Cardiology and stewardship — New post up at Medscape|Cardiology

One of the definitions of the noun steward is a person whose responsibility it is to take care of something. Wikipedia calls stewardship an “ethic that embodies the responsible planning and management of resources.”

These apply well to cardiologists–who use powerful (and expensive) tools in the care of fellow humankind. The internal cardiac defibrillator, or ICD, is one such “big hammer.” The $30,000 device automatically terminates sudden cardiac death via internally delivered 750-volt internal shocks. These shocks usually prevent the patient from dying of that arrhythmia at that moment.

The cost of the ICD, however, is not just in dollars. The tradeoff means exposing the ICD patient to harm, such as surgery complications, infection, inappropriate (wide awake) shocks and the worst harm of all: a bad rather than good death.

Said another way, when used well the ICD extends life rather than prolongs death.

This is where stewardship comes in. Our job as cardiologists is to see the whole person rather than a person with a list of diseases. Too often, a patient with a weak heart (low ejection fraction) is told they “need” an ICD, or…and here is the catch…”they will die.”

You can see where I am going because I’ve been there before so many times. First, there’s the issue of using the verb need in the counsel of patients. Gosh, I hate that. Doctors don’t determine whether patients need invasive treatments, patients do. Then there is the issue of using the fear of death. Of course they will die. We all die. Treating death as optional lies at the root of our end-of-life humanitarian crisis.

Two recent studies in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology urge cardiologists to think hard about our role as stewards in the use of the ICD. One study evaluated the appropriateness of ICD-generator change and the other the utility of the six-minute-walk test in predicting ICD benefit.

The ICD generator change story is important because one in three ICDs are implanted as replacement devices for patients whose original device has reached battery depletion. (Approx battery life is 4-8 years.) Many factors combine to make the decision to replace an ICD different from the original implant decision. Mostly, it’s time. Patients with ICDs age, change their views and acquire other life-limiting diseases. And in many cases, as reported by University of Pennsylvania researchers, patients with ICDs actually improve their heart function so that their risk of death by arrhythmia diminishes. Now what should be done? Are ICDs life-long therapies?

The second study involved the use of walking ability (six-minute walk distance) as a means to predict ICD benefit. The role of functional capacity in determining ICD benefit is relevant because it speaks to the whole person rather than the person with a weak heart.

In the post on, which is now called Medscape|Cardiology, I describe the two studies and then explain why they provide a major opportunity for cardiologists to be stewards for both our patients and our profession.

I hope you want to read more. Here is the title and link: ICD Decision Making: An Opportunity for Stewardship


New post on Medscape/Cardiology: My take of the 2014 Atrial Fibrillation treatment guidelines

Atrial fibrillation affects millions of patients, and its incidence and prevalence are on the rise. It's a peculiar disease in that it affects people so differently. When populations are studied, AF associates with higher rates of stroke, heart … [Continue reading]

Vacation Time

It does look like a long swim

Hey all, The Mandrola family Spring break this year coincided with the American College of Cardiology 2014 Scientific Sessions. We are on a college tour in California. The cardiology community is in Washington DC. If you are … [Continue reading]