Comments for EP Insights

Comment on CMS RAC Demonstration Project Postponed Until June by A Thometz MD

A Thometz MD — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:26:12 +0000

What a RACquet.

Comment on Guest Blogger: Atrial Fibrillation and Stroke – Education for the Public by Indiresha Ramachandra

Indiresha Ramachandra — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 02:56:16 +0000

Even with a CHADS2 score of 1 the risk for stroke is not small. Aspirin was effective in the older SPAF trial but more recent trials from Europe show that ASA is not any better than placebo in patients with lower CHADS-VASC scores.
Given that the risk for bleeding on current antithrombotic regimens is small, risk of death from falls is relatively smaller compared to the risk of death from stroke and the underutilization of warfarin,we need to educate the public as well as physicians about the benefit of therapeutic anticoagulation in patients with Afib.

Comment on Five Reasons Why Physicians Will Love mHealth by davidleescher

davidleescher — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 02:19:01 +0000

Hugo, I gave my experiences as a clinicIan. What You quote is but one barrier to engagement. I agree totally with your thoughts about giving patients education and data. I gave my cardiac device patients their data. I agree that most patients are not engaged. Most cardiac patients are older and engagement is not the rule because of many reasons. Caregivers are of paramount importance to them, as they are more proactive and advocate more. I totally agree with your argument for engagement. For more detail see:
http://davidleescher.com/2011/10/13/patient-engagement-and-mhealth-bringing-the-horse-to-water-3/

Comment on Five Reasons Why Physicians Will Love mHealth by davidleescher

davidleescher — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 02:12:11 +0000

Hugo, I gave my experiences as a clinic

Comment on Five Reasons Why Physicians Will Love mHealth by Hugo Campos (@HugoOC)

Hugo Campos (@HugoOC) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 01:59:09 +0000

“Most patients do not take the responsibility they should for their own health. They are likely preoccupied with all the stresses of everyday life and might therefore take the ‘I feel good, so I must be’ approach. They possibly mutter these words after wiping their faces, hurriedly walking out of McDonald’s for lunch.”

Wow, are you serious? Maybe patients aren’t as engaged, empowered and educated as we would like them to be because patients are routinely kept out of the information loop and denied access to their health data. How can we learn from data we don’t have?

Take the remote monitoring of cardiac devices, for example. Patients have NO ACCESS to the vast amounts of data collected and stored by the manufacturers of these devices. Such data is used for post-market product surveillance and shared with physicians for their convenience. Patients, however, are kept in the dark.

How can we expect patients to effectively manage a chronic condition without convenient and timely access to their health information? We would never expect doctors to manage patients without access to information. Why the double standard?

In a world of low-cost connectivity, we should find it unacceptable for data to bypass the patient. If we want physicians to “Love mHealth”, we must start with the patient.

Hugo Campos
http://bit.ly/tr39167

Comment on Education, Disclosures, and Bias, Oh My! (Part Two of Two) by Kathleen Blake, MD, MPH, FHRS

Kathleen Blake, MD, MPH, FHRS — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 12:23:37 +0000

Those with an interest in Dr. Cooper’s topic may want to also look at the NYT front page article on 1/17/2012 that discusses the issue of transfer of value (payment in any form) from industry to physicians. The Affordable Care Act of 2010 requires the Department of Health and Human Services to develop regulations and to provide the public with information about these activities. When implemented, this mechanism for reporting will preempt existing state programs. The article relates to the issuance of draft regulations to fulfill this requirement. Open for public comment until February 17, the draft regulations are available from the Federal Register at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=CMS-2011-0191-0001.

Comment on Where will Data for Cardiac Electrophysiology Performance Measures be Derived? by Salwa Beheiry, RN, CCRN

Salwa Beheiry, RN, CCRN — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:59:18 +0000

We absolutely believe in and support this. As a large volume AF ablation center, we depend on tracking our outcomes to continuously improve the quality of care we deliver. We started our AF database two years ago. We are interested to track not only complications and success success rates, but also which follow up plans serve us and the patient better, compare different pre and post procedure protocols and different ways to educate and communicate with our patients.
Thank you

Comment on American Heart Association Meeting Report by Bob Z

Bob Z — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 04:20:15 +0000

Per the above article, “Control stellate ganglia were obtained from four accidentally deceased patients.” As a still living patient who was diagnosed with V-tach in 1996, I am encouraged by the fact that the EP medical community makes a (presumably, sharp) distinction between “accidentally deceased patients” and by inference, those who may be “deliberately or intentionally deceased patients”. My thanks over the years to my medical teams in 3 cities on two continents who mercifully chose not to place me into the latter group. Keep up the good work, my highly professional EP team! (most recently led by Dr. J Cooper, now Dr. P Cuculich)
Bob Zimmermann

Comment on The New IBHRE Physician EP Exam – Expanding Eligibility by Heart Rhythm Society

Heart Rhythm Society — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 18:53:47 +0000

I agree that for the international EP physician, IBHRE is uniquely positioned to bridge the difference between language and practice to assess specialized competency in pacing and EP. The content of the ABIM EP exam as well as the IBHRE EP Board exams are only secondarily (at best) directed at devices and then primarily about indications for implant, with very little on function/malfunction. The IBHRE Pacing exams are directed solely at device therapy and are the only psychometrically sound exams that provide the basis for demonstrating competency in device therapy. Modern pacemakers and ICDs are to pacing as F-16′s are to aviation. Just because you can fly a Cesna does not mean you can fly the most advanced fighter jet in the world. To be optimally managed, medical professionals must have a deep knowledge of device function, malfunction, implant technique and the multitude of algorithms that are applied. EP Board exams are simply not able to include a sufficient number of questions to demonstrate with any level of significance that an individual has this level of knowledge in device therapy. The IBHRE Pacing exams provide this. I would also note ABIM Board Certified EPs do not qualify to sit for the IBHRE Physician EP examination (hence they have already completed EP certification) however; ABIM EPs may join the close to 300 ABIM Board Certified EPs who have successfully completed the IBHRE Physician Pacing examination.

Charles J. Love, MD, FHRS, FACC, FAHA, CCDS
President, IBHRE

Comment on Cardiac Arrest – What We Do Matters by Craig Delaughter, MD, PhD

Craig Delaughter, MD, PhD — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 13:38:01 +0000

Thanks to each of you that repied! Give me a few days to discuss with some of our HRS contacts and to get back to you. I appreciate your willingness to help protect patients.