Commentary

When cardiologists attend meetings, do patients benefit?


 

References

In analyses that adjusted for baseline differences in risk factors, the 30-day mortality rate for patients admitted to teaching hospitals with cardiac arrest was 69% during control dates and 59% during the meetings. Thirty-day mortality for patients admitted with heart failure was 25% during control dates and 18% during the meetings, researchers reported in an article published online on Dec. 22 (JAMA Intern. Med. 2014 [doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.6781]).

Although 30-day mortality among patients admitted with an acute MI did not differ significantly at teaching hospitals between patients who presented during a major meeting and those who did not, the results showed that these similar mortality rates were achieved despite a statistically significant difference in the rate of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) that patients received: During the major meetings, 21% of the acute MI patients underwent PCI, but when a meeting was not in progress, the PCI rate jumped to 28% of all acute MI patients.

“One explanation for these findings is that the intensity of care provided during meeting dates is lower, and that for high-risk patients with cardiovascular disease, the harms of this care may unexpectedly outweigh the benefits,” Dr. Jena concluded.

It’s a remarkable and surprising finding, but can it be taken seriously? At least one expert said yes, at least seriously enough to warrant further study and consideration.

An editor’s note published with the new report suggested a plausible explanation for the findings is that “more interventions in high-risk patients with heart failure and cardiac arrest leads to higher mortality.” In her note, Dr. Rita F. Redberg, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, and editor of JAMA Internal Medicine, concluded, “It is reassuring that patient outcomes do not suffer while many cardiologists are away. More important, this analysis may help us to understand how we could lower mortality throughout the year.”

It will be interesting to see if anyone takes up the challenge to further explore this relationship and tries to find ways to apply throughout the year the protective effect of having fewer teaching-hospital cardiologists around. If a drug had this beneficial effect on mortality, the pharmaceutical industry would be all over it.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

Pages

Recommended Reading

Studies: MOC saves money, may not improve quality of care
MDedge Cardiology
Reduced resident duty hours haven’t changed patient outcomes
MDedge Cardiology
EHRs: Incentives spurred adoption
MDedge Cardiology
Court: State cannot withhold Medicaid payments for program violations
MDedge Cardiology
Physicians shun Stage 2 of meaningful use
MDedge Cardiology
Congress leaves SGR, Medicaid parity, ICD-10 undone
MDedge Cardiology
Feds call for more transparency in reporting clinical trial results
MDedge Cardiology
Senate confirms Murthy as Surgeon General
MDedge Cardiology
Happy holidays from Medicare: 250,000 docs to get meaningful use penalty
MDedge Cardiology
Survey: Med students disdain private practice
MDedge Cardiology