid samples continuously for up to 3 days. In their study, samples were sent out for analysis, but someday the device could be equipped with a sensor to monitor a single hormone in real time, said study author Thomas Upton, PhD, a clinical research fellow at the University of Bristol in England. “There is a lot of interest in real-time cortisol monitoring,” he said.
Among those who could benefit: patients with hormone deficiencies, night shift workers with disturbed circadian rhythms, or anyone who wants to keep tabs on their stress response.
Human performance and wellness
Athletes could use glucose and lactate monitors to optimize training, recovery time, and diet. For those on the keto diet, a monitor could help them adjust their carb intake based on their ketone levels. Abbott’s Analyte Ventures group is working on blood alcohol sensors, helpful to anyone who wants to avoid overindulging.
When will this be ready for clinical use?
Early research has been promising, but much more is needed before interstitial fluid sensors can be verified and approved.
Manufacturing will be a challenge. Producing these sensors at scale, without sacrificing consistency or quality, won’t be cheap, said Dr. Heikenfeld. Today’s continuous glucose monitors took decades and hundreds of millions of dollars to develop.
Still, the groundwork has been laid.
“As we all pivot more towards interstitial fluid, there’s a proven roadmap of success that the big diagnostic companies over decades have cut their teeth on,” said Dr. Heikenfeld.
For now, scientists are refining sensors and figuring out how to protect them from other body fluids while in use, Dr. Wang said. But if it all comes together, the result could be game-changing.
Dr. Wang’s lab is developing a system that can monitor glucose and lactate or glucose and alcohol – which could become available in as little as 2 years, he said.
In the next decade, Dr. Wang predicted, we’ll be able to measure a dozen markers with one simple patch.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
A smartwatch can tell a lot about a person’s health, but for guarding against big threats like diabetes and heart disease, blood tests remain the gold standard – for now.
Someday, a wearable patch could give patients and doctors the same information, minus the poke in the arm and the schlep to the medical lab.
The patch will track markers in interstitial fluid.
Continuous glucose monitors have already provided this glimpse into the future, by using interstitial fluid to track blood glucose levels in real time.
Now scientists are asking: What else could this tech help us measure?
“The vision is eventually to develop a lab under the skin,” said Joseph Wang, PhD, professor of nanoengineering at the University of California San Diego.
The result:
How does it work?
Sweat and saliva may be easier to get to, but interstitial fluid is a better mirror for blood. It leaks from tiny blood vessels (capillaries), and it carries nutrients to and removes waste from your skin.
To capture this fluid, each monitor has either a tiny wire or an array of less-than-a-millimeter-long microneedles that penetrate the skin for days, weeks, or however long you wear it. “You don’t feel it,” Dr. Wang said. “Once you place it on the skin, you forget about it.”
The microneedles or wires are made from a polymer that sucks up the fluid, which flows to a biochemical sensor targeting the marker you want to measure.
The earliest patents for this technology date back to the 1990s (the first wearable glucose monitors for home use rolled out in the 2000s), but sensors have come a long way since then, becoming smaller, more accurate, and more sophisticated.
Glucose sensors use an enzyme that reacts to glucose to reveal its concentration in the blood. Researcher Jason Heikenfeld, PhD, and his team at the University of Cincinnati focus on “aptamers,” short single strands of DNA that bind to target molecules. “You can leverage the body’s own ability to generate stuff to grab a needle in a haystack,” he said.
The bigger picture
As our population ages and health care costs spiral, and our medical infrastructure and labor force are stretched thin, we’re seeing a push for decentralized medicine, Dr. Heikenfeld said. Like other at-home monitoring technologies, interstitial fluid sensing promises convenience and better access to care.
“There’s a lot you can do over telemedicine, over the phone,” said Justin T. Baca, MD, PhD, associate professor at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque. “But we still haven’t figured out how to collect reliable biosamples and analyze them remotely.”
Unlike a traditional blood test, which gives a health snapshot for a single point in time, these devices track data continuously, revealing trends and helping you spot oncoming threats earlier.
Take ketones, for example. Dr. Baca and others are using interstitial fluid to continuously detect ketone levels in the blood, potentially enabling us to catch diabetic ketoacidosis sooner.
“It’s potentially like an early warning sign that somebody needs to get either checked out or get rehydrated or get some insulin; kind of an early diagnostic to avoid hospital visits later on,” Dr. Baca said.
Here’s what else this tech could help us do:
Chronic disease management
Seeing the health impact of medication and diet in real time could motivate patients to stick to their treatment plans, Dr. Heikenfeld said. Researchers in Taiwan are developing a test that could help people with chronic kidney disease track levels of cystatin C, a protein that goes up as kidney function declines. Heart disease patients could watch their cholesterol levels drop over time, and of course, diabetes patients can already track glucose.
Prescription drug monitoring
Providers could monitor drug levels in a patient’s body – like antibiotics for an infection – to see how it’s being metabolized, and adjust the dose as needed, Dr. Heikenfeld said.
Stress and hormone therapy
Interstitial fluid could help us measure hormone levels, such as the stress hormone cortisol.
Scientists in the United Kingdom and Norway developed a waist-worn device that collects interstitial fluid samples continuously for up to 3 days. In their study, samples were sent out for analysis, but someday the device could be equipped with a sensor to monitor a single hormone in real time, said study author Thomas Upton, PhD, a clinical research fellow at the University of Bristol in England. “There is a lot of interest in real-time cortisol monitoring,” he said.
Among those who could benefit: patients with hormone deficiencies, night shift workers with disturbed circadian rhythms, or anyone who wants to keep tabs on their stress response.
Human performance and wellness
Athletes could use glucose and lactate monitors to optimize training, recovery time, and diet. For those on the keto diet, a monitor could help them adjust their carb intake based on their ketone levels. Abbott’s Analyte Ventures group is working on blood alcohol sensors, helpful to anyone who wants to avoid overindulging.
When will this be ready for clinical use?
Early research has been promising, but much more is needed before interstitial fluid sensors can be verified and approved.
Manufacturing will be a challenge. Producing these sensors at scale, without sacrificing consistency or quality, won’t be cheap, said Dr. Heikenfeld. Today’s continuous glucose monitors took decades and hundreds of millions of dollars to develop.
Still, the groundwork has been laid.
“As we all pivot more towards interstitial fluid, there’s a proven roadmap of success that the big diagnostic companies over decades have cut their teeth on,” said Dr. Heikenfeld.
For now, scientists are refining sensors and figuring out how to protect them from other body fluids while in use, Dr. Wang said. But if it all comes together, the result could be game-changing.
Dr. Wang’s lab is developing a system that can monitor glucose and lactate or glucose and alcohol – which could become available in as little as 2 years, he said.
In the next decade, Dr. Wang predicted, we’ll be able to measure a dozen markers with one simple patch.
A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com.
Hairy moles may contain the cure for baldness: Study
.
The researchers found that a specific molecule in those hairy moles “causes normally dormant and diminutive hair follicles to activate their stem cells for robust growth of long and thick hairs,” lead researcher Maksim Plikus, PhD, professor of developmental and cell biology at the University of California, Irvine, said in a statement.
The findings could lead to new treatments for the hair loss condition known as androgenetic alopecia, which researchers said occurs in both men and women. It is also known as male-pattern baldness in men.
The global team led by researchers at the university analyzed hair follicle stem cells and discovered that a molecule called osteopontin drives accelerated hair growth. Stem cells can develop into different kinds of cells, whether they are in the body or in a laboratory, and are often involved in regenerative or repair processes, according to the Mayo Clinic.
This latest study, published in the journal Nature, was done on mice. A drug company cofounded by Dr. Plikus said in a news release that it had further tested the hair growth technique on human hair follicles, and “the researchers were able to induce new growth by human hair follicles in a robust preclinical model.” The company, Amplifica, said in the release that it has an exclusive licensing agreement with the university for the new hair growth “inventions” described in the newly published findings.
Hair loss from androgenetic alopecia occurs in two out of every three men, according to the Cleveland Clinic. Amplifica said the condition affects an estimated 50 million men and 30 million women in the United States.
The hair loss and thinning can begin as early as the late teens, the Cleveland Clinic says. The condition is progressive and can follow a specific pattern, such as the hairline creating an “M” or “U” shape midway through the process toward complete baldness on the top of the head, with a remaining thin band of hair around the sides of the head.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
.
The researchers found that a specific molecule in those hairy moles “causes normally dormant and diminutive hair follicles to activate their stem cells for robust growth of long and thick hairs,” lead researcher Maksim Plikus, PhD, professor of developmental and cell biology at the University of California, Irvine, said in a statement.
The findings could lead to new treatments for the hair loss condition known as androgenetic alopecia, which researchers said occurs in both men and women. It is also known as male-pattern baldness in men.
The global team led by researchers at the university analyzed hair follicle stem cells and discovered that a molecule called osteopontin drives accelerated hair growth. Stem cells can develop into different kinds of cells, whether they are in the body or in a laboratory, and are often involved in regenerative or repair processes, according to the Mayo Clinic.
This latest study, published in the journal Nature, was done on mice. A drug company cofounded by Dr. Plikus said in a news release that it had further tested the hair growth technique on human hair follicles, and “the researchers were able to induce new growth by human hair follicles in a robust preclinical model.” The company, Amplifica, said in the release that it has an exclusive licensing agreement with the university for the new hair growth “inventions” described in the newly published findings.
Hair loss from androgenetic alopecia occurs in two out of every three men, according to the Cleveland Clinic. Amplifica said the condition affects an estimated 50 million men and 30 million women in the United States.
The hair loss and thinning can begin as early as the late teens, the Cleveland Clinic says. The condition is progressive and can follow a specific pattern, such as the hairline creating an “M” or “U” shape midway through the process toward complete baldness on the top of the head, with a remaining thin band of hair around the sides of the head.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
.
The researchers found that a specific molecule in those hairy moles “causes normally dormant and diminutive hair follicles to activate their stem cells for robust growth of long and thick hairs,” lead researcher Maksim Plikus, PhD, professor of developmental and cell biology at the University of California, Irvine, said in a statement.
The findings could lead to new treatments for the hair loss condition known as androgenetic alopecia, which researchers said occurs in both men and women. It is also known as male-pattern baldness in men.
The global team led by researchers at the university analyzed hair follicle stem cells and discovered that a molecule called osteopontin drives accelerated hair growth. Stem cells can develop into different kinds of cells, whether they are in the body or in a laboratory, and are often involved in regenerative or repair processes, according to the Mayo Clinic.
This latest study, published in the journal Nature, was done on mice. A drug company cofounded by Dr. Plikus said in a news release that it had further tested the hair growth technique on human hair follicles, and “the researchers were able to induce new growth by human hair follicles in a robust preclinical model.” The company, Amplifica, said in the release that it has an exclusive licensing agreement with the university for the new hair growth “inventions” described in the newly published findings.
Hair loss from androgenetic alopecia occurs in two out of every three men, according to the Cleveland Clinic. Amplifica said the condition affects an estimated 50 million men and 30 million women in the United States.
The hair loss and thinning can begin as early as the late teens, the Cleveland Clinic says. The condition is progressive and can follow a specific pattern, such as the hairline creating an “M” or “U” shape midway through the process toward complete baldness on the top of the head, with a remaining thin band of hair around the sides of the head.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM NATURE
Florida GI gets candid about imposter syndrome, insurers, starting a GI fellowship
Her first faculty position as assistant program director for the gastroenterology fellowship program at the University of Iowa offered some inspiration. “I loved teaching and working with trainees and knew I always wanted to remain in this realm,” Dr. Naveed said.
When she moved to Orlando to join AdventHealth, she noticed there was no gastroenterology training program. “I was strictly in private practice. Though I love working with patients, I constantly felt like something was missing. When the opportunity to start a fellowship program came, I was highly motivated to bring it to fruition.”
The AdventHealth fellowship is almost done with its inaugural year.
“Starting a fellowship at a new institution is a very challenging yet incredibly rewarding experience,” she said. In this Q&A, she discusses her strategies for dealing with insurance companies and imposter syndrome, and why she looks to her father as her role model in medicine.
Q: Why did you choose GI?
Dr. Naveed: Gastroenterology is a rapidly evolving field which makes it incredibly fascinating. The initial draw was that I was always excited to learn about GI physiology and disease. I also was fortunate to train with amazing gastroenterologists during residency. I had great examples of strong and successful female GIs to look up to. Lastly, for the most part, gastroenterologists are all fairly laid back and have an interesting sense of humor.
Q: What gives you the most joy in your day-to-day practice?
Dr. Naveed: I love learning and teaching. As a program director, I am directly involved with fellows, residents, and students, but there are always additional enrichment opportunities beyond these interactions. I value teaching clinic medical assistants so they feel more confident and empowered in their work. I also try to educate my nurse practitioners. The best compliment at the end of a long day is that they learned something valuable.
Q: How do you stay current with advances in your field?
Dr. Naveed: Between my role as a physician and as an educator, I owe it to my patients and trainees to stay current with advances in the field. But of course, this is challenging, and at times it feels like there are not enough hours in the day. While reading journal articles and attending conferences are great ways to refresh one’s knowledge, the winner for me has been social media (specifically Twitter). It’s easy to find a “Tweetorial” on almost any topic. There are some excellent initiatives on Twitter such as Monday Night IBD, ACG Evidence-Based GI Doc, Scoping Sundays, and GI Journal Club where important articles, new treatment options, and challenging cases are discussed. Of course, I also learn a lot from my fellows and residents.
Q: What fears did you have to push past to get to where you are in your career?
Dr. Naveed: Pushing past imposter syndrome, which is a feeling of self-doubt despite education, experience, and accomplishments. It is something many of us deal with. I’ve had to retire the notion that I am not experienced enough to achieve a particular career goal.
Q: What habits have you established that have benefited your career most?
Dr. Naveed: It’s a challenge to not immediately say “yes” to every opportunity or project. It’s also difficult to learn to delegate. I am lucky to have a great team, and I have learned that delegating certain tasks or projects helps everyone grow. Also, if I say no to an opportunity, I still try to suggest another colleague or mentee who may be interested and/or a good fit.
Q: Describe your biggest practice-related challenge and what you are doing to address it.
Dr. Naveed: Pushback from insurance companies to approve medications or interventions is incredibly frustrating for myself and the patient. It is also incredibly time consuming and requires significant clinical bandwidth that could otherwise be used in other capacities. While not a solution, I at least try to make sure the patient is kept updated and understands causes of delay, and more importantly, what we are doing to address the issue. I have realized that it’s always preferable to empower the patient, rather than leave them uninformed, which can foster frustration and dissatisfaction.
Q: What teacher or mentor had the greatest impact on you?
Dr. Naveed: I have been blessed with many mentors at different points in my medical career that have greatly impacted and shaped my journey. During my fellowship at University of Texas Southwestern (UTSW), Nisa Kubiliun, MD, was not only a mentor, but also an incredible sponsor. She saw potential in me and encouraged involvement in activities critical for career advancement. Arjmand Mufti, MD, the former program director of the UTSW GI fellowship, is still always just a call away when I need advice regarding my GI fellowship program at AdventHealth. I also have mentors and sponsors within my own institution who invest time and energy into my success.
Q: Outside of teachers and mentors, who or what has had the strongest influence in your life?
Dr. Naveed: My father, who is also a physician, has had a profound influence on my personal and professional development. His own medical journey has been incredibly unique. He has practiced medicine internationally, trained and worked in a traditional academic setting, established a very successful private practice, and now has transitioned to running a hospital-based practice. He has seen it all (and he’s also a brilliant physician), and he is always able to talk me through any situation.
Q: What principles guide you?
Dr. Naveed: Treating my patients how I would want a physician to treat my family is central to my practice. Also, I try to approach any successes with gratitude, and likewise, be patient with inevitable failures. It can be challenging, but I try to find the lesson in every failed venture.
Q: What would you do differently if you had a chance?
Dr. Naveed: I have always had an interest in international medical missions but have yet to participate in one. I have previously passed on such opportunities, thinking it was not the right time, but in hindsight I wish I had taken the leap. I still hope to eventually accomplish this goal.
Q: Describe a scene of your vision for the future.
Dr. Naveed: I hope that our GI fellowship continues to flourish and attract exceptional faculty and candidates. I want to remain involved in graduate medical education, but I hope to continue to challenge myself and advance within this domain. Most importantly, I hope I can continue to balance my career aspirations with my personal goals. I want to continue to be present for my family and kids.
Q: Describe how you would spend a free Saturday afternoon.
Dr. Naveed: You can usually find me at the local farmer’s market with my husband and kids. Afterwards, we’re definitely going to get Chick-fil-A followed by ice cream.
Lightning round
If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be?
International event planner.
How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?
Usually three.
Favorite breakfast?
Eggs, corned beef hash, toast.
Texting or talking?
Texting always unless it’s Mom or Dad. They always get a call.
Place you most want to travel?
Japan.
Follow Dr. Naveed on Twitter at @MN_GIMD
Her first faculty position as assistant program director for the gastroenterology fellowship program at the University of Iowa offered some inspiration. “I loved teaching and working with trainees and knew I always wanted to remain in this realm,” Dr. Naveed said.
When she moved to Orlando to join AdventHealth, she noticed there was no gastroenterology training program. “I was strictly in private practice. Though I love working with patients, I constantly felt like something was missing. When the opportunity to start a fellowship program came, I was highly motivated to bring it to fruition.”
The AdventHealth fellowship is almost done with its inaugural year.
“Starting a fellowship at a new institution is a very challenging yet incredibly rewarding experience,” she said. In this Q&A, she discusses her strategies for dealing with insurance companies and imposter syndrome, and why she looks to her father as her role model in medicine.
Q: Why did you choose GI?
Dr. Naveed: Gastroenterology is a rapidly evolving field which makes it incredibly fascinating. The initial draw was that I was always excited to learn about GI physiology and disease. I also was fortunate to train with amazing gastroenterologists during residency. I had great examples of strong and successful female GIs to look up to. Lastly, for the most part, gastroenterologists are all fairly laid back and have an interesting sense of humor.
Q: What gives you the most joy in your day-to-day practice?
Dr. Naveed: I love learning and teaching. As a program director, I am directly involved with fellows, residents, and students, but there are always additional enrichment opportunities beyond these interactions. I value teaching clinic medical assistants so they feel more confident and empowered in their work. I also try to educate my nurse practitioners. The best compliment at the end of a long day is that they learned something valuable.
Q: How do you stay current with advances in your field?
Dr. Naveed: Between my role as a physician and as an educator, I owe it to my patients and trainees to stay current with advances in the field. But of course, this is challenging, and at times it feels like there are not enough hours in the day. While reading journal articles and attending conferences are great ways to refresh one’s knowledge, the winner for me has been social media (specifically Twitter). It’s easy to find a “Tweetorial” on almost any topic. There are some excellent initiatives on Twitter such as Monday Night IBD, ACG Evidence-Based GI Doc, Scoping Sundays, and GI Journal Club where important articles, new treatment options, and challenging cases are discussed. Of course, I also learn a lot from my fellows and residents.
Q: What fears did you have to push past to get to where you are in your career?
Dr. Naveed: Pushing past imposter syndrome, which is a feeling of self-doubt despite education, experience, and accomplishments. It is something many of us deal with. I’ve had to retire the notion that I am not experienced enough to achieve a particular career goal.
Q: What habits have you established that have benefited your career most?
Dr. Naveed: It’s a challenge to not immediately say “yes” to every opportunity or project. It’s also difficult to learn to delegate. I am lucky to have a great team, and I have learned that delegating certain tasks or projects helps everyone grow. Also, if I say no to an opportunity, I still try to suggest another colleague or mentee who may be interested and/or a good fit.
Q: Describe your biggest practice-related challenge and what you are doing to address it.
Dr. Naveed: Pushback from insurance companies to approve medications or interventions is incredibly frustrating for myself and the patient. It is also incredibly time consuming and requires significant clinical bandwidth that could otherwise be used in other capacities. While not a solution, I at least try to make sure the patient is kept updated and understands causes of delay, and more importantly, what we are doing to address the issue. I have realized that it’s always preferable to empower the patient, rather than leave them uninformed, which can foster frustration and dissatisfaction.
Q: What teacher or mentor had the greatest impact on you?
Dr. Naveed: I have been blessed with many mentors at different points in my medical career that have greatly impacted and shaped my journey. During my fellowship at University of Texas Southwestern (UTSW), Nisa Kubiliun, MD, was not only a mentor, but also an incredible sponsor. She saw potential in me and encouraged involvement in activities critical for career advancement. Arjmand Mufti, MD, the former program director of the UTSW GI fellowship, is still always just a call away when I need advice regarding my GI fellowship program at AdventHealth. I also have mentors and sponsors within my own institution who invest time and energy into my success.
Q: Outside of teachers and mentors, who or what has had the strongest influence in your life?
Dr. Naveed: My father, who is also a physician, has had a profound influence on my personal and professional development. His own medical journey has been incredibly unique. He has practiced medicine internationally, trained and worked in a traditional academic setting, established a very successful private practice, and now has transitioned to running a hospital-based practice. He has seen it all (and he’s also a brilliant physician), and he is always able to talk me through any situation.
Q: What principles guide you?
Dr. Naveed: Treating my patients how I would want a physician to treat my family is central to my practice. Also, I try to approach any successes with gratitude, and likewise, be patient with inevitable failures. It can be challenging, but I try to find the lesson in every failed venture.
Q: What would you do differently if you had a chance?
Dr. Naveed: I have always had an interest in international medical missions but have yet to participate in one. I have previously passed on such opportunities, thinking it was not the right time, but in hindsight I wish I had taken the leap. I still hope to eventually accomplish this goal.
Q: Describe a scene of your vision for the future.
Dr. Naveed: I hope that our GI fellowship continues to flourish and attract exceptional faculty and candidates. I want to remain involved in graduate medical education, but I hope to continue to challenge myself and advance within this domain. Most importantly, I hope I can continue to balance my career aspirations with my personal goals. I want to continue to be present for my family and kids.
Q: Describe how you would spend a free Saturday afternoon.
Dr. Naveed: You can usually find me at the local farmer’s market with my husband and kids. Afterwards, we’re definitely going to get Chick-fil-A followed by ice cream.
Lightning round
If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be?
International event planner.
How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?
Usually three.
Favorite breakfast?
Eggs, corned beef hash, toast.
Texting or talking?
Texting always unless it’s Mom or Dad. They always get a call.
Place you most want to travel?
Japan.
Follow Dr. Naveed on Twitter at @MN_GIMD
Her first faculty position as assistant program director for the gastroenterology fellowship program at the University of Iowa offered some inspiration. “I loved teaching and working with trainees and knew I always wanted to remain in this realm,” Dr. Naveed said.
When she moved to Orlando to join AdventHealth, she noticed there was no gastroenterology training program. “I was strictly in private practice. Though I love working with patients, I constantly felt like something was missing. When the opportunity to start a fellowship program came, I was highly motivated to bring it to fruition.”
The AdventHealth fellowship is almost done with its inaugural year.
“Starting a fellowship at a new institution is a very challenging yet incredibly rewarding experience,” she said. In this Q&A, she discusses her strategies for dealing with insurance companies and imposter syndrome, and why she looks to her father as her role model in medicine.
Q: Why did you choose GI?
Dr. Naveed: Gastroenterology is a rapidly evolving field which makes it incredibly fascinating. The initial draw was that I was always excited to learn about GI physiology and disease. I also was fortunate to train with amazing gastroenterologists during residency. I had great examples of strong and successful female GIs to look up to. Lastly, for the most part, gastroenterologists are all fairly laid back and have an interesting sense of humor.
Q: What gives you the most joy in your day-to-day practice?
Dr. Naveed: I love learning and teaching. As a program director, I am directly involved with fellows, residents, and students, but there are always additional enrichment opportunities beyond these interactions. I value teaching clinic medical assistants so they feel more confident and empowered in their work. I also try to educate my nurse practitioners. The best compliment at the end of a long day is that they learned something valuable.
Q: How do you stay current with advances in your field?
Dr. Naveed: Between my role as a physician and as an educator, I owe it to my patients and trainees to stay current with advances in the field. But of course, this is challenging, and at times it feels like there are not enough hours in the day. While reading journal articles and attending conferences are great ways to refresh one’s knowledge, the winner for me has been social media (specifically Twitter). It’s easy to find a “Tweetorial” on almost any topic. There are some excellent initiatives on Twitter such as Monday Night IBD, ACG Evidence-Based GI Doc, Scoping Sundays, and GI Journal Club where important articles, new treatment options, and challenging cases are discussed. Of course, I also learn a lot from my fellows and residents.
Q: What fears did you have to push past to get to where you are in your career?
Dr. Naveed: Pushing past imposter syndrome, which is a feeling of self-doubt despite education, experience, and accomplishments. It is something many of us deal with. I’ve had to retire the notion that I am not experienced enough to achieve a particular career goal.
Q: What habits have you established that have benefited your career most?
Dr. Naveed: It’s a challenge to not immediately say “yes” to every opportunity or project. It’s also difficult to learn to delegate. I am lucky to have a great team, and I have learned that delegating certain tasks or projects helps everyone grow. Also, if I say no to an opportunity, I still try to suggest another colleague or mentee who may be interested and/or a good fit.
Q: Describe your biggest practice-related challenge and what you are doing to address it.
Dr. Naveed: Pushback from insurance companies to approve medications or interventions is incredibly frustrating for myself and the patient. It is also incredibly time consuming and requires significant clinical bandwidth that could otherwise be used in other capacities. While not a solution, I at least try to make sure the patient is kept updated and understands causes of delay, and more importantly, what we are doing to address the issue. I have realized that it’s always preferable to empower the patient, rather than leave them uninformed, which can foster frustration and dissatisfaction.
Q: What teacher or mentor had the greatest impact on you?
Dr. Naveed: I have been blessed with many mentors at different points in my medical career that have greatly impacted and shaped my journey. During my fellowship at University of Texas Southwestern (UTSW), Nisa Kubiliun, MD, was not only a mentor, but also an incredible sponsor. She saw potential in me and encouraged involvement in activities critical for career advancement. Arjmand Mufti, MD, the former program director of the UTSW GI fellowship, is still always just a call away when I need advice regarding my GI fellowship program at AdventHealth. I also have mentors and sponsors within my own institution who invest time and energy into my success.
Q: Outside of teachers and mentors, who or what has had the strongest influence in your life?
Dr. Naveed: My father, who is also a physician, has had a profound influence on my personal and professional development. His own medical journey has been incredibly unique. He has practiced medicine internationally, trained and worked in a traditional academic setting, established a very successful private practice, and now has transitioned to running a hospital-based practice. He has seen it all (and he’s also a brilliant physician), and he is always able to talk me through any situation.
Q: What principles guide you?
Dr. Naveed: Treating my patients how I would want a physician to treat my family is central to my practice. Also, I try to approach any successes with gratitude, and likewise, be patient with inevitable failures. It can be challenging, but I try to find the lesson in every failed venture.
Q: What would you do differently if you had a chance?
Dr. Naveed: I have always had an interest in international medical missions but have yet to participate in one. I have previously passed on such opportunities, thinking it was not the right time, but in hindsight I wish I had taken the leap. I still hope to eventually accomplish this goal.
Q: Describe a scene of your vision for the future.
Dr. Naveed: I hope that our GI fellowship continues to flourish and attract exceptional faculty and candidates. I want to remain involved in graduate medical education, but I hope to continue to challenge myself and advance within this domain. Most importantly, I hope I can continue to balance my career aspirations with my personal goals. I want to continue to be present for my family and kids.
Q: Describe how you would spend a free Saturday afternoon.
Dr. Naveed: You can usually find me at the local farmer’s market with my husband and kids. Afterwards, we’re definitely going to get Chick-fil-A followed by ice cream.
Lightning round
If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be?
International event planner.
How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?
Usually three.
Favorite breakfast?
Eggs, corned beef hash, toast.
Texting or talking?
Texting always unless it’s Mom or Dad. They always get a call.
Place you most want to travel?
Japan.
Follow Dr. Naveed on Twitter at @MN_GIMD
Disconnecting to reconnect
I recently returned from a bucket list trip rafting the full length of the Grand Canyon via the Colorado River. It was a spectacular trip, filled with thrilling rapids, awe-inspiring hikes through slot canyons, and swimming in the turquoise waters of Havasu Falls.
For those of you who are fortunate to have experienced a similar adventure, I think you’ll agree one of the best things about the trip (aside from the breathtaking scenery) was the ability to completely unplug. Not only did I travel without my trusty laptop, but cell service was nonexistent. The effect of this forced digital detox was magical. By mentally disconnecting from work without the constant ping of my email and EHR inbox, our group had deeper conversations and formed genuine connections without the distractions of technology. In the frenetically paced world of modern health care where clinicians are reachable wherever they are in the world (even on vacation) as the boundaries between work and life blur, there are increasingly fewer times like this when we can fully disconnect. Yet, periodically disconnecting from work is critical, particularly for the clinician community, which is grappling with increasing levels of burnout and its consequences. As you embark on your well-deserved summer vacations, I hope you have an opportunity to set aside your devices to reconnect more fully with your family and friends, but also yourself.
In this month’s issue of GI&Hepatology News, we update you on AGA’s ongoing advocacy efforts to challenge UnitedHealthcare’s plans to impose increased administrative burdens on GI practices relating to routine GI procedures. We also highlight a landmark clinical trial in pediatric Crohn’s disease recently published in Gastroenterology. In our quarterly Perspectives column, Dr. Mariam Naveed and Dr. Petr Protiva outline important considerations regarding when to stop surveillance for colorectal neoplasia in elderly patients. Finally, our July Member Spotlight features gastroenterologist Dr. Russ Arjal, who shares his experiences launching Telebelly Health, an entirely virtual GI practice.
Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief
I recently returned from a bucket list trip rafting the full length of the Grand Canyon via the Colorado River. It was a spectacular trip, filled with thrilling rapids, awe-inspiring hikes through slot canyons, and swimming in the turquoise waters of Havasu Falls.
For those of you who are fortunate to have experienced a similar adventure, I think you’ll agree one of the best things about the trip (aside from the breathtaking scenery) was the ability to completely unplug. Not only did I travel without my trusty laptop, but cell service was nonexistent. The effect of this forced digital detox was magical. By mentally disconnecting from work without the constant ping of my email and EHR inbox, our group had deeper conversations and formed genuine connections without the distractions of technology. In the frenetically paced world of modern health care where clinicians are reachable wherever they are in the world (even on vacation) as the boundaries between work and life blur, there are increasingly fewer times like this when we can fully disconnect. Yet, periodically disconnecting from work is critical, particularly for the clinician community, which is grappling with increasing levels of burnout and its consequences. As you embark on your well-deserved summer vacations, I hope you have an opportunity to set aside your devices to reconnect more fully with your family and friends, but also yourself.
In this month’s issue of GI&Hepatology News, we update you on AGA’s ongoing advocacy efforts to challenge UnitedHealthcare’s plans to impose increased administrative burdens on GI practices relating to routine GI procedures. We also highlight a landmark clinical trial in pediatric Crohn’s disease recently published in Gastroenterology. In our quarterly Perspectives column, Dr. Mariam Naveed and Dr. Petr Protiva outline important considerations regarding when to stop surveillance for colorectal neoplasia in elderly patients. Finally, our July Member Spotlight features gastroenterologist Dr. Russ Arjal, who shares his experiences launching Telebelly Health, an entirely virtual GI practice.
Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief
I recently returned from a bucket list trip rafting the full length of the Grand Canyon via the Colorado River. It was a spectacular trip, filled with thrilling rapids, awe-inspiring hikes through slot canyons, and swimming in the turquoise waters of Havasu Falls.
For those of you who are fortunate to have experienced a similar adventure, I think you’ll agree one of the best things about the trip (aside from the breathtaking scenery) was the ability to completely unplug. Not only did I travel without my trusty laptop, but cell service was nonexistent. The effect of this forced digital detox was magical. By mentally disconnecting from work without the constant ping of my email and EHR inbox, our group had deeper conversations and formed genuine connections without the distractions of technology. In the frenetically paced world of modern health care where clinicians are reachable wherever they are in the world (even on vacation) as the boundaries between work and life blur, there are increasingly fewer times like this when we can fully disconnect. Yet, periodically disconnecting from work is critical, particularly for the clinician community, which is grappling with increasing levels of burnout and its consequences. As you embark on your well-deserved summer vacations, I hope you have an opportunity to set aside your devices to reconnect more fully with your family and friends, but also yourself.
In this month’s issue of GI&Hepatology News, we update you on AGA’s ongoing advocacy efforts to challenge UnitedHealthcare’s plans to impose increased administrative burdens on GI practices relating to routine GI procedures. We also highlight a landmark clinical trial in pediatric Crohn’s disease recently published in Gastroenterology. In our quarterly Perspectives column, Dr. Mariam Naveed and Dr. Petr Protiva outline important considerations regarding when to stop surveillance for colorectal neoplasia in elderly patients. Finally, our July Member Spotlight features gastroenterologist Dr. Russ Arjal, who shares his experiences launching Telebelly Health, an entirely virtual GI practice.
Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief
Launching an entirely virtual health care GI practice
that partners with health systems to offer GI care services throughout the country.
Dr. Arjal, who as a cofounder of Telebelly Health also serves as chief medical officer and president of the practice, previously served as vice president of Puget Sound Gastroenterology and practiced in the Seattle area for 13 years. He served as vice president of clinical affairs for Gastro Health, the nation’s second-largest gastroenterology group, which acquired the Puget Sound practice in 2019. But then in 2021, he founded Telebelly with Sheri Rudberg, MBA, JD, who serves as CEO of the business; Alex Brown, who leads product development; and Nakort Valles, who serves as the company’s chief technology officer.
Building a new business whose goal is to transform GI health care delivery has been his biggest challenge to date. “I am proud of Telebelly because its goals are goals we all share, which is to try to get people in the door and take good care of them,” Dr. Arjal said.
Through virtual care clinics like Telebelly Health, patients can see a provider who is affiliated with a practice, even if the provider is in another state provided he or she is licensed in the patient’s home state. Some states have passed legislation to permanently allow out-of-state physicians to practice telehealth in their state if they follow the state’s requirements. In some states, that may amount to accepting an out-of-state medical license or requiring out-of-state clinicians to pass an exam.
Telebelly Health has served thousands of patients since September when the practice was launched. “We are scaling pretty quickly and will be doubling the number of providers in the next couple of months,” Dr. Arjal said.
In this Q&A, he talks more about his new business venture and his vision for the future of medicine.
Question: Why did you choose GI?
Answer: I wanted to do something that was cognitive where I interacted with and really got to know patients. I also wanted to be a proceduralist. I never wanted to be a surgeon – I knew that wasn’t for me. I fell in love with GI the first year in med school. I thought the pathology was interesting, and what GIs did in the acute setting as well as the outpatient setting was compelling.
Q. What achievement are you most proud of?
A. Prior to Telebelly, I led a large regional GI group in a competitive marketplace. Now, with Telebelly, building a team with a vision to transform the space has been the biggest challenge I have taken on. It’s still a work in progress, but we’ve had a great start. Starting a company wasn’t easy. It was something that I didn’t know a lot about, so I had to take a fair bit of risk. I wasn’t sure if I had it in me at the beginning. It’s not something I’d ever done before, so I was testing myself. I am proud that we were able to launch the company and have successfully scaled it. It’s been more successful than I expected.
Q. Describe your biggest practice-related challenge and what you are doing to address it.
A. Access to care. I think it’s very hard to see somebody with GI expertise and it certainly got worse during the pandemic. In my previous role, we used advanced practice providers. We tried to implement technology, sometimes effectively, sometimes not. But in general, we wanted to try to increase the supply of providers and compress these patient journeys to get people in the door. But that’s still a very difficult challenge we’re all trying to solve.
Q. What teacher or mentor had the greatest impact on you?
A. I would say two: James Trotter, MD, a hepatologist at the University of Colorado where I trained. He had a terrific impact in the sense that he was 100% focused on patients and got to know them as people. This taught me what it meant to be a clinician that was sort of a humanist. He cared so much for his patients that I still think about what Jim would do in a room today, 15 years after I finished my fellowship.
When I started my first job at Puget Sound Gastroenterology in the Seattle area, Robin Sloane, MD, was one of the senior partners of the group. I had a lot to learn after finishing fellowship. He was wonderful and gracious and really taught me a ton about the practical aspects of medicine. I felt this was an extension of my training in that he was a real clinician who really cared deeply for his patients. If I hadn’t met those two, my career and maybe my view of just what I did day-to-day would be different. They were both very, very impactful for me.
Q. Outside of teachers and mentors, who has had the strongest influence on your life?
A. Two people: my mother and my wife. My mother was a single parent and we were immigrants to the country. She was an ambitious woman who didn’t let anything stop her. I certainly learned a ton about resilience, work ethic. She’s somebody who always treated people well. My wife also supported and believed in me, and without her, I would not have had the courage to start a company.
Q. Describe a scene of your vision for the future.
A. I think we need to change our mindset in terms of how we interact with patients. I think there’s going to be a lot of clinical testing that is performed away from the physician’s office. It’s going to become more democratized and more decentralized. And I think in the future, patients will have more agency in how they interact with the system. I think artificial intelligence will potentially augment all of this as well. We’ll have patients who are more engaged, have more choice and easier access to expert care. They’ll come in with more information on their hands and they won’t have to wait as long. I think the wait times to get to a GI clinic now are way too long.
What I’d also like to see are providers spending more time doing things that they’re trained to do rather than documentation, summarizing data, and dealing with administrative headaches. I think almost everybody has that goal, but I think that’s achievable.
I want providers to have an iron man or iron woman suit when they see a patient, to have more data at their fingertips, to spend more time with the patients and have smarter visits.
Q. What did you fear most early in your career?
A. Failure for the most part, and comfort. For a long time, I wanted to start a company and change the space. Fear of failure has been ingrained in me and I think that’s true for a lot of physicians. I had always been a perfectionist.
Q. What gives you the most joy in your day-to-day practice?
A. Seeing patients is by far the thing I enjoy most. I don’t love documenting or digging up information, but I like getting to know folks. In general, I’m a social person and my outpatient clinic gives me the most joy, probably more than anything else.
Q. How do you stay current with advances in your field?
A. I’m curious about all new things, so I stay current through traditional means: I go to conferences regularly, I take postgraduate courses, I listen to podcasts, talk to colleagues, and read journals on a regular basis. But there are a lot of adjacent sources I pay attention to as well, such as nonmedical journals and nonmedical podcasts. I talk to folks outside the space and try to learn from them as well.
Q. What habits have you established that have benefited your career?
A. I do the same thing every day before my clinic days or my endoscopy days. I make reading a part of each day so I can slow down and be more present. Every day I try not to perform just what I do workwise, but I try to find some balance either with my family, or through exercise. I think I’ve been pretty good at separating work life from personal life.
Lightning round questions
Texting or talking? Talking.
Favorite junk food? Peanut butter M&Ms.
How many cups of coffee do you drink per day? Three.
If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be? Venture capitalist.
Introvert or extrovert? Both.
that partners with health systems to offer GI care services throughout the country.
Dr. Arjal, who as a cofounder of Telebelly Health also serves as chief medical officer and president of the practice, previously served as vice president of Puget Sound Gastroenterology and practiced in the Seattle area for 13 years. He served as vice president of clinical affairs for Gastro Health, the nation’s second-largest gastroenterology group, which acquired the Puget Sound practice in 2019. But then in 2021, he founded Telebelly with Sheri Rudberg, MBA, JD, who serves as CEO of the business; Alex Brown, who leads product development; and Nakort Valles, who serves as the company’s chief technology officer.
Building a new business whose goal is to transform GI health care delivery has been his biggest challenge to date. “I am proud of Telebelly because its goals are goals we all share, which is to try to get people in the door and take good care of them,” Dr. Arjal said.
Through virtual care clinics like Telebelly Health, patients can see a provider who is affiliated with a practice, even if the provider is in another state provided he or she is licensed in the patient’s home state. Some states have passed legislation to permanently allow out-of-state physicians to practice telehealth in their state if they follow the state’s requirements. In some states, that may amount to accepting an out-of-state medical license or requiring out-of-state clinicians to pass an exam.
Telebelly Health has served thousands of patients since September when the practice was launched. “We are scaling pretty quickly and will be doubling the number of providers in the next couple of months,” Dr. Arjal said.
In this Q&A, he talks more about his new business venture and his vision for the future of medicine.
Question: Why did you choose GI?
Answer: I wanted to do something that was cognitive where I interacted with and really got to know patients. I also wanted to be a proceduralist. I never wanted to be a surgeon – I knew that wasn’t for me. I fell in love with GI the first year in med school. I thought the pathology was interesting, and what GIs did in the acute setting as well as the outpatient setting was compelling.
Q. What achievement are you most proud of?
A. Prior to Telebelly, I led a large regional GI group in a competitive marketplace. Now, with Telebelly, building a team with a vision to transform the space has been the biggest challenge I have taken on. It’s still a work in progress, but we’ve had a great start. Starting a company wasn’t easy. It was something that I didn’t know a lot about, so I had to take a fair bit of risk. I wasn’t sure if I had it in me at the beginning. It’s not something I’d ever done before, so I was testing myself. I am proud that we were able to launch the company and have successfully scaled it. It’s been more successful than I expected.
Q. Describe your biggest practice-related challenge and what you are doing to address it.
A. Access to care. I think it’s very hard to see somebody with GI expertise and it certainly got worse during the pandemic. In my previous role, we used advanced practice providers. We tried to implement technology, sometimes effectively, sometimes not. But in general, we wanted to try to increase the supply of providers and compress these patient journeys to get people in the door. But that’s still a very difficult challenge we’re all trying to solve.
Q. What teacher or mentor had the greatest impact on you?
A. I would say two: James Trotter, MD, a hepatologist at the University of Colorado where I trained. He had a terrific impact in the sense that he was 100% focused on patients and got to know them as people. This taught me what it meant to be a clinician that was sort of a humanist. He cared so much for his patients that I still think about what Jim would do in a room today, 15 years after I finished my fellowship.
When I started my first job at Puget Sound Gastroenterology in the Seattle area, Robin Sloane, MD, was one of the senior partners of the group. I had a lot to learn after finishing fellowship. He was wonderful and gracious and really taught me a ton about the practical aspects of medicine. I felt this was an extension of my training in that he was a real clinician who really cared deeply for his patients. If I hadn’t met those two, my career and maybe my view of just what I did day-to-day would be different. They were both very, very impactful for me.
Q. Outside of teachers and mentors, who has had the strongest influence on your life?
A. Two people: my mother and my wife. My mother was a single parent and we were immigrants to the country. She was an ambitious woman who didn’t let anything stop her. I certainly learned a ton about resilience, work ethic. She’s somebody who always treated people well. My wife also supported and believed in me, and without her, I would not have had the courage to start a company.
Q. Describe a scene of your vision for the future.
A. I think we need to change our mindset in terms of how we interact with patients. I think there’s going to be a lot of clinical testing that is performed away from the physician’s office. It’s going to become more democratized and more decentralized. And I think in the future, patients will have more agency in how they interact with the system. I think artificial intelligence will potentially augment all of this as well. We’ll have patients who are more engaged, have more choice and easier access to expert care. They’ll come in with more information on their hands and they won’t have to wait as long. I think the wait times to get to a GI clinic now are way too long.
What I’d also like to see are providers spending more time doing things that they’re trained to do rather than documentation, summarizing data, and dealing with administrative headaches. I think almost everybody has that goal, but I think that’s achievable.
I want providers to have an iron man or iron woman suit when they see a patient, to have more data at their fingertips, to spend more time with the patients and have smarter visits.
Q. What did you fear most early in your career?
A. Failure for the most part, and comfort. For a long time, I wanted to start a company and change the space. Fear of failure has been ingrained in me and I think that’s true for a lot of physicians. I had always been a perfectionist.
Q. What gives you the most joy in your day-to-day practice?
A. Seeing patients is by far the thing I enjoy most. I don’t love documenting or digging up information, but I like getting to know folks. In general, I’m a social person and my outpatient clinic gives me the most joy, probably more than anything else.
Q. How do you stay current with advances in your field?
A. I’m curious about all new things, so I stay current through traditional means: I go to conferences regularly, I take postgraduate courses, I listen to podcasts, talk to colleagues, and read journals on a regular basis. But there are a lot of adjacent sources I pay attention to as well, such as nonmedical journals and nonmedical podcasts. I talk to folks outside the space and try to learn from them as well.
Q. What habits have you established that have benefited your career?
A. I do the same thing every day before my clinic days or my endoscopy days. I make reading a part of each day so I can slow down and be more present. Every day I try not to perform just what I do workwise, but I try to find some balance either with my family, or through exercise. I think I’ve been pretty good at separating work life from personal life.
Lightning round questions
Texting or talking? Talking.
Favorite junk food? Peanut butter M&Ms.
How many cups of coffee do you drink per day? Three.
If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be? Venture capitalist.
Introvert or extrovert? Both.
that partners with health systems to offer GI care services throughout the country.
Dr. Arjal, who as a cofounder of Telebelly Health also serves as chief medical officer and president of the practice, previously served as vice president of Puget Sound Gastroenterology and practiced in the Seattle area for 13 years. He served as vice president of clinical affairs for Gastro Health, the nation’s second-largest gastroenterology group, which acquired the Puget Sound practice in 2019. But then in 2021, he founded Telebelly with Sheri Rudberg, MBA, JD, who serves as CEO of the business; Alex Brown, who leads product development; and Nakort Valles, who serves as the company’s chief technology officer.
Building a new business whose goal is to transform GI health care delivery has been his biggest challenge to date. “I am proud of Telebelly because its goals are goals we all share, which is to try to get people in the door and take good care of them,” Dr. Arjal said.
Through virtual care clinics like Telebelly Health, patients can see a provider who is affiliated with a practice, even if the provider is in another state provided he or she is licensed in the patient’s home state. Some states have passed legislation to permanently allow out-of-state physicians to practice telehealth in their state if they follow the state’s requirements. In some states, that may amount to accepting an out-of-state medical license or requiring out-of-state clinicians to pass an exam.
Telebelly Health has served thousands of patients since September when the practice was launched. “We are scaling pretty quickly and will be doubling the number of providers in the next couple of months,” Dr. Arjal said.
In this Q&A, he talks more about his new business venture and his vision for the future of medicine.
Question: Why did you choose GI?
Answer: I wanted to do something that was cognitive where I interacted with and really got to know patients. I also wanted to be a proceduralist. I never wanted to be a surgeon – I knew that wasn’t for me. I fell in love with GI the first year in med school. I thought the pathology was interesting, and what GIs did in the acute setting as well as the outpatient setting was compelling.
Q. What achievement are you most proud of?
A. Prior to Telebelly, I led a large regional GI group in a competitive marketplace. Now, with Telebelly, building a team with a vision to transform the space has been the biggest challenge I have taken on. It’s still a work in progress, but we’ve had a great start. Starting a company wasn’t easy. It was something that I didn’t know a lot about, so I had to take a fair bit of risk. I wasn’t sure if I had it in me at the beginning. It’s not something I’d ever done before, so I was testing myself. I am proud that we were able to launch the company and have successfully scaled it. It’s been more successful than I expected.
Q. Describe your biggest practice-related challenge and what you are doing to address it.
A. Access to care. I think it’s very hard to see somebody with GI expertise and it certainly got worse during the pandemic. In my previous role, we used advanced practice providers. We tried to implement technology, sometimes effectively, sometimes not. But in general, we wanted to try to increase the supply of providers and compress these patient journeys to get people in the door. But that’s still a very difficult challenge we’re all trying to solve.
Q. What teacher or mentor had the greatest impact on you?
A. I would say two: James Trotter, MD, a hepatologist at the University of Colorado where I trained. He had a terrific impact in the sense that he was 100% focused on patients and got to know them as people. This taught me what it meant to be a clinician that was sort of a humanist. He cared so much for his patients that I still think about what Jim would do in a room today, 15 years after I finished my fellowship.
When I started my first job at Puget Sound Gastroenterology in the Seattle area, Robin Sloane, MD, was one of the senior partners of the group. I had a lot to learn after finishing fellowship. He was wonderful and gracious and really taught me a ton about the practical aspects of medicine. I felt this was an extension of my training in that he was a real clinician who really cared deeply for his patients. If I hadn’t met those two, my career and maybe my view of just what I did day-to-day would be different. They were both very, very impactful for me.
Q. Outside of teachers and mentors, who has had the strongest influence on your life?
A. Two people: my mother and my wife. My mother was a single parent and we were immigrants to the country. She was an ambitious woman who didn’t let anything stop her. I certainly learned a ton about resilience, work ethic. She’s somebody who always treated people well. My wife also supported and believed in me, and without her, I would not have had the courage to start a company.
Q. Describe a scene of your vision for the future.
A. I think we need to change our mindset in terms of how we interact with patients. I think there’s going to be a lot of clinical testing that is performed away from the physician’s office. It’s going to become more democratized and more decentralized. And I think in the future, patients will have more agency in how they interact with the system. I think artificial intelligence will potentially augment all of this as well. We’ll have patients who are more engaged, have more choice and easier access to expert care. They’ll come in with more information on their hands and they won’t have to wait as long. I think the wait times to get to a GI clinic now are way too long.
What I’d also like to see are providers spending more time doing things that they’re trained to do rather than documentation, summarizing data, and dealing with administrative headaches. I think almost everybody has that goal, but I think that’s achievable.
I want providers to have an iron man or iron woman suit when they see a patient, to have more data at their fingertips, to spend more time with the patients and have smarter visits.
Q. What did you fear most early in your career?
A. Failure for the most part, and comfort. For a long time, I wanted to start a company and change the space. Fear of failure has been ingrained in me and I think that’s true for a lot of physicians. I had always been a perfectionist.
Q. What gives you the most joy in your day-to-day practice?
A. Seeing patients is by far the thing I enjoy most. I don’t love documenting or digging up information, but I like getting to know folks. In general, I’m a social person and my outpatient clinic gives me the most joy, probably more than anything else.
Q. How do you stay current with advances in your field?
A. I’m curious about all new things, so I stay current through traditional means: I go to conferences regularly, I take postgraduate courses, I listen to podcasts, talk to colleagues, and read journals on a regular basis. But there are a lot of adjacent sources I pay attention to as well, such as nonmedical journals and nonmedical podcasts. I talk to folks outside the space and try to learn from them as well.
Q. What habits have you established that have benefited your career?
A. I do the same thing every day before my clinic days or my endoscopy days. I make reading a part of each day so I can slow down and be more present. Every day I try not to perform just what I do workwise, but I try to find some balance either with my family, or through exercise. I think I’ve been pretty good at separating work life from personal life.
Lightning round questions
Texting or talking? Talking.
Favorite junk food? Peanut butter M&Ms.
How many cups of coffee do you drink per day? Three.
If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be? Venture capitalist.
Introvert or extrovert? Both.
Barriers to Implementation of Telehealth Pre-anesthesia Evaluation Visits in the Department of Veterans Affairs
Days or weeks before a scheduled surgical or invasive procedure involving anesthesia, evaluations are conducted to assess a patient’s condition and risk, optimize their status, and prepare them for their procedure. A comprehensive pre-anesthesia evaluation visit includes a history of present illness, the evaluation of comorbidities and medication use, the assessment of health habits such as alcohol and tobacco use, functional capacity and nutritional assessments, and the identification of social support deficiencies that may influence recovery. It also includes a focused physical examination and laboratory and other ancillary testing as needed and may include optimization interventions such as anemia management or prehabilitation. Conducting pre-anesthesia evaluations before surgery has been shown to reduce delays and cancellations, unnecessary preprocedure testing, hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality.1-4
The pre-anesthesia evaluation is usually conducted in person, although other modalities have been in use for several years and have accelerated since the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, audio-only telephone visits are used in many settings to conduct abbreviated forms of a pre-anesthesia evaluation, typically for less-invasive procedures. When patients are evaluated over the telephone, the physical examination and testing are deferred until the day of the procedure. Another modality is the use of synchronous video telehealth. Emerging evidence for the use of video-based care in anesthesiology provides encouraging results. Several institutions have proven the technological feasibility of performing preoperative evaluations via video.5,6 Compared with in-person evaluations, these visits seem to have similar surgery cancellation rates, improved patient satisfaction, and reduced wait times and costs.7-9
As part of a quality improvement project, we studied the use of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). An internal review found overall low utilization of these modalities before the COVID-19 pandemic that accelerated toward telehealth during the pandemic: The largest uptake was with telephone visits. Given the increasing adoption of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations and the marked preference for telephone over video modalities among VA practitioners during the COVID-19 pandemic, we sought to understand the barriers and facilitators to the adoption of telephone- and video-based pre-anesthesia evaluation visits within the VA.
Methods
Our objective was to assess health care practitioners’ (HCPs) preferences regarding pre-anesthesia evaluation modalities (in-person, telephone, or video), and the perceived advantages and barriers to adoption for each modality. We followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline and Checklist for statistical Assessment of Medical Papers (CHAMP) statement.10,11 The survey was deemed a quality improvement activity that was exempt from institutional review board oversight by the VA National Anesthesia Program Office and the VA Office of Connected Care.
A survey was distributed to all VA anesthesiology service chiefs via email between April 27, 2022, and May 3, 2022. Three emails were sent to each participant (initial invitation and 2 reminders). The respondents were asked to identify themselves by facility and role and to indicate whether their anesthesiology service performed any pre-anesthesia evaluations, including any telephone- or video-based evaluations; and whether their service has a dedicated pre-anesthesia evaluation clinic.
A second set of questions referred to the use of telephone- and video-based preprocedure evaluations. The questions were based on branch logic and depended on the respondent’s answers concerning their use of telephone- and video-based evaluations. Questions included statements about perceived barriers to the adoption of these pre-anesthesia evaluation modalities. Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale, (completely disagree [1] to completely agree [5]). A third section measured acceptability and feasibility of video using the validated Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM) and Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM) questionnaires.12 These instruments are 4-item measures of implementation outcomes that are often considered indicators of implementation success.13 Acceptability is the perception among implementation stakeholders that a given treatment, service, practice, or innovation is agreeable, palatable, or satisfactory. Feasibility is defined as the extent to which a new treatment or an innovation can be successfully used or carried out within a given agency or setting.13 The criterion for acceptability is personal, meaning that different HCPs may have differing needs, preferences, and expectations regarding the same intervention. The criterion for feasibility is practical. An intervention may be considered to be feasible if the required tasks can be performed easily or conveniently. Finally, 2 open-ended questions allowed respondents to identify the most important factor that allowed the implementation of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations in their service, and provide comments about the use of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations at the VA. All questions were developed by the authors except for the 2 implementation measure instruments.
The survey was administered using an electronic survey platform (Qualtrics, version April 2022) and sent by email alongside a brief introductory video. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, as no personal information was collected. Responses were attributed to each facility, using the self-declared affiliation. When an affiliation was not provided, we deduced it using the latitude/longitude of the respondent, a feature included in the survey software. No incentives were provided. Data were stored and maintained in a secure VA server. All completed surveys were included. Some facilities had > 1 complete response, and all were included. Facilities that provided > 1 response and where responses were discordant, we clarified with the facility service chief. Incomplete responses were excluded from the analysis.
Statistics
For this analysis, the 2 positive sentiment responses (agree and completely agree) and the 2 negative sentiment responses (disagree and completely disagree) in the Likert scale were collapsed into single categories (good and poor, respectively). The neither agree nor disagree responses were coded as neutral. Our analysis began with a visual exploration of all variables to evaluate the frequency, percentage, and near-zero variance for categorical variables.14 Near-zero variance occurs when a categorical variable has a low frequency of unique values over the sample size (ie, the variable is almost constant), and we addressed it by combining different variable categorizations. We handled missing values through imputation algorithms followed by sensitivity analyses to verify whether our results were stable with and without imputation. We performed comparisons for the exploratory analysis using P values for one-way analysis of variance tests for numeric variables and χ2 tests for categorical variables. We considered P values < .05 to be statistically significant. We also used correlation matrices and plots as exploratory analysis tools to better understand all items’ correlations. We used Pearson, polychoric, and polyserial correlation tests as appropriate for numeric, ordinal, and logical items.
Our modeling strategy involved a series of generalized linear models (GLMs) with a Gaussian family, ie, multiple linear regression models, to assess the association between (1) facilities’ preferences regarding pre-anesthesia evaluation modalities; (2) advantages between modalities; and (3) barriers to the adoption of telehealth and the ability to perform different pre-anesthesia evaluation-related tasks. In addition, we used backward deletion to reach the most parsimonious model based on a series of likelihood-ratio tests comparing nested models. Results are reported as predicted means with 95% confidence intervals, with results being interpreted as significant when any 2 predicted means do not overlap between different estimates along with P for trends < .001. We performed all analyses using the R language.15
Results
Of 109 surveyed facilities, 50 (46%) responded to the survey. The final study sample included 67 responses, and 55 were included in the analysis. Twelve responses were excluded from the analysis as they were either incomplete or test responses. Three facilities had > 1 complete response (2 facilities had 2 responses and 1 facility had 4 responses), and these were all included in the analysis.
Thirty-six locations were complex inpatient facilities, and 32 (89%) had pre-anesthesia evaluation clinics (Table 1).
The ability to obtain a history of present illness was rated good/very good via telephone for 34 respondents (92%) and 25 for video (86%). Assessing comorbidities and health habits was rated good/very good via telephone for 32 respondents (89%) and 31 respondents (86%), respectively, and via video for 24 respondents (83%) and 23 respondents (79%), respectively (Figure 1).
To compare differences between the 2 remote pre-anesthesia evaluation modalities, we created GLMs evaluating the association between each modality and the perceived ability to perform the tasks. For GLMs, we transformed the values of the categories into numerical (ie, 1, poor; 2, neutral; 3, good). Compared with telephone, video was rated more favorably regarding the assessment of nutritional status (mean, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.8-2.3 vs mean, 2.4; 95% CI, 2.2-2.7; P = .04) (eAppendix 1, available at doi:10.12788/fp.0387). No other significant differences in ratings existed between the 2 remote pre-anesthesia evaluation modalities.
The most significant barriers (cited as significant or very significant in the survey) included the inability to perform a physical examination, which was noted by 13 respondents (72%) and 15 respondents (60%) for telephone and video, respectively. The inability to obtain vital signs was rated as a significant barrier for telephone by 12 respondents (67%) and for video by 15 respondents (60%)(Figure 2).
The average FIM score was 3.7, with the highest score among respondents who used both phone and video (Table 2). The average AIM score was 3.4, with the highest score among respondents who used both telehealth modalities. The internal consistency of the implementation measures was excellent (Cronbach’s α 0.95 and 0.975 for FIM and AIM, respectively).
Discussion
We surveyed 109 anesthesiology services across the VA regarding barriers to implementing telephone- and video-based pre-anesthesia evaluation visits. We found that 12 (23%) of the 50 anesthesiology services responding to this survey still conduct the totality of their pre-anesthesia evaluations in person. This represents an opportunity to further disseminate the appropriate use of telehealth and potentially reduce travel time, costs, and low-value testing, as it is well established that remote pre-anesthesia evaluations for low-risk procedures are safe and effective.6
We also found no difference between telephone and video regarding users’ perceived ability to perform any of the basic pre-anesthesia evaluation tasks except for assessing patients’ nutritional status, which was rated as easier using video than telephone. According to those not using telephone and/or video, the biggest barriers to implementation of telehealth visits were the inability to obtain vital signs and to perform a physical examination. This finding was unexpected, as facilities that conduct remote evaluations typically defer these tasks to the day of surgery, a practice that has been well established and shown to be safe and efficient. Respondents also identified patient-level factors (eg, patient preference, lack of telephone or computer) as significant barriers. Finally, feasibility ratings were higher than acceptability ratings with regards to the implementation of telehealth.
In 2004, the first use of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations was reported by Wong and colleagues.16 Since then, several case series and a literature review have documented the efficacy, safety, and patient and HCP satisfaction with the use of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations. A study by Mullen-Fortino and colleagues showed reduced visit times when telehealth was used for pre-anesthesia evaluation.8 Another study at VA hospitals showed that 88% of veterans reported that telemedicine saved them time and money.17 A report of 35 patients in rural Australia reported 98% satisfaction with the video quality of the visit, 95% perceived efficacy, and 87% preference for telehealth compared with driving to be seen in person.18 These reports conflict with the perceptions of the respondents of our survey, who identified patient preference as an important barrier to adoption of telehealth. Given these findings, research is needed on veterans’ perceptions on the use of telehealth modalities for pre-anesthesia evaluations; if their perceptions are similarly favorable, it will be important to communicate this information to HCPs and leadership, which may help increase subsequent telehealth adoption.
Despite the reported safety, efficacy, and high satisfaction of video visits among anesthesiology teams conducting pre-anesthesia evaluations, its use remains low at VA. We have found that most facilities in the VA system chose telephone platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic. One possibility is that the adoption of video modalities among pre-anesthesia evaluation clinics in the VA system is resource intensive or difficult from the HCP’s perspective. When combined with the lack of perceived advantages over telephone as we found in our survey, most practitioners resort to the technologically less demanding and more familiar telephone platform. The results from FIM and AIM support this. While both telephone and video have high feasibility scores, acceptability scores are lower for video, even among those currently using this technology. Our findings do not rule out the utility of video-based care in perioperative medicine. Rather than a yes/no proposition, future studies need to establish the precise indications for video for pre-anesthesia evaluations; that is, situations where video visits offer an advantage over telephone. For example, video could be used to deliver preoperative optimization therapies, such as supervised exercise or mental health interventions or to guide the achievement of certain milestones before surgery in patients with chronic conditions, such as target glucose values or the treatment of anemia. Future studies should explore the perceived benefits of video over telephone among centers offering these more advanced optimization interventions.
Limitations
We received responses from a subset of VA anesthesiology services; therefore, they may not be representative of the entire VA system. Facilities designated by the VA as inpatient complex were overrepresented (72% of our sample vs 50% of the total facilities nationally), and ambulatory centers (those designed by the VA as ambulatory procedural center with basic or advanced capabilities) were underrepresented (2% of our sample vs 22% nationally). Despite this, the response rate was high, and no geographic area appeared to be underrepresented. In addition, we surveyed pre-anesthesia evaluation facilities led by anesthesiologists, and the results may not be representative of the preferences of HCPs working in nonanesthesiology led pre-anesthesia evaluation clinics. Finally, just 11 facilities used both telephone and video; therefore, a true direct comparison between these 2 platforms was limited. The VA serves a unique patient population, and the findings may not be completely applicable to the non-VA population.
Conclusions
We found no significant perceived advantages of video over telephone in the ability to conduct routine pre-anesthesia evaluations among a sample of anesthesiology HCPs in the VA except for the perceived ability to assess nutritional status. HCPs with no telehealth experience cited the inability to perform a physical examination and obtain vital signs as the most significant barriers to implementation. Respondents not using telephone cited concerns about safety. Video visits in this clinical setting had additional perceived barriers to implementation, such as lack of information technology and staff support and patient-level barriers. Video had lower acceptability by HCPs. Given findings that pre-anesthesia evaluations can be conducted effectively via telehealth and have high levels of patient satisfaction, future work should focus on increasing uptake of these remote modalities. Additionally, research on the most appropriate uses of video visits within perioperative care is also needed.
1. Starsnic MA, Guarnieri DM, Norris MC. Efficacy and financial benefit of an anesthesiologist-directed university preadmission evaluation center. J Clin Anesth. 1997;9(4):299-305. doi:10.1016/s0952-8180(97)00007-x
2. Kristoffersen EW, Opsal A, Tveit TO, Berg RC, Fossum M. Effectiveness of pre-anaesthetic assessment clinic: a systematic review of randomised and non-randomised prospective controlled studies. BMJ Open. 2022;12(5):e054206. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054206
3. Ferschl MB, Tung A, Sweitzer B, Huo D, Glick DB. Preoperative clinic visits reduce operating room cancellations and delays. Anesthesiology. 2005;103(4):855-9. doi:10.1097/00000542-200510000-00025
4. Blitz JD, Kendale SM, Jain SK, Cuff GE, Kim JT, Rosenberg AD. preoperative evaluation clinic visit is associated with decreased risk of in-hospital postoperative mortality. Anesthesiology. 2016;125(2):280-294. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000001193
5. Dilisio RP, Dilisio AJ, Weiner MM. Preoperative virtual screening examination of the airway. J Clin Anesth. 2014;26(4):315-317. doi:10.1016/j.jclinane.2013.12.010
6. Kamdar NV, Huverserian A, Jalilian L, et al. Development, implementation, and evaluation of a telemedicine preoperative evaluation initiative at a major academic medical center. Anesth Analg. 2020;131(6):1647-1656. doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000005208
7. Azizad O, Joshi GP. Telemedicine for preanesthesia evaluation: review of current literature and recommendations for future implementation. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2021;34(6):672-677. doi:10.1097/ACO.0000000000001064
8. Mullen-Fortino M, Rising KL, Duckworth J, Gwynn V, Sites FD, Hollander JE. Presurgical assessment using telemedicine technology: impact on efficiency, effectiveness, and patient experience of care. Telemed J E Health. 2019;25(2):137-142. doi:10.1089/tmj.2017.0133
9. Zhang K, Rashid-Kolvear M, Waseem R, Englesakis M, Chung F. Virtual preoperative assessment in surgical patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Anesth. 2021;75:110540. doi:10.1016/j.jclinane.2021.110540
10. Mansournia MA, Collins GS, Nielsen RO, et al. A CHecklist for statistical Assessment of Medical Papers (the CHAMP statement): explanation and elaboration. Br J Sports Med. 2021;55(18):1009-1017. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2020-103652
11. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg. 2014;12(12):1495-1499. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.07.013
12. Weiner BJ, Lewis CC, Stanick C, et al. Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):108. doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0635-3
13. Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65-76. doi:10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7
14. Kuhn M, Johnson K. Applied Predictive Modeling. Springer; 2013.
15. Team RC. A language and environment for statistical computing. 2018. Accessed December 16, 2022. https://www.R-project.org
16. Wong DT, Kamming D, Salenieks ME, Go K, Kohm C, Chung F. Preadmission anesthesia consultation using telemedicine technology: a pilot study. Anesthesiology. 2004;100(6):1605-1607. doi:10.1097/00000542-200406000-00038
17. Zetterman CV, Sweitzer BJ, Webb B, Barak-Bernhagen MA, Boedeker BH. Validation of a virtual preoperative evaluation clinic: a pilot study. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2011;163:737-739. doi: 10.3233/978-1-60750-706-2-737
18. Roberts S, Spain B, Hicks C, London J, Tay S. Telemedicine in the Northern Territory: an assessment of patient perceptions in the preoperative anaesthetic clinic. Aust J Rural Health. 2015;23(3):136-141. doi:10.1111/ajr.12140
Days or weeks before a scheduled surgical or invasive procedure involving anesthesia, evaluations are conducted to assess a patient’s condition and risk, optimize their status, and prepare them for their procedure. A comprehensive pre-anesthesia evaluation visit includes a history of present illness, the evaluation of comorbidities and medication use, the assessment of health habits such as alcohol and tobacco use, functional capacity and nutritional assessments, and the identification of social support deficiencies that may influence recovery. It also includes a focused physical examination and laboratory and other ancillary testing as needed and may include optimization interventions such as anemia management or prehabilitation. Conducting pre-anesthesia evaluations before surgery has been shown to reduce delays and cancellations, unnecessary preprocedure testing, hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality.1-4
The pre-anesthesia evaluation is usually conducted in person, although other modalities have been in use for several years and have accelerated since the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, audio-only telephone visits are used in many settings to conduct abbreviated forms of a pre-anesthesia evaluation, typically for less-invasive procedures. When patients are evaluated over the telephone, the physical examination and testing are deferred until the day of the procedure. Another modality is the use of synchronous video telehealth. Emerging evidence for the use of video-based care in anesthesiology provides encouraging results. Several institutions have proven the technological feasibility of performing preoperative evaluations via video.5,6 Compared with in-person evaluations, these visits seem to have similar surgery cancellation rates, improved patient satisfaction, and reduced wait times and costs.7-9
As part of a quality improvement project, we studied the use of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). An internal review found overall low utilization of these modalities before the COVID-19 pandemic that accelerated toward telehealth during the pandemic: The largest uptake was with telephone visits. Given the increasing adoption of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations and the marked preference for telephone over video modalities among VA practitioners during the COVID-19 pandemic, we sought to understand the barriers and facilitators to the adoption of telephone- and video-based pre-anesthesia evaluation visits within the VA.
Methods
Our objective was to assess health care practitioners’ (HCPs) preferences regarding pre-anesthesia evaluation modalities (in-person, telephone, or video), and the perceived advantages and barriers to adoption for each modality. We followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline and Checklist for statistical Assessment of Medical Papers (CHAMP) statement.10,11 The survey was deemed a quality improvement activity that was exempt from institutional review board oversight by the VA National Anesthesia Program Office and the VA Office of Connected Care.
A survey was distributed to all VA anesthesiology service chiefs via email between April 27, 2022, and May 3, 2022. Three emails were sent to each participant (initial invitation and 2 reminders). The respondents were asked to identify themselves by facility and role and to indicate whether their anesthesiology service performed any pre-anesthesia evaluations, including any telephone- or video-based evaluations; and whether their service has a dedicated pre-anesthesia evaluation clinic.
A second set of questions referred to the use of telephone- and video-based preprocedure evaluations. The questions were based on branch logic and depended on the respondent’s answers concerning their use of telephone- and video-based evaluations. Questions included statements about perceived barriers to the adoption of these pre-anesthesia evaluation modalities. Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale, (completely disagree [1] to completely agree [5]). A third section measured acceptability and feasibility of video using the validated Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM) and Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM) questionnaires.12 These instruments are 4-item measures of implementation outcomes that are often considered indicators of implementation success.13 Acceptability is the perception among implementation stakeholders that a given treatment, service, practice, or innovation is agreeable, palatable, or satisfactory. Feasibility is defined as the extent to which a new treatment or an innovation can be successfully used or carried out within a given agency or setting.13 The criterion for acceptability is personal, meaning that different HCPs may have differing needs, preferences, and expectations regarding the same intervention. The criterion for feasibility is practical. An intervention may be considered to be feasible if the required tasks can be performed easily or conveniently. Finally, 2 open-ended questions allowed respondents to identify the most important factor that allowed the implementation of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations in their service, and provide comments about the use of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations at the VA. All questions were developed by the authors except for the 2 implementation measure instruments.
The survey was administered using an electronic survey platform (Qualtrics, version April 2022) and sent by email alongside a brief introductory video. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, as no personal information was collected. Responses were attributed to each facility, using the self-declared affiliation. When an affiliation was not provided, we deduced it using the latitude/longitude of the respondent, a feature included in the survey software. No incentives were provided. Data were stored and maintained in a secure VA server. All completed surveys were included. Some facilities had > 1 complete response, and all were included. Facilities that provided > 1 response and where responses were discordant, we clarified with the facility service chief. Incomplete responses were excluded from the analysis.
Statistics
For this analysis, the 2 positive sentiment responses (agree and completely agree) and the 2 negative sentiment responses (disagree and completely disagree) in the Likert scale were collapsed into single categories (good and poor, respectively). The neither agree nor disagree responses were coded as neutral. Our analysis began with a visual exploration of all variables to evaluate the frequency, percentage, and near-zero variance for categorical variables.14 Near-zero variance occurs when a categorical variable has a low frequency of unique values over the sample size (ie, the variable is almost constant), and we addressed it by combining different variable categorizations. We handled missing values through imputation algorithms followed by sensitivity analyses to verify whether our results were stable with and without imputation. We performed comparisons for the exploratory analysis using P values for one-way analysis of variance tests for numeric variables and χ2 tests for categorical variables. We considered P values < .05 to be statistically significant. We also used correlation matrices and plots as exploratory analysis tools to better understand all items’ correlations. We used Pearson, polychoric, and polyserial correlation tests as appropriate for numeric, ordinal, and logical items.
Our modeling strategy involved a series of generalized linear models (GLMs) with a Gaussian family, ie, multiple linear regression models, to assess the association between (1) facilities’ preferences regarding pre-anesthesia evaluation modalities; (2) advantages between modalities; and (3) barriers to the adoption of telehealth and the ability to perform different pre-anesthesia evaluation-related tasks. In addition, we used backward deletion to reach the most parsimonious model based on a series of likelihood-ratio tests comparing nested models. Results are reported as predicted means with 95% confidence intervals, with results being interpreted as significant when any 2 predicted means do not overlap between different estimates along with P for trends < .001. We performed all analyses using the R language.15
Results
Of 109 surveyed facilities, 50 (46%) responded to the survey. The final study sample included 67 responses, and 55 were included in the analysis. Twelve responses were excluded from the analysis as they were either incomplete or test responses. Three facilities had > 1 complete response (2 facilities had 2 responses and 1 facility had 4 responses), and these were all included in the analysis.
Thirty-six locations were complex inpatient facilities, and 32 (89%) had pre-anesthesia evaluation clinics (Table 1).
The ability to obtain a history of present illness was rated good/very good via telephone for 34 respondents (92%) and 25 for video (86%). Assessing comorbidities and health habits was rated good/very good via telephone for 32 respondents (89%) and 31 respondents (86%), respectively, and via video for 24 respondents (83%) and 23 respondents (79%), respectively (Figure 1).
To compare differences between the 2 remote pre-anesthesia evaluation modalities, we created GLMs evaluating the association between each modality and the perceived ability to perform the tasks. For GLMs, we transformed the values of the categories into numerical (ie, 1, poor; 2, neutral; 3, good). Compared with telephone, video was rated more favorably regarding the assessment of nutritional status (mean, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.8-2.3 vs mean, 2.4; 95% CI, 2.2-2.7; P = .04) (eAppendix 1, available at doi:10.12788/fp.0387). No other significant differences in ratings existed between the 2 remote pre-anesthesia evaluation modalities.
The most significant barriers (cited as significant or very significant in the survey) included the inability to perform a physical examination, which was noted by 13 respondents (72%) and 15 respondents (60%) for telephone and video, respectively. The inability to obtain vital signs was rated as a significant barrier for telephone by 12 respondents (67%) and for video by 15 respondents (60%)(Figure 2).
The average FIM score was 3.7, with the highest score among respondents who used both phone and video (Table 2). The average AIM score was 3.4, with the highest score among respondents who used both telehealth modalities. The internal consistency of the implementation measures was excellent (Cronbach’s α 0.95 and 0.975 for FIM and AIM, respectively).
Discussion
We surveyed 109 anesthesiology services across the VA regarding barriers to implementing telephone- and video-based pre-anesthesia evaluation visits. We found that 12 (23%) of the 50 anesthesiology services responding to this survey still conduct the totality of their pre-anesthesia evaluations in person. This represents an opportunity to further disseminate the appropriate use of telehealth and potentially reduce travel time, costs, and low-value testing, as it is well established that remote pre-anesthesia evaluations for low-risk procedures are safe and effective.6
We also found no difference between telephone and video regarding users’ perceived ability to perform any of the basic pre-anesthesia evaluation tasks except for assessing patients’ nutritional status, which was rated as easier using video than telephone. According to those not using telephone and/or video, the biggest barriers to implementation of telehealth visits were the inability to obtain vital signs and to perform a physical examination. This finding was unexpected, as facilities that conduct remote evaluations typically defer these tasks to the day of surgery, a practice that has been well established and shown to be safe and efficient. Respondents also identified patient-level factors (eg, patient preference, lack of telephone or computer) as significant barriers. Finally, feasibility ratings were higher than acceptability ratings with regards to the implementation of telehealth.
In 2004, the first use of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations was reported by Wong and colleagues.16 Since then, several case series and a literature review have documented the efficacy, safety, and patient and HCP satisfaction with the use of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations. A study by Mullen-Fortino and colleagues showed reduced visit times when telehealth was used for pre-anesthesia evaluation.8 Another study at VA hospitals showed that 88% of veterans reported that telemedicine saved them time and money.17 A report of 35 patients in rural Australia reported 98% satisfaction with the video quality of the visit, 95% perceived efficacy, and 87% preference for telehealth compared with driving to be seen in person.18 These reports conflict with the perceptions of the respondents of our survey, who identified patient preference as an important barrier to adoption of telehealth. Given these findings, research is needed on veterans’ perceptions on the use of telehealth modalities for pre-anesthesia evaluations; if their perceptions are similarly favorable, it will be important to communicate this information to HCPs and leadership, which may help increase subsequent telehealth adoption.
Despite the reported safety, efficacy, and high satisfaction of video visits among anesthesiology teams conducting pre-anesthesia evaluations, its use remains low at VA. We have found that most facilities in the VA system chose telephone platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic. One possibility is that the adoption of video modalities among pre-anesthesia evaluation clinics in the VA system is resource intensive or difficult from the HCP’s perspective. When combined with the lack of perceived advantages over telephone as we found in our survey, most practitioners resort to the technologically less demanding and more familiar telephone platform. The results from FIM and AIM support this. While both telephone and video have high feasibility scores, acceptability scores are lower for video, even among those currently using this technology. Our findings do not rule out the utility of video-based care in perioperative medicine. Rather than a yes/no proposition, future studies need to establish the precise indications for video for pre-anesthesia evaluations; that is, situations where video visits offer an advantage over telephone. For example, video could be used to deliver preoperative optimization therapies, such as supervised exercise or mental health interventions or to guide the achievement of certain milestones before surgery in patients with chronic conditions, such as target glucose values or the treatment of anemia. Future studies should explore the perceived benefits of video over telephone among centers offering these more advanced optimization interventions.
Limitations
We received responses from a subset of VA anesthesiology services; therefore, they may not be representative of the entire VA system. Facilities designated by the VA as inpatient complex were overrepresented (72% of our sample vs 50% of the total facilities nationally), and ambulatory centers (those designed by the VA as ambulatory procedural center with basic or advanced capabilities) were underrepresented (2% of our sample vs 22% nationally). Despite this, the response rate was high, and no geographic area appeared to be underrepresented. In addition, we surveyed pre-anesthesia evaluation facilities led by anesthesiologists, and the results may not be representative of the preferences of HCPs working in nonanesthesiology led pre-anesthesia evaluation clinics. Finally, just 11 facilities used both telephone and video; therefore, a true direct comparison between these 2 platforms was limited. The VA serves a unique patient population, and the findings may not be completely applicable to the non-VA population.
Conclusions
We found no significant perceived advantages of video over telephone in the ability to conduct routine pre-anesthesia evaluations among a sample of anesthesiology HCPs in the VA except for the perceived ability to assess nutritional status. HCPs with no telehealth experience cited the inability to perform a physical examination and obtain vital signs as the most significant barriers to implementation. Respondents not using telephone cited concerns about safety. Video visits in this clinical setting had additional perceived barriers to implementation, such as lack of information technology and staff support and patient-level barriers. Video had lower acceptability by HCPs. Given findings that pre-anesthesia evaluations can be conducted effectively via telehealth and have high levels of patient satisfaction, future work should focus on increasing uptake of these remote modalities. Additionally, research on the most appropriate uses of video visits within perioperative care is also needed.
Days or weeks before a scheduled surgical or invasive procedure involving anesthesia, evaluations are conducted to assess a patient’s condition and risk, optimize their status, and prepare them for their procedure. A comprehensive pre-anesthesia evaluation visit includes a history of present illness, the evaluation of comorbidities and medication use, the assessment of health habits such as alcohol and tobacco use, functional capacity and nutritional assessments, and the identification of social support deficiencies that may influence recovery. It also includes a focused physical examination and laboratory and other ancillary testing as needed and may include optimization interventions such as anemia management or prehabilitation. Conducting pre-anesthesia evaluations before surgery has been shown to reduce delays and cancellations, unnecessary preprocedure testing, hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality.1-4
The pre-anesthesia evaluation is usually conducted in person, although other modalities have been in use for several years and have accelerated since the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, audio-only telephone visits are used in many settings to conduct abbreviated forms of a pre-anesthesia evaluation, typically for less-invasive procedures. When patients are evaluated over the telephone, the physical examination and testing are deferred until the day of the procedure. Another modality is the use of synchronous video telehealth. Emerging evidence for the use of video-based care in anesthesiology provides encouraging results. Several institutions have proven the technological feasibility of performing preoperative evaluations via video.5,6 Compared with in-person evaluations, these visits seem to have similar surgery cancellation rates, improved patient satisfaction, and reduced wait times and costs.7-9
As part of a quality improvement project, we studied the use of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations within the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). An internal review found overall low utilization of these modalities before the COVID-19 pandemic that accelerated toward telehealth during the pandemic: The largest uptake was with telephone visits. Given the increasing adoption of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations and the marked preference for telephone over video modalities among VA practitioners during the COVID-19 pandemic, we sought to understand the barriers and facilitators to the adoption of telephone- and video-based pre-anesthesia evaluation visits within the VA.
Methods
Our objective was to assess health care practitioners’ (HCPs) preferences regarding pre-anesthesia evaluation modalities (in-person, telephone, or video), and the perceived advantages and barriers to adoption for each modality. We followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline and Checklist for statistical Assessment of Medical Papers (CHAMP) statement.10,11 The survey was deemed a quality improvement activity that was exempt from institutional review board oversight by the VA National Anesthesia Program Office and the VA Office of Connected Care.
A survey was distributed to all VA anesthesiology service chiefs via email between April 27, 2022, and May 3, 2022. Three emails were sent to each participant (initial invitation and 2 reminders). The respondents were asked to identify themselves by facility and role and to indicate whether their anesthesiology service performed any pre-anesthesia evaluations, including any telephone- or video-based evaluations; and whether their service has a dedicated pre-anesthesia evaluation clinic.
A second set of questions referred to the use of telephone- and video-based preprocedure evaluations. The questions were based on branch logic and depended on the respondent’s answers concerning their use of telephone- and video-based evaluations. Questions included statements about perceived barriers to the adoption of these pre-anesthesia evaluation modalities. Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale, (completely disagree [1] to completely agree [5]). A third section measured acceptability and feasibility of video using the validated Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM) and Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM) questionnaires.12 These instruments are 4-item measures of implementation outcomes that are often considered indicators of implementation success.13 Acceptability is the perception among implementation stakeholders that a given treatment, service, practice, or innovation is agreeable, palatable, or satisfactory. Feasibility is defined as the extent to which a new treatment or an innovation can be successfully used or carried out within a given agency or setting.13 The criterion for acceptability is personal, meaning that different HCPs may have differing needs, preferences, and expectations regarding the same intervention. The criterion for feasibility is practical. An intervention may be considered to be feasible if the required tasks can be performed easily or conveniently. Finally, 2 open-ended questions allowed respondents to identify the most important factor that allowed the implementation of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations in their service, and provide comments about the use of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations at the VA. All questions were developed by the authors except for the 2 implementation measure instruments.
The survey was administered using an electronic survey platform (Qualtrics, version April 2022) and sent by email alongside a brief introductory video. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, as no personal information was collected. Responses were attributed to each facility, using the self-declared affiliation. When an affiliation was not provided, we deduced it using the latitude/longitude of the respondent, a feature included in the survey software. No incentives were provided. Data were stored and maintained in a secure VA server. All completed surveys were included. Some facilities had > 1 complete response, and all were included. Facilities that provided > 1 response and where responses were discordant, we clarified with the facility service chief. Incomplete responses were excluded from the analysis.
Statistics
For this analysis, the 2 positive sentiment responses (agree and completely agree) and the 2 negative sentiment responses (disagree and completely disagree) in the Likert scale were collapsed into single categories (good and poor, respectively). The neither agree nor disagree responses were coded as neutral. Our analysis began with a visual exploration of all variables to evaluate the frequency, percentage, and near-zero variance for categorical variables.14 Near-zero variance occurs when a categorical variable has a low frequency of unique values over the sample size (ie, the variable is almost constant), and we addressed it by combining different variable categorizations. We handled missing values through imputation algorithms followed by sensitivity analyses to verify whether our results were stable with and without imputation. We performed comparisons for the exploratory analysis using P values for one-way analysis of variance tests for numeric variables and χ2 tests for categorical variables. We considered P values < .05 to be statistically significant. We also used correlation matrices and plots as exploratory analysis tools to better understand all items’ correlations. We used Pearson, polychoric, and polyserial correlation tests as appropriate for numeric, ordinal, and logical items.
Our modeling strategy involved a series of generalized linear models (GLMs) with a Gaussian family, ie, multiple linear regression models, to assess the association between (1) facilities’ preferences regarding pre-anesthesia evaluation modalities; (2) advantages between modalities; and (3) barriers to the adoption of telehealth and the ability to perform different pre-anesthesia evaluation-related tasks. In addition, we used backward deletion to reach the most parsimonious model based on a series of likelihood-ratio tests comparing nested models. Results are reported as predicted means with 95% confidence intervals, with results being interpreted as significant when any 2 predicted means do not overlap between different estimates along with P for trends < .001. We performed all analyses using the R language.15
Results
Of 109 surveyed facilities, 50 (46%) responded to the survey. The final study sample included 67 responses, and 55 were included in the analysis. Twelve responses were excluded from the analysis as they were either incomplete or test responses. Three facilities had > 1 complete response (2 facilities had 2 responses and 1 facility had 4 responses), and these were all included in the analysis.
Thirty-six locations were complex inpatient facilities, and 32 (89%) had pre-anesthesia evaluation clinics (Table 1).
The ability to obtain a history of present illness was rated good/very good via telephone for 34 respondents (92%) and 25 for video (86%). Assessing comorbidities and health habits was rated good/very good via telephone for 32 respondents (89%) and 31 respondents (86%), respectively, and via video for 24 respondents (83%) and 23 respondents (79%), respectively (Figure 1).
To compare differences between the 2 remote pre-anesthesia evaluation modalities, we created GLMs evaluating the association between each modality and the perceived ability to perform the tasks. For GLMs, we transformed the values of the categories into numerical (ie, 1, poor; 2, neutral; 3, good). Compared with telephone, video was rated more favorably regarding the assessment of nutritional status (mean, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.8-2.3 vs mean, 2.4; 95% CI, 2.2-2.7; P = .04) (eAppendix 1, available at doi:10.12788/fp.0387). No other significant differences in ratings existed between the 2 remote pre-anesthesia evaluation modalities.
The most significant barriers (cited as significant or very significant in the survey) included the inability to perform a physical examination, which was noted by 13 respondents (72%) and 15 respondents (60%) for telephone and video, respectively. The inability to obtain vital signs was rated as a significant barrier for telephone by 12 respondents (67%) and for video by 15 respondents (60%)(Figure 2).
The average FIM score was 3.7, with the highest score among respondents who used both phone and video (Table 2). The average AIM score was 3.4, with the highest score among respondents who used both telehealth modalities. The internal consistency of the implementation measures was excellent (Cronbach’s α 0.95 and 0.975 for FIM and AIM, respectively).
Discussion
We surveyed 109 anesthesiology services across the VA regarding barriers to implementing telephone- and video-based pre-anesthesia evaluation visits. We found that 12 (23%) of the 50 anesthesiology services responding to this survey still conduct the totality of their pre-anesthesia evaluations in person. This represents an opportunity to further disseminate the appropriate use of telehealth and potentially reduce travel time, costs, and low-value testing, as it is well established that remote pre-anesthesia evaluations for low-risk procedures are safe and effective.6
We also found no difference between telephone and video regarding users’ perceived ability to perform any of the basic pre-anesthesia evaluation tasks except for assessing patients’ nutritional status, which was rated as easier using video than telephone. According to those not using telephone and/or video, the biggest barriers to implementation of telehealth visits were the inability to obtain vital signs and to perform a physical examination. This finding was unexpected, as facilities that conduct remote evaluations typically defer these tasks to the day of surgery, a practice that has been well established and shown to be safe and efficient. Respondents also identified patient-level factors (eg, patient preference, lack of telephone or computer) as significant barriers. Finally, feasibility ratings were higher than acceptability ratings with regards to the implementation of telehealth.
In 2004, the first use of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations was reported by Wong and colleagues.16 Since then, several case series and a literature review have documented the efficacy, safety, and patient and HCP satisfaction with the use of telehealth for pre-anesthesia evaluations. A study by Mullen-Fortino and colleagues showed reduced visit times when telehealth was used for pre-anesthesia evaluation.8 Another study at VA hospitals showed that 88% of veterans reported that telemedicine saved them time and money.17 A report of 35 patients in rural Australia reported 98% satisfaction with the video quality of the visit, 95% perceived efficacy, and 87% preference for telehealth compared with driving to be seen in person.18 These reports conflict with the perceptions of the respondents of our survey, who identified patient preference as an important barrier to adoption of telehealth. Given these findings, research is needed on veterans’ perceptions on the use of telehealth modalities for pre-anesthesia evaluations; if their perceptions are similarly favorable, it will be important to communicate this information to HCPs and leadership, which may help increase subsequent telehealth adoption.
Despite the reported safety, efficacy, and high satisfaction of video visits among anesthesiology teams conducting pre-anesthesia evaluations, its use remains low at VA. We have found that most facilities in the VA system chose telephone platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic. One possibility is that the adoption of video modalities among pre-anesthesia evaluation clinics in the VA system is resource intensive or difficult from the HCP’s perspective. When combined with the lack of perceived advantages over telephone as we found in our survey, most practitioners resort to the technologically less demanding and more familiar telephone platform. The results from FIM and AIM support this. While both telephone and video have high feasibility scores, acceptability scores are lower for video, even among those currently using this technology. Our findings do not rule out the utility of video-based care in perioperative medicine. Rather than a yes/no proposition, future studies need to establish the precise indications for video for pre-anesthesia evaluations; that is, situations where video visits offer an advantage over telephone. For example, video could be used to deliver preoperative optimization therapies, such as supervised exercise or mental health interventions or to guide the achievement of certain milestones before surgery in patients with chronic conditions, such as target glucose values or the treatment of anemia. Future studies should explore the perceived benefits of video over telephone among centers offering these more advanced optimization interventions.
Limitations
We received responses from a subset of VA anesthesiology services; therefore, they may not be representative of the entire VA system. Facilities designated by the VA as inpatient complex were overrepresented (72% of our sample vs 50% of the total facilities nationally), and ambulatory centers (those designed by the VA as ambulatory procedural center with basic or advanced capabilities) were underrepresented (2% of our sample vs 22% nationally). Despite this, the response rate was high, and no geographic area appeared to be underrepresented. In addition, we surveyed pre-anesthesia evaluation facilities led by anesthesiologists, and the results may not be representative of the preferences of HCPs working in nonanesthesiology led pre-anesthesia evaluation clinics. Finally, just 11 facilities used both telephone and video; therefore, a true direct comparison between these 2 platforms was limited. The VA serves a unique patient population, and the findings may not be completely applicable to the non-VA population.
Conclusions
We found no significant perceived advantages of video over telephone in the ability to conduct routine pre-anesthesia evaluations among a sample of anesthesiology HCPs in the VA except for the perceived ability to assess nutritional status. HCPs with no telehealth experience cited the inability to perform a physical examination and obtain vital signs as the most significant barriers to implementation. Respondents not using telephone cited concerns about safety. Video visits in this clinical setting had additional perceived barriers to implementation, such as lack of information technology and staff support and patient-level barriers. Video had lower acceptability by HCPs. Given findings that pre-anesthesia evaluations can be conducted effectively via telehealth and have high levels of patient satisfaction, future work should focus on increasing uptake of these remote modalities. Additionally, research on the most appropriate uses of video visits within perioperative care is also needed.
1. Starsnic MA, Guarnieri DM, Norris MC. Efficacy and financial benefit of an anesthesiologist-directed university preadmission evaluation center. J Clin Anesth. 1997;9(4):299-305. doi:10.1016/s0952-8180(97)00007-x
2. Kristoffersen EW, Opsal A, Tveit TO, Berg RC, Fossum M. Effectiveness of pre-anaesthetic assessment clinic: a systematic review of randomised and non-randomised prospective controlled studies. BMJ Open. 2022;12(5):e054206. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054206
3. Ferschl MB, Tung A, Sweitzer B, Huo D, Glick DB. Preoperative clinic visits reduce operating room cancellations and delays. Anesthesiology. 2005;103(4):855-9. doi:10.1097/00000542-200510000-00025
4. Blitz JD, Kendale SM, Jain SK, Cuff GE, Kim JT, Rosenberg AD. preoperative evaluation clinic visit is associated with decreased risk of in-hospital postoperative mortality. Anesthesiology. 2016;125(2):280-294. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000001193
5. Dilisio RP, Dilisio AJ, Weiner MM. Preoperative virtual screening examination of the airway. J Clin Anesth. 2014;26(4):315-317. doi:10.1016/j.jclinane.2013.12.010
6. Kamdar NV, Huverserian A, Jalilian L, et al. Development, implementation, and evaluation of a telemedicine preoperative evaluation initiative at a major academic medical center. Anesth Analg. 2020;131(6):1647-1656. doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000005208
7. Azizad O, Joshi GP. Telemedicine for preanesthesia evaluation: review of current literature and recommendations for future implementation. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2021;34(6):672-677. doi:10.1097/ACO.0000000000001064
8. Mullen-Fortino M, Rising KL, Duckworth J, Gwynn V, Sites FD, Hollander JE. Presurgical assessment using telemedicine technology: impact on efficiency, effectiveness, and patient experience of care. Telemed J E Health. 2019;25(2):137-142. doi:10.1089/tmj.2017.0133
9. Zhang K, Rashid-Kolvear M, Waseem R, Englesakis M, Chung F. Virtual preoperative assessment in surgical patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Anesth. 2021;75:110540. doi:10.1016/j.jclinane.2021.110540
10. Mansournia MA, Collins GS, Nielsen RO, et al. A CHecklist for statistical Assessment of Medical Papers (the CHAMP statement): explanation and elaboration. Br J Sports Med. 2021;55(18):1009-1017. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2020-103652
11. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg. 2014;12(12):1495-1499. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.07.013
12. Weiner BJ, Lewis CC, Stanick C, et al. Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):108. doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0635-3
13. Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65-76. doi:10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7
14. Kuhn M, Johnson K. Applied Predictive Modeling. Springer; 2013.
15. Team RC. A language and environment for statistical computing. 2018. Accessed December 16, 2022. https://www.R-project.org
16. Wong DT, Kamming D, Salenieks ME, Go K, Kohm C, Chung F. Preadmission anesthesia consultation using telemedicine technology: a pilot study. Anesthesiology. 2004;100(6):1605-1607. doi:10.1097/00000542-200406000-00038
17. Zetterman CV, Sweitzer BJ, Webb B, Barak-Bernhagen MA, Boedeker BH. Validation of a virtual preoperative evaluation clinic: a pilot study. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2011;163:737-739. doi: 10.3233/978-1-60750-706-2-737
18. Roberts S, Spain B, Hicks C, London J, Tay S. Telemedicine in the Northern Territory: an assessment of patient perceptions in the preoperative anaesthetic clinic. Aust J Rural Health. 2015;23(3):136-141. doi:10.1111/ajr.12140
1. Starsnic MA, Guarnieri DM, Norris MC. Efficacy and financial benefit of an anesthesiologist-directed university preadmission evaluation center. J Clin Anesth. 1997;9(4):299-305. doi:10.1016/s0952-8180(97)00007-x
2. Kristoffersen EW, Opsal A, Tveit TO, Berg RC, Fossum M. Effectiveness of pre-anaesthetic assessment clinic: a systematic review of randomised and non-randomised prospective controlled studies. BMJ Open. 2022;12(5):e054206. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054206
3. Ferschl MB, Tung A, Sweitzer B, Huo D, Glick DB. Preoperative clinic visits reduce operating room cancellations and delays. Anesthesiology. 2005;103(4):855-9. doi:10.1097/00000542-200510000-00025
4. Blitz JD, Kendale SM, Jain SK, Cuff GE, Kim JT, Rosenberg AD. preoperative evaluation clinic visit is associated with decreased risk of in-hospital postoperative mortality. Anesthesiology. 2016;125(2):280-294. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000001193
5. Dilisio RP, Dilisio AJ, Weiner MM. Preoperative virtual screening examination of the airway. J Clin Anesth. 2014;26(4):315-317. doi:10.1016/j.jclinane.2013.12.010
6. Kamdar NV, Huverserian A, Jalilian L, et al. Development, implementation, and evaluation of a telemedicine preoperative evaluation initiative at a major academic medical center. Anesth Analg. 2020;131(6):1647-1656. doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000005208
7. Azizad O, Joshi GP. Telemedicine for preanesthesia evaluation: review of current literature and recommendations for future implementation. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2021;34(6):672-677. doi:10.1097/ACO.0000000000001064
8. Mullen-Fortino M, Rising KL, Duckworth J, Gwynn V, Sites FD, Hollander JE. Presurgical assessment using telemedicine technology: impact on efficiency, effectiveness, and patient experience of care. Telemed J E Health. 2019;25(2):137-142. doi:10.1089/tmj.2017.0133
9. Zhang K, Rashid-Kolvear M, Waseem R, Englesakis M, Chung F. Virtual preoperative assessment in surgical patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Anesth. 2021;75:110540. doi:10.1016/j.jclinane.2021.110540
10. Mansournia MA, Collins GS, Nielsen RO, et al. A CHecklist for statistical Assessment of Medical Papers (the CHAMP statement): explanation and elaboration. Br J Sports Med. 2021;55(18):1009-1017. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2020-103652
11. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg. 2014;12(12):1495-1499. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.07.013
12. Weiner BJ, Lewis CC, Stanick C, et al. Psychometric assessment of three newly developed implementation outcome measures. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):108. doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0635-3
13. Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65-76. doi:10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7
14. Kuhn M, Johnson K. Applied Predictive Modeling. Springer; 2013.
15. Team RC. A language and environment for statistical computing. 2018. Accessed December 16, 2022. https://www.R-project.org
16. Wong DT, Kamming D, Salenieks ME, Go K, Kohm C, Chung F. Preadmission anesthesia consultation using telemedicine technology: a pilot study. Anesthesiology. 2004;100(6):1605-1607. doi:10.1097/00000542-200406000-00038
17. Zetterman CV, Sweitzer BJ, Webb B, Barak-Bernhagen MA, Boedeker BH. Validation of a virtual preoperative evaluation clinic: a pilot study. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2011;163:737-739. doi: 10.3233/978-1-60750-706-2-737
18. Roberts S, Spain B, Hicks C, London J, Tay S. Telemedicine in the Northern Territory: an assessment of patient perceptions in the preoperative anaesthetic clinic. Aust J Rural Health. 2015;23(3):136-141. doi:10.1111/ajr.12140
Placebo effect can be found in a cup of coffee
The best part of waking up is placebo in your cup
Coffee makes the world go round. It’s impossible to picture any workplace without a cast of forlorn characters huddled around the office coffee maker on a Monday morning, imbibing their beverage du jour until they’ve been lifted out of their semi-zombified stupor.
Millions upon millions of people swear by their morning coffee. And if they don’t get that sweet, sweet caffeine boost, they’ll make Garfield and the Boomtown Rats’ opinions of Mondays look tame. And it only makes sense that they’d believe that. After all, caffeine is a stimulant. It helps your brain focus and kicks it into overdrive. Of course drinking a beverage full of caffeine wakes you up. Right?
Not so fast, a group of Portuguese researchers say. That morning cup of coffee? It may actually be a placebo. Cue the dramatic sound effect.
Here’s the scoop: After recruiting a group of coffee drinkers (at least one cup a day), the researchers kept their test subjects off of coffee for at least 3 hours, then performed a brief functional MRI scan on all test subjects. Half an hour later, study participants received either a standard cup of coffee or pure caffeine. Half an hour after consuming their respective study product, the subjects underwent a second MRI.
As expected, both people who consumed coffee and those who consumed pure caffeine showed decreased connectivity in the default mode network after consumption, indicating preparation in the brain to move from resting to working on tasks. However, those who had pure caffeine did not show increased connectivity in the visual and executive control networks, while those who had coffee did. Simply put, caffeine may wake you up, but it doesn’t make you any sharper. Only coffee gets you in shape for that oh-so-important Monday meeting.
This doesn’t make a lot of sense. How can the drug part of coffee not be responsible for every effect the drink gives you? That’s where the placebo comes in, according to the scientists. It’s possible the effect they saw was caused by withdrawal – after just 3 hours? Yikes, hope not – but it’s more likely it comes down to psychology. We expect coffee to wake us up and make us ready for the day, so that’s exactly what it does. Hey, if that’s all it takes, time to convince ourselves that eating an entire pizza is actually an incredibly effective weight loss tool. Don’t let us down now, placebo effect.
Bread, milk, toilet paper, AFib diagnosis
Now consider the shopping cart. It does its job of carrying stuff around the store well enough, but can it lift you out of a semi-zombified stupor in the morning? No. Can it identify undiagnosed atrial fibrillation? Again, no.
Not so fast, say the investigators conducting the SHOPS-AF (Supermarket/Hypermarket Opportunistic Screening for Atrial Fibrillation) study. They built a better shopping cart. Except they call it a trolley, not a cart, since the study was conducted in England, where they sometimes have funny names for things.
Their improved shopping trolley – we’re just going to call it a cart from here on – has an electrocardiogram sensor embedded into the handlebar, so it can effectively detect AFib in shoppers who held it for at least 60 seconds. The sensor lights up red if it detects an irregular heartbeat and green if it does not. Let’s see a cup of coffee do that.
They put 10 of these modified carts in four supermarkets in Liverpool to see what would happen. Would shoppers be able to tell that we secretly replaced the fine coffee they usually serve with Folger’s crystals? Oops. Sorry about that. Coffee on the brain, apparently. Back to the carts.
A total of 2,155 adult shoppers used one of the carts over 2 months, and electrocardiogram data were available for 220 participants who either had a red light on the sensor and/or an irregular pulse that suggested atrial fibrillation. After further review by the SHOPS-AF cardiologist, AFib was diagnosed in 59 shoppers, of whom 39 were previously undiagnosed.
They’re already working to cut the scan time to 30 seconds for SHOPS-AF II, but we’re wondering about a possible flaw in the whole health-care-delivery-through-shopping-cart scenario. When we go to the local super/hyper/megamart, it seems like half of the people trundling up and down the aisles are store employees filling orders for customers who won’t even set foot inside. Is the shopping cart on its way out? Maybe. Who wants to tell the SHOPS-AF II team? Not us.
Put pneumonia where your mouth is
Getting dentures does not mean the end of dental care. If anything, new research reveals a huge reason for staying on top of one’s denture care: pneumonia.
It all started with swabs. Scientists in the United Kingdom took mouth, tongue, and denture specimens from frail elderly hospital patients who had pneumonia and wore dentures and from similar patients in care homes who wore dentures and did not have pneumonia. When they compared the microbial populations of the two groups, the investigators found about 20 times the number of respiratory pathogens on the dentures of those with pneumonia.
The research team suggested that dentures may play a role in causing pneumonia, but lead author Josh Twigg, BDS, PhD, also noted that “you certainly couldn’t say that people got pneumonia because they were wearing dentures. It’s just showing that there is an association there.” Improper cleaning, though, could lead to microbial colonization of the dentures, and patients could be inhaling those microbes into their lungs, thereby turning a dental issue into a respiratory issue.
More research needs to be done on the association between dentures and pneumonia, but Dr. Twigg hoped that the results of this study could be presented to the public. The message? “It is important to clean dentures thoroughly” and visit the dentist regularly, he said, but the best way to prevent denture-related infections is to avoid needing to wear dentures entirely.
The best part of waking up is placebo in your cup
Coffee makes the world go round. It’s impossible to picture any workplace without a cast of forlorn characters huddled around the office coffee maker on a Monday morning, imbibing their beverage du jour until they’ve been lifted out of their semi-zombified stupor.
Millions upon millions of people swear by their morning coffee. And if they don’t get that sweet, sweet caffeine boost, they’ll make Garfield and the Boomtown Rats’ opinions of Mondays look tame. And it only makes sense that they’d believe that. After all, caffeine is a stimulant. It helps your brain focus and kicks it into overdrive. Of course drinking a beverage full of caffeine wakes you up. Right?
Not so fast, a group of Portuguese researchers say. That morning cup of coffee? It may actually be a placebo. Cue the dramatic sound effect.
Here’s the scoop: After recruiting a group of coffee drinkers (at least one cup a day), the researchers kept their test subjects off of coffee for at least 3 hours, then performed a brief functional MRI scan on all test subjects. Half an hour later, study participants received either a standard cup of coffee or pure caffeine. Half an hour after consuming their respective study product, the subjects underwent a second MRI.
As expected, both people who consumed coffee and those who consumed pure caffeine showed decreased connectivity in the default mode network after consumption, indicating preparation in the brain to move from resting to working on tasks. However, those who had pure caffeine did not show increased connectivity in the visual and executive control networks, while those who had coffee did. Simply put, caffeine may wake you up, but it doesn’t make you any sharper. Only coffee gets you in shape for that oh-so-important Monday meeting.
This doesn’t make a lot of sense. How can the drug part of coffee not be responsible for every effect the drink gives you? That’s where the placebo comes in, according to the scientists. It’s possible the effect they saw was caused by withdrawal – after just 3 hours? Yikes, hope not – but it’s more likely it comes down to psychology. We expect coffee to wake us up and make us ready for the day, so that’s exactly what it does. Hey, if that’s all it takes, time to convince ourselves that eating an entire pizza is actually an incredibly effective weight loss tool. Don’t let us down now, placebo effect.
Bread, milk, toilet paper, AFib diagnosis
Now consider the shopping cart. It does its job of carrying stuff around the store well enough, but can it lift you out of a semi-zombified stupor in the morning? No. Can it identify undiagnosed atrial fibrillation? Again, no.
Not so fast, say the investigators conducting the SHOPS-AF (Supermarket/Hypermarket Opportunistic Screening for Atrial Fibrillation) study. They built a better shopping cart. Except they call it a trolley, not a cart, since the study was conducted in England, where they sometimes have funny names for things.
Their improved shopping trolley – we’re just going to call it a cart from here on – has an electrocardiogram sensor embedded into the handlebar, so it can effectively detect AFib in shoppers who held it for at least 60 seconds. The sensor lights up red if it detects an irregular heartbeat and green if it does not. Let’s see a cup of coffee do that.
They put 10 of these modified carts in four supermarkets in Liverpool to see what would happen. Would shoppers be able to tell that we secretly replaced the fine coffee they usually serve with Folger’s crystals? Oops. Sorry about that. Coffee on the brain, apparently. Back to the carts.
A total of 2,155 adult shoppers used one of the carts over 2 months, and electrocardiogram data were available for 220 participants who either had a red light on the sensor and/or an irregular pulse that suggested atrial fibrillation. After further review by the SHOPS-AF cardiologist, AFib was diagnosed in 59 shoppers, of whom 39 were previously undiagnosed.
They’re already working to cut the scan time to 30 seconds for SHOPS-AF II, but we’re wondering about a possible flaw in the whole health-care-delivery-through-shopping-cart scenario. When we go to the local super/hyper/megamart, it seems like half of the people trundling up and down the aisles are store employees filling orders for customers who won’t even set foot inside. Is the shopping cart on its way out? Maybe. Who wants to tell the SHOPS-AF II team? Not us.
Put pneumonia where your mouth is
Getting dentures does not mean the end of dental care. If anything, new research reveals a huge reason for staying on top of one’s denture care: pneumonia.
It all started with swabs. Scientists in the United Kingdom took mouth, tongue, and denture specimens from frail elderly hospital patients who had pneumonia and wore dentures and from similar patients in care homes who wore dentures and did not have pneumonia. When they compared the microbial populations of the two groups, the investigators found about 20 times the number of respiratory pathogens on the dentures of those with pneumonia.
The research team suggested that dentures may play a role in causing pneumonia, but lead author Josh Twigg, BDS, PhD, also noted that “you certainly couldn’t say that people got pneumonia because they were wearing dentures. It’s just showing that there is an association there.” Improper cleaning, though, could lead to microbial colonization of the dentures, and patients could be inhaling those microbes into their lungs, thereby turning a dental issue into a respiratory issue.
More research needs to be done on the association between dentures and pneumonia, but Dr. Twigg hoped that the results of this study could be presented to the public. The message? “It is important to clean dentures thoroughly” and visit the dentist regularly, he said, but the best way to prevent denture-related infections is to avoid needing to wear dentures entirely.
The best part of waking up is placebo in your cup
Coffee makes the world go round. It’s impossible to picture any workplace without a cast of forlorn characters huddled around the office coffee maker on a Monday morning, imbibing their beverage du jour until they’ve been lifted out of their semi-zombified stupor.
Millions upon millions of people swear by their morning coffee. And if they don’t get that sweet, sweet caffeine boost, they’ll make Garfield and the Boomtown Rats’ opinions of Mondays look tame. And it only makes sense that they’d believe that. After all, caffeine is a stimulant. It helps your brain focus and kicks it into overdrive. Of course drinking a beverage full of caffeine wakes you up. Right?
Not so fast, a group of Portuguese researchers say. That morning cup of coffee? It may actually be a placebo. Cue the dramatic sound effect.
Here’s the scoop: After recruiting a group of coffee drinkers (at least one cup a day), the researchers kept their test subjects off of coffee for at least 3 hours, then performed a brief functional MRI scan on all test subjects. Half an hour later, study participants received either a standard cup of coffee or pure caffeine. Half an hour after consuming their respective study product, the subjects underwent a second MRI.
As expected, both people who consumed coffee and those who consumed pure caffeine showed decreased connectivity in the default mode network after consumption, indicating preparation in the brain to move from resting to working on tasks. However, those who had pure caffeine did not show increased connectivity in the visual and executive control networks, while those who had coffee did. Simply put, caffeine may wake you up, but it doesn’t make you any sharper. Only coffee gets you in shape for that oh-so-important Monday meeting.
This doesn’t make a lot of sense. How can the drug part of coffee not be responsible for every effect the drink gives you? That’s where the placebo comes in, according to the scientists. It’s possible the effect they saw was caused by withdrawal – after just 3 hours? Yikes, hope not – but it’s more likely it comes down to psychology. We expect coffee to wake us up and make us ready for the day, so that’s exactly what it does. Hey, if that’s all it takes, time to convince ourselves that eating an entire pizza is actually an incredibly effective weight loss tool. Don’t let us down now, placebo effect.
Bread, milk, toilet paper, AFib diagnosis
Now consider the shopping cart. It does its job of carrying stuff around the store well enough, but can it lift you out of a semi-zombified stupor in the morning? No. Can it identify undiagnosed atrial fibrillation? Again, no.
Not so fast, say the investigators conducting the SHOPS-AF (Supermarket/Hypermarket Opportunistic Screening for Atrial Fibrillation) study. They built a better shopping cart. Except they call it a trolley, not a cart, since the study was conducted in England, where they sometimes have funny names for things.
Their improved shopping trolley – we’re just going to call it a cart from here on – has an electrocardiogram sensor embedded into the handlebar, so it can effectively detect AFib in shoppers who held it for at least 60 seconds. The sensor lights up red if it detects an irregular heartbeat and green if it does not. Let’s see a cup of coffee do that.
They put 10 of these modified carts in four supermarkets in Liverpool to see what would happen. Would shoppers be able to tell that we secretly replaced the fine coffee they usually serve with Folger’s crystals? Oops. Sorry about that. Coffee on the brain, apparently. Back to the carts.
A total of 2,155 adult shoppers used one of the carts over 2 months, and electrocardiogram data were available for 220 participants who either had a red light on the sensor and/or an irregular pulse that suggested atrial fibrillation. After further review by the SHOPS-AF cardiologist, AFib was diagnosed in 59 shoppers, of whom 39 were previously undiagnosed.
They’re already working to cut the scan time to 30 seconds for SHOPS-AF II, but we’re wondering about a possible flaw in the whole health-care-delivery-through-shopping-cart scenario. When we go to the local super/hyper/megamart, it seems like half of the people trundling up and down the aisles are store employees filling orders for customers who won’t even set foot inside. Is the shopping cart on its way out? Maybe. Who wants to tell the SHOPS-AF II team? Not us.
Put pneumonia where your mouth is
Getting dentures does not mean the end of dental care. If anything, new research reveals a huge reason for staying on top of one’s denture care: pneumonia.
It all started with swabs. Scientists in the United Kingdom took mouth, tongue, and denture specimens from frail elderly hospital patients who had pneumonia and wore dentures and from similar patients in care homes who wore dentures and did not have pneumonia. When they compared the microbial populations of the two groups, the investigators found about 20 times the number of respiratory pathogens on the dentures of those with pneumonia.
The research team suggested that dentures may play a role in causing pneumonia, but lead author Josh Twigg, BDS, PhD, also noted that “you certainly couldn’t say that people got pneumonia because they were wearing dentures. It’s just showing that there is an association there.” Improper cleaning, though, could lead to microbial colonization of the dentures, and patients could be inhaling those microbes into their lungs, thereby turning a dental issue into a respiratory issue.
More research needs to be done on the association between dentures and pneumonia, but Dr. Twigg hoped that the results of this study could be presented to the public. The message? “It is important to clean dentures thoroughly” and visit the dentist regularly, he said, but the best way to prevent denture-related infections is to avoid needing to wear dentures entirely.