Telemedicine and Acute Stroke Treatment

My community hospital is holding its quarterly physician staff meeting and one of the items on the agenda will be a bylaw change which will permit outside physicians, not credentialed or vetted by our hospital credentials committee, to perform video consults on patients within our hospital. Hospital administration is pushing this bylaw change, and since there has been a quiet coup which has transferred medical staff power from the community’s practicing physicians to the hospital employed and paid physicians, it is a foregone conclusion that it will easily pass.

The bylaw change is being requested because the hospital would like to continue to reap the benefits of being an ischemic stroke comprehensive treatment center and offering the health benefits to the community despite not being able to meet the criteria. If a patient presents to the emergency department within four hours of developing ischemic stroke symptoms they must be offered the administration of a “clot busting “drug Alteplase (t-pa). The patient must not have any bleeding tendencies and no evidence of active bleeding or a mass or tumor on head CT scan and must be examined by a neurologist within 45 minutes of arrival.

The problem is that most community based neurologists with outpatient office practices and hospital staff privileges cannot and will not drop everything they are doing and run to the emergency department to evaluate a new patient each time a stroke protocol patient arrives. When given an ultimatum by the hospital administration, that they must take call and be available within 45 minutes, our community neurologists en masse relinquished their hospital privileges.

The hospital countered by bringing in several research oriented academic neurologists and neurosurgeons to man the beautiful new Neuroscience Institute and provide coverage of the ED for the stroke protocol. Few if any of these physicians were able to develop and maintain a practice within the community and they have since left. The Emergency Department is staffed by employed board certified emergency physicians who are well qualified to diagnose an ischemic stroke and administer t-pa. They refuse to do so citing the liability of a poor outcome as the reason. Despite data indicating the benefits of t-pa administration in these situations, the 6 out of 100 chances of a bleed in the brain plus the 1 in 6 chance of death is enough to deter their participation.

You would think that since the hospital hires these physicians the logical choice would be to fire them and hire a group that will provide the state of the art care in a timely fashion. This has not occurred. You would think that the state legislature would grant the ED physicians sovereign immunity from medical malpractice suits if the patient meets the criteria for the ischemic stroke protocol and the patient is given appropriate informed consent for the procedure but this common sense legislation has not been developed or passed.

The hospital has chosen a different pathway. They are opting to hire neurologists from a university medical center who will provide video consults on ischemic stroke patients from an offsite location. Robots will actually examine the patient and televise the data back to the telemedicine center after an emergency department physician performs a brief initial evaluation. The neurologist off site will then provide the needed neurology consult to proceed with the injection of the clot buster.

I suspect the mechanism will work like this. A patient or family member will call EMS via 911 and be taken to the Emergency Department. A triage nurse will ask all the questions to qualify the patient for the t-pa protocol; a robot will examine the patient and transmit via TV the data to an offsite neurologist while an ER physician does an exam. A CT scan of the head and brain will be performed. If no bleed is discovered or tumor or mass that could bleed, t-pa will be administered by the pharmacy and nursing staff. Further intervention by an interventional radiologist and or neurosurgeon may then occur.

At no point in this protocol does it call for the patient’s primary care doctor or cardiologist or usual neurologist to be called. We will be called once the procedure is complete because neither the ER physician or the neurosurgeon or the interventional radiologist will want to admit the patient to neurology ICU. While our surgical ICU and Medical ICU/CCU are covered 24 hours per day by an outsourced hired intensivist group, the neuro ICU does not have that type of coverage.

I can hear it now, my phone ringing and upon picking it up I hear the voice of a clerk in the Emergency Department, “Hello Dr Reznick, Dr. Whateverhisorhername wishes to speak to you about patient Just Had A Stroke.” I get put on hold for five minutes and then in a flat nasal voice, “Hello Steve your patient came in earlier by EMS with symptoms of an acute ischemic stroke. They met the t-pa ischemic stroke criteria and were treated. Unfortunately, they had a major hemispheric bleed with mass effect and edema and are now unresponsive and intubated on a ventilator. We need you to come in and admit him and care for him.”

I will vote in protest against this bylaw. I will lobby for recruiting neurologists who are hospital based who will actually see the patient and care for them. I will lobby for a new state law to provide sovereign immunity for ED physicians treating ischemic strokes according to the internationally recognized protocol. I will lobby for our medical and surgical residents on site and in the hospital to be permitted to administer t-pa after meeting the appropriate criteria. I will not support out of the area physicians making the final call and leaving our local physicians to deal with their results.

Water versus Diet Drinks for Dieting and Weight Loss

Water and many diet beverages quench your thirst and are listed as providing no energy or calories to your daily intake. With this in mind, researchers at the University of Nottingham in the United Kingdom set up a definitive study to assess the effect of water on weight loss after a meal versus a diet beverage’s effect on weight loss.

Ameneh Madjid, PharmD and associates looked at 81 overweight and obese women with Type II Diabetes Mellitus. Members of the group were either asked to continue drinking diet beverages five times per week after lunch or substitute water for the diet beverages. The researchers found that over a 24 week period, the water group had greater decreases in weight, body mass index, fasting plasma glucose, fasting insulin homeostasis and two hour post-meal glucose readings compared with the diet beverage group.

A similar study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition looking at 89 obese women found that after six months the water group had lost an extra three pounds compared to the diet beverage group.

As a clinician, the idea of putting water into your body as opposed to diet drink chemicals makes great sense. There have been some researchers who felt that diet beverages eliminated calories in soft drinks but that users consumed more dietary food and calories when drinking diet beverages as opposed to water.

I will suggest to my patients that they try water instead of diet beverages but remind them that an occasional diet beverage probably will not hurt their long term goals.

To Floss or Not To Floss? Making Recommendations Without Data

The U.S. Department of Health has announced that there is no data that flossing your gums has any benefit.  This has led to an Associated Press review of the paucity of randomly controlled trials with evidence that flossing is beneficial. The result is a new recommendation that flossing daily is not necessary. We are living in an era where the only justification for research and observational studies seems to be to justify saving money by not teaching patients something or encouraging them not to do something. Cost containment is the key as the US Government tries to lower the percentage of dollars spent on health care as a percentage of the Gross National Product.

Experts at the Cleveland Clinic spurred on by the “Bale and Doneen” philosophy that inflammation in arterial vessels leads to acute heart attacks and strokes have pushed for greater periodontal care and health. Flossing is part of that philosophy. Cleaning in-between your teeth with hand held pics or water pics provides cleaning of the gums and spaces between teeth as well.  There are few or any studies on this subject because the benefit is so obvious that there has been no need to perform them.  Dentists assure me that proper tooth and gum care is essential to your general health and wellbeing.  This is common sense like not crossing a busy street against the light, not drinking alcohol and driving a car or truck or not jumping out of an airplane without a parachute. It’s time for our dental schools to organize and perform these studies but I suggest you keep caring for your gums and teeth while the data is being accumulated.

Pneumococcal Vaccine in Development May Fight All Strains of the Disease

Community acquired pneumonia (CAP) plus other infections attributable to the Pneumococcus bacteria account for 15 million infections per year including pneumonia, meningitis and bronchitis. The organism is the leading cause of death in children less than five years old.  Over the last 30 years pharmaceutical companies have developed Pneumovax 23 which covers 23 unique bacteria that cause CAP in adults and Prevnair 13 which covers 13 pneumococcal bacterial strains.  Twelve of the bacteria in Prevnair 13 are identical to the Pneumovax 23 with only one unique bacterial type included.

A group at the State University of New York at Buffalo led by Blaine Pfeifer, specializing in chemical and bacterial engineering; has developed a new approach to pneumococcal vaccination. Working with computer modeling and animals to this point, they have developed a successful vaccine that attacks pathogenic pneumococcal bacteria while leaving the beneficial and non-pathogenic subtypes alone. The vaccine reads proteins on the surface of the bacterial cells and destroys only those that show aggressive activity. The vaccine has been 100% effective against the 12 most virulent pneumococcal bacterial strains existing in animal studies.    The vaccine is being prepared for human testing in the near future.  The preliminary work was discussed in the medical magazine Medical Economics

How Tightly Should We Control Blood Pressure in the Elderly?

A recent publication in a fine peer reviewed medical journal of the SPRINT study proved that lowering our blood pressure to the old target of 120/80 or less led to fewer heart attacks, strokes and kidney failure.  There was no question on what to do with younger people but to lower their blood pressure more aggressively to these levels. Debates arose in the medical community about the ability to lower it that much and would we be able to add enough medication and convince the patients to take it religiously or not to meet these stringent recommendations?

There was less clarity in the baby boomer elderly growing population of men and women who were healthy and over 75 years of age. The thought was that maybe we need to keep their blood pressure a bit higher because we need to continue to perfuse the brain cells of these aging patients.

A study performed in the west coast of the United States using actual brain autopsy material hinted that with aggressive lowering of the blood pressure, patients were exhibiting signs and symptoms of dementia but their ultimate brain biopsies did not support that clinical diagnosis. In fact the brain autopsies suggested that we were not getting enough oxygen and nutrient rich blood to the brain because of aggressive lowering of blood pressure.  Maintain blood pressure higher we were told using a systolic BP of 150 or lower as a target.

A recent study of blood pressure control in the elderly noted that when medications for hypertension were introduced or increased a significant percentage of treated patients experienced a fall within 15 days of the adjustment in blood pressure treatment.  This all served as an introduction to a national meeting on hypertension last week during which the results of this same SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) strongly came out in favor of intensive lowering of blood pressure to 120/70 to reduce heart attacks, strokes and mortality in the elderly and claimed even in the intensive treated group there were few increased risks.   On further questioning however by reclassifying  adverse events in the SPRINT trial to “ possibly or definitely related to intensive treatment, the risk of injurious falls was higher in the intensive vs conventional treatment group.”

What does this mean in the big picture to all of us?  The big picture remains confusing.  It is clear that lowering your blood pressure aggressively and intensively will reduce the number of heart attacks and strokes and kidney disease of a serious nature.  It is clear as well that any initiation or enhancing of your blood pressure regimen puts you at risk for a fall. You will need to stay especially well hydrated and change positions slowly during this immediate post change in therapy time period if you hope to avoid a fall.  Will more intensive control of your blood pressure at lower levels lead to signs and symptoms of dementia due to poor perfusion of your brain cells?  With the SPRINT study only running for three or more years it is probably too early to tell if the intensive therapy will lead to more cognitive dysfunction.

Antibiotic Associated Colitis Increases Risk

At least a half dozen times per week patient’s call with symptoms of a viral upper respiratory tract infection or present to the office for a visit with symptoms and signs of a cold.  These illnesses are caused by small viral particles which do not respond to antibiotic treatment.   Your body’s defense system attacks these viral particles and over a period of hours to days defeats them.   Despite years of ongoing public health announcements and handouts by doctors and nurses and attempts at patient education you find yourself negotiating with strong willed patients who want a “Z Pack” or some other antibiotic which they do not need.  “I know my body,” they argue.  “My northern or previous physician knew to always give me an antibiotic, why won’t you?”

The answer is quite simple. They do not work to shorten the course, intensity or duration of your illness. They do in fact put you at risk of developing complications of antibiotic use. When your infection requires the use of antibiotics to restore health, it is worth taking these risks. When you do not need the medication it definitely is not. This was confirmed by an article and research presented by E Erik Dubberke, MD of Washington University School of Medicine in Saint Louis, Missouri commenting on Medicare Data about the death rate associated with antibiotic related colitis infections due to Clostridia Difficile.  Bacteria normally reside in our large intestine and promote health and digestion.  When we prescribe an antibiotic it kills off the healthy and beneficial bacteria as well as the infection related bacteria. This destruction of healthy bacteria creates an environment conducive to “opportunistic “bacteria normally suppressed by the normal flora to invade and take over your gut. The resulting fever, cramping, diarrhea with blood occurs as the intestine become inflamed with colitis. One of the common opportunistic pathogens is Clostridia Difficile.

Dr. Dubberke looked at Medicare data and compared 175,000 patients older than 65 years of age and diagnosed with Clostridia difficile infection and compared them to 1.45 million control patients. He found that those with clostridia difficile infection had a 44% increased risk of death. When comparing admissions to nursing homes for treatment there was an 89% increased risk due to antibiotic related colitis care.

Antibiotics are wonderful when appropriate. They will always carry a risk of a side effect, adverse reaction or complication which is a risk worth taking in the correct setting.  It is clearly not worth the risk when your doctor tells you that it will not work.

How Much of Yourself Can You Give to Others?

I have been practicing general internal medicine for over 35 years in the same community. I have many patients who started with me in 1979 and are now in their late eighties to early nineties.  Predictably and sadly they are failing.  Not a week goes by without one or two of them moving from general medical care to palliative care, very often with the involvement of Hospice for end of life care.   Medicare may now compensate for discussion of end of life issues but anyone practicing general internal medicine or family practice has been discussing end of life issues appropriately for years with no compensation. It just comes with the territory.

Most of us still practicing primary care thrive on being able to improve our patient’s quality of life and our major compensation can be hearing about their interactions and social engagements with family and friends.  It is an accomplishment to see you’re 90 year old with multisystem disease for years, dance at her great grandchild’s wedding.  No one who cares for patients longitudinally for years is that dispassionate that they do not give up a piece of their heart and soul each time they lose a patient or have one take a turn for the worse.   When I lose a patient, if time permits, I will attend the funeral or family grieving gathering during the mourning period.  Everyone gets a personal hand written letter. Completion of the circle of life and then moving on is part of the process.

I think physicians’ families take the brunt of this caring and I am sure mine does. As much as you want to have time and patience and sympathy and empathy for your loved ones, the work truly drains your tank and reserve. When you answer the questions of the elderly and their families over and over, often the same questions, it drains you.  Unfortunately, I believe my elderly failing mother is cheated the most by this process. Last weekend when making my weekly visit she was complaining again about the same things, asking the same questions that have repeatedly and compassionately been addressed by my brother and I. My wife interjected that I sounded angry and annoyed. I was. I told her that unfortunately all the compassion and understanding in me had been drained already today and I needed time to recharge.

I saw the widow of a patient who expired last month in his nineties. I had offered to make home visits and they were declined several times by the patient and his spouse. His last week of life he asked to receive Hospice care and they assumed his care.  I called the surviving spouse and wrote what I considered a personal letter of condolence.  His wife told me she was disappointed in me for not coming up to see him one last time. I apologized for not meeting their needs but wondered inwardly, how much can I give and still have something left for myself and my loved ones?