Category Archives: Good Doctoring

How Common Are Inaccurate Coronary Artery Calcium Scans?

One reason the  skeptical cardiologist has been so enthusiastic about coronary calcium (CAC) scans is that I have found them to be highly reproducible and highly accurate.

Unlike most  imaging tests in cardiology if we perform a CAC on the same individual in the CT scanner of hospital A and then repeat it within a few days in the CT scanner of hospital B we expect the scores to be nearly identical.

Also, unlike most other imaging tests we don’t expect false negatives or false positives. If the CAC score is zero there is no coronary calcification-high sensitivity. If the score is nonzero there is definitively calcium and therefore atherosclerotic plaque in the coronaries-high specificity.

This is  because calcium as defined in the Agatson score is literally black and white-a pixel is either above or below the cut-off. Computer software automatically identifies on the scan. A reasonably trained CT tech should be able to identify the calcium that is residing in the coronary arteries based on his or her knowledge of the coronary anatomy as registered on CT slices. Using software the total Agatson score is calculated.

A physician reader (either cardiologist or radiologist) (who should have a very good understanding of the cardiac and coronary anatomy ) should review the CT techs work and verify accuracy.

A recent case report, however, has demonstrated that the above  assumptions are not always true.

Franz Messerli, a pre-eminent researcher in hypertension and a cardiologist describes in fascinating detail a false-positive CAC scan he underwent in 2013.  He was told he had a score of 804 putting him in a high risk category consistent with extensive plaque formation.

After consulting with cardiologist friends and colleagues he decided to put himself on a statin and aspirin despite having an excellent lipid profile.

Messerli assumed that the CAC score was not a false positive (although later in his article he indicates he had questioned the reading) writing:

“although one can always quibble with ST segments or wall motion abnormalities, on the CAC the evidence is rock-hard, you actually with your own eyes can see the white calcium specks! ‘Individuals with very high Agatston scores (over 1000) have a 20% chance of suffering a myocardial infarction or cardiac death within a year’—although I did not quite classify, this patient information coming from esteemed Harvard cardiology colleagues3 was hardly reassuring.

(His reference 3 for the 20% risk of MI or cardiac death in a year for CAC score >1000 is suspect. It is a 2003 “patient page” on coronary calcium in Circulation which does not have a reference for that statistic.)

A more recent study found patients with extensive CAC (CAC≥1000) represent a unique, very high-risk phenotype with CVD mortality outcomes (0.80%/yr) commensurate with high-risk secondary prevention patients (0.77%/yr) from the FOURIER trial)

Six years after the diagnosis Messerli was at a Picasso exhibition, “leisurely ambling between his Blue and Pink Period “when he developed chest pain.

To further evaluate the chest pain he underwent a coronary CT angiogram and this demonstrated pristine and normal coronary arteries, totally devoid of calcium.

He did have a lot of mitral annular calcification (MAC). The CCTA images below show how close the MAC is to the left circumflex coronary artery (LCX).


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The slice above shows how the MAC would appear on the CT scan designed to assess coronary calcium.  It’s position is very close to that of the circumflex but an experienced reader/tech  should have known this was not coronary calcification.

MAC is a very common finding on echocardiograms, especially in the elderly and it is likely that this error is not an isolated one.

Dr. Messerli writes

After relating these findings to the cardiologist who did the initial CAC, he indicated that most likely someone mistook mitral annular calcification as left circumflex calcium. This was hardly reassuring, since I specifically had asked that obvious question after receiving the initial CAC

Around the time I read Messerli’s case report I encountered a similar, albeit not as drastic case. A CAC scan showed a significant area of calcification near the left circumflex coronary artery which was scored as circumflex coronary calcification.

image001

The  pattern of this calcification is not consistent with the known path of the circumflex coronary in this case. When it was eliminated from the scoring the patient had a zero score. The difference between a nonzero score and a zero score is hugely significant but for patients with scores >100 such errors are less critical.

I have also encountered cases where extracardiac calcium mimics right coronary calcification.

There are some important take-home points from my and Dr. Messerli’s experience.

  1. False positive CAC scans do occur. We don’t know the frequency. If the scans are not overread by a competent cardiologist or radiologist with extensive experience in cardiac CT these mistakes will be more common

When I asked Dr. Messerli about this problem he responded

I am afraid you are correct in that CAC scores are generated by techs and radiologists and cardiologist simply sign the report without verifying the data. Little doubt that MAC is most often missed.
     2. Like other cardiac imaging tests (such as echocardiography) having an expert/experienced/meticulous  tech and reader matters.
    3. Dr. Messerli and I agree that a research project should be done to ascertain how often this happens and to evaluate the process of reading and reporting CAC.
4. Patients should look at the breakdown of the calcium in the CAC by coronary artery. Whereas it is not uncommon to see most of the calcium in the LAD it is rare to see a huge discrepancy in which the circumflex coronary artery score is very high and the LAD score zero. Such a finding should warrant a review of the scan to see if MAC was included in error.
Skeptically Yours
-ACP
N.B. Dr. Messerli’s report can be read for free and makes for entertaining reading.
I was very intrigued by two comments he made at the end:
  1. “Had my CHD been diagnosed a decade earlier, guidelines might well have condemned me to taking beta-blockers for the reminder of my days.6 This, as Philip Roth taught us in ‘The Counterlife’, might have had rather unpleasant repercussions.7

Until recently I had never read anything by Philip Roth but when he died last year I read his Pulitzer Prize winning  1987 novel American Pastoral and liked it. Given this Roth reference involving beta-blockers I felt compelled to get my hands on “The Counterlife.” The book is a good read (much better IMHO than American Pastoral) and one of the main plot points relates to the side effects (see my post on feeling logy) a character suffers from a beta-blocker. Stimulated by a desire to be able to perform sexually if taken of the medication, the character undergoes coronary bypass surgery and dies.

2. “As stated by Mandrola and true in the present case, ‘given the (lucrative) downstream testing that often occurs when coronary calcium is found in asymptomatic people, the biggest winners from CAC screening may be the testers rather than the tested’.”

I feel the CAC in the right hands should not lead to (lucrative or inappropriate) downstream testing in the asymptomatic (see my discussion on this topic here.)

 

 

A Patient’s Confusing Journey Into The Quagmire Of Cardiac Imaging: A Cautionary Tale

Mary-Ann, a reader from the north,  provides today’s post. Her story illustrates how easily medical care can veer off the rails while it is simultaneously railroading patients.  It is a cautionary tale with wisdom that can help most patients.

In this post I’ll just present Mary-Ann’s perspective and solicit responses.  Down the line I’ll provide some perspective on the processes, the problems and the solutions.


It started innocently enough. I showed up for a regular visit with my cardiac provider, a mid-level professional. She noted I was flushed and had a high pulse — about 100. 

Starbucks, I explained, and I flush easily — always have. She looked skeptical.

That is how I went from a half-caf Americano to a 48-hour holter monitor.

I went back for results — the usual ectopic beats but nothing scary or new. But again, she noted I had a fast heart rate and I was flushed.

And once again I explained: Starbucks — it is right down the street and okay, I might have a problem.

That is the short — but highly accurate — version of how I wound up getting a stress echo. 

I showed up for the results of the echo and that is where the runaway train started down the tracks.

“…possible inferoapical wall hypokinesis with lack of augmentation of systolic function, which are abnormal findings and may be indicative of ischemia due to underlying coronary artery disease. EF was 56% at rest and 40-50% at stress.” 

Wait — what?!

I was marched down the hall and scheduled for a cardiac angiography — and told not to run any marathons in the intervening two days. 

Marathon?! I was terrified I was going to drop dead at any moment. I contemplated just sitting the waiting room for 48 hours — just to be safe.

Then I started reading the professional literature and things were not adding up. An EF at stress of 40 – 50% is not good — in fact, it can be heading into heart failure land.

But I was active and fine — it did not make any sense.

I called the office; my provider was not available. I explained that I was worried there was a mistake. Oh no, I was assured, they are very careful to not make mistakes.

I wrote my will. I cried a lot. 

And when the person called to remind me of the procedure (like I could forget!?) I once again explained that I was worried there had been a mistake, and once again — reassurance. No mistake.

Nevertheless, she (aka me) persisted!

I sat on the hospital bed in nothing but a gown and handed the nurse my two-page letter; it started like this:

“I am reminded that what is normal and ordinary for a professional is never that for a patient. I am terrified.

First, I want to be really sure that there is not any chance of a mix-up in the stress echo test results. This is not simple denial or wishful thinking…” 

And that nurse paid attention, which is how I wound up not having a cardiac angiography. 

The cardiologist scheduled to do the procedure — we shall call him Doc #2 — wrote: 

“She has some concerns regarding the results of the stress echo study … I reviewed the most recent stress echo and it appears to me that the results for the resting versus the stress echo ejection fractions have been transposed…”

Translation: A Typo.

I was elated! Jubilant! We went to Starbucks to celebrate.

The giddy joy quickly turned to something along the lines of WTH just happened here? I read the original echo report written by Doc #1 — that lit the tinder. There were two different values for EF at stress documented in the report, and another sentence that was repeated. 

The professorial side of me was deeply affronted — in a subsequent meeting with hospital administrators I confess to saying that someone who is making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year doesn’t get to write such a sloppy ass report — and about someone’s heart, no less! 

But the best part of that meeting was learning that Doc #1 denied there was a typo — he stood by his findings. 

Oh dear.

And Doc #2 stood by his findings as well. And Doc #3 got involved somewhere along the way and he agreed with Doc #2. And the mid-level Provider also agreed with Doc #2.

The majority rule seems like an odd way to make health care decisions — wouldn’t you think all those smart people could talk among themselves and agree?

Apparently not.

That first meeting with the hospital folks included all manner of solicitous apologies and an attitude of collaboration. Of course, they said, we can send the echo to an outside cardiologist — at our expense — and get an answer.

And then I made the unthinkable mistake — and I blame the Skeptical Cardiologist for this — of asking informed questions.

“Are the cardiologists involved in reading my echo Level III echo specialists?”

“I understand that there can be variance in estimated EF between cardiologists — what level of variance is considered acceptable?”

The hospital team responded to my questions by calling a meeting — and the tone had changed considerably (Thanks a lot, Corporate Legal).

The offer to pay for an outside opinion was off the table — after all, they said, you would not have a patient-provider relationship with the cardiologist reading the echo. Ahem, I noted — I have zero relationship with the first cardiologist who read the echo and would not know him if I bumped into him at Starbucks. And you all did offer to pay for that outside opinion…

Oh never mind those minor details. No outside opinion on their dime. They would do a Lexiscan at their expense as a tie breaker. Final Offer.

Tiebreaker — really?! Is this a soccer game?

And seriously — should I have to have an invasive test to settle THEIR disagreement?! [Note: If it involves needles, it is invasive.]

Because there were not enough cardiologists involved already, I saw yet another one — from a different practice. He offered that the EF at stress looked more like 55%, placing his bet smack in the middle, and recommending a CT Angiography Coronary Arteries with Contrast as the tiebreaker.

Tiebreaker. That word implies both sides are equivalent or equal. However, my heart is not actually a game and the two teams cannot both be right — there is no equivalency in play here. What we are really trying to do involves accuracy — not breaking a tie score.

But I digress.

It doesn’t seem like you should have to make a chart to keep track of what cardiologists say about the same echo but in this case, it seemed necessary.

 And in the meantime, yet another cardiologist weighed in that the quality of the echo was poor — and no wonder they could not agree.

Deep breaths.

And so, for the past four months I have tried to navigate all this, and to understand what this actually means about cardiology and medicine and so many things. My confidence and my mind have been blown. Resources – and time – have been wasted. 

Ectopic heartbeats are typically benign in a structurally normal heart — I thought I was safe. But I have not felt safe since that day when I learned that Doc #1 and Docs #2, 3, and so on had decided to have a stand-off at the OK Corral that is my heart.

Except, I do not know if it is okay. And that is the problem. 


Unfortunately, Mary-Anne’s tale is not uncommon. It touches on many of the areas that patient’s should be aware of including

-Undergoing diagnostic imaging testing when you are free of symptoms

-Inadequate quality control in diagnostic imaging and how that leads to false positive results

-Variance in imaging performance and interpretation-how the same test can be read as normal by one doctor and markedly abnormal by another.

-The tendency of some cardiologists to recommend invasive testing when it is inappropriate and likely to cause more harm than good

-The importance of second opinions, especially if invasive testing is recommended

-The importance of patient’s doing their own research and asking good questions based on that research.

Transparently Yours,

-ACP

What Is A Cardiologist?

The skeptical cardiologist recently received a cease and desist letter from a lawyer representing Dr. Steven Gundry who felt I was defaming the goop doctor and supplement peddler by saying he was not a cardiologist.

The lawyer’s letter reminded me that many patients do not understand exactly what a cardiologist is and mistake us for cardiothoracic surgeons.

Here’s how the American College of Cardiology defines a cardiologist:

A cardiologist is a doctor with special training and skill in finding, treating and preventing diseases of the heart and blood vessels.

And here is part of my response to the lawyer which further clarifies the differences:

I understand your confusion with respect to the terminology of cardiologist versus cardiac or cardiothoracic surgeon. A surprising number of patients and readers think that I as a cardiologist perform “heart surgery.” Of course, actual surgery on the heart requiring “cracking open the chest” (which is what most laypeople consider “open heart surgery”) is always done by a cardiac surgeon not a cardiologist.

Like all other board-certified cardiologists I have gone through accredited training programs in internal medicine followed by a formal cardiology training program. There is no evidence that Dr. Gundry has done this.

Cardiologists, being extremely bright, entrepreneurial  and energetic, have expanded the toolkit they have for diagnosing and treating heart disease without having to engage in surgery. Thus,
cardiologists can insert  stents to open blocked coronary arteries, implant pacemakers and even replace valves all by accessing the cardiovascular system via its arteries and veins.

We don’t call this surgery because we aren’t surgeons and didn’t go through surgical training. We call these procedures. These are invasive procedures, to be fair, as we have invaded the vasculature and the interior of the heart and from these arterial and venous incursions complications may ensue.

A typical invasive procedure that cardiologists do looks like this:

This is a cardiologist  gaining access to the arterial system by inserting a catheter into the radial artery.

 

 

A typical open heart surgery performed by a cardiothoracic surgeon requires large incisions with direct visualization of the heart and looks like this:

 

 

 

 

 

Cardiologists And Cardiac Surgeons Undergo Totally Different Training

I began my response to Gundry’s lawyer by indicating my surprise that the lawyer felt Gundry was a cardiologist:

This comes as quite a surprise to me as my detailed research into Dr. Gundry’s background, training and credentials revealed absolutely no evidence that he is or ever was a cardiologist as we in the medical community define cardiologist. In fact, as you can see in his listing on CTSnet (which is a network of cardiothoracic surgeons) his post medical school training consisted of the following

University of Michigan Hospitals Surgery Internship (1977-78)
National Institutes of Health, Clinical Associate in Cardiac Surgery (1978-80)
University of Michigan Hospitals Surgery Residency (1980-83)
University of Michigan Hospitals Cardiothoracic Surgery Residency (1983-85)

He is trained as a cardiothoracic surgeon. Cardiothoracic surgeons go through surgical training programs which are completely different from the medical training programs that cardiologists like myself go through.

My description of him in this regards reads as follows:

“He is also widely described as a cardiologist but he is not, He is (or was) a cardiac surgeon (like, strangely enough, the celebrity prince of quackery, Dr. Oz)”

As you can see, my statement is perfectly accurate.

As far as him being a being elected a “Fellow of the American College of Cardiology” I can find no documentation of this and he is not currently listed as a member of the American College of Cardiology. But even if he was this does not make him a cardiologist because many cardiothoracic surgeons are members of the ACC.

Might I suggest you ask Dr. Gundry if he thinks he is a cardiologist. I’m pretty sure he would answer no.

What Is A Quack?

The lawyer then went on to accuse me of suggesting that Gundry is a quack because:

A “quack” is defined in common parlance as a lay person pretending to be a licensed physician. In other words, a fake doctor. The term “quack” connotes dishonesty, deception, fraudulent behavior, etc. Dr. Gundry has been a licensed physician and surgeon since at least 1989 (see Exhibit B attached), performed thousands of heart surgeries, and developed patented, life- saving medical technology. Your statements are not only factually incorrect, but are also irresponsible and intentionally misleading, resulting in harm to Dr. Gundry’s reputation and income.

To which I responded:

There seems to be an attempt here to suggest that by saying he is not a cardiologist I am calling him a quack. But as my previous information should have convinced you he is not a cardiologist but a cardiothoracic surgeon. He has done very good work as a cardiothoracic surgeon and I am happy to attest to that. I will be happy to add that information to his description in my up and coming posts on him.

At no point do I call him a quack in my posts. Clearly if I’m calling him a cardiothoracic surgeon I am acknowledging that he is a licensed physician and not, clearly, a fake doctor.

I have to admit my definition of quack has not been the common dictionary definition of “fake medical doctor.”  I have always considered those who engage in quackery to be quacks.

Quackery is defined at Quackwatch (the definitive website on the topic) as the promotion of unsubstantiated methods that lack a scientifically plausible rationale. 

And one can have a perfectly legitimate training as a medical doctor and engage in what most would consider quackery.

Even board-certified cardiologists like myself can engage in quackery.

Clearly there is a disconnect between the common definition of quack and that of quackery and in a  subsequent post I will delve further into the miasma of quackery, quacks and quacking,

Anatinely Yours,

-ACP

N.B. While researching this post I came across a fantastic article on Gwyneth Paltrow’s goop Doctors from David Gorski at Science-Based medicine. I highly recommend reading the entire piece (gwyneth-paltrow-and-goop-another-triumph-of-celebrity-pseudoscience-and-quackery) for your edification and pleasure.

Gorski’s paragraph on Gundry begins

  • Dr. Steven Gundry, a cardiothoracic surgeon very much like Dr. Mehmet Oz who, as he took incredible pains to lecture Dr. Gunter in his section of Goop’s hit piece on her, who once was a very respectable academic surgeon and, even better than Dr. Oz, served as Chairman of Cardiothoracic Surgery at Loma Linda University for a number of years, before leaving academia to undertake his private practice. (No wonder he and Dr. Oz seem to have an affinity for each other!) These days, he devotes his time to his practice, writing books, giving talks, and selling expensive supplements like Vital Reds (a bargain at $69.95 for per jar, discounted to $377.73 if you buy six jars) and Lectin Shield (a slightly more expensive bargain at $79.95 a jar, $419.70 for six), while bragging (as he did in his response to Dr. Gunter) about how so very, very hard he works and even—gasp!—accepts Medicare and Medicaid patients. His most recent book is The Plant Paradox: The Hidden Dangers in “Healthy Foods” That Cause Disease and Weight Gain. (Spoiler: That “hidden danger” is lectins.)

 

Featured image Photo by Ravi Singh on Unsplash

How To Be A Victorian Doctor: The Importance of Portent

For some time the skeptical cardiologist has been seeking information about the practice of medicine and cardiology during the Victorian era.

Why the Victorian era? Because my favorite writer, Charles Dickens, consistently portrays doctors of that era as incompetent.

And, sadly to say, as I have explored what doctors had to offer in the real world of the nineteenth century it was, in point of fact, very little.

From time to time as I gather this information on my medical forebears I will share it with my gentle readers:

To begin with, however, I present to you one of my favorite examples which is taken  from The Old Curiosity Shop.

“The doctor, who was a red-nosed gentleman with a great bunch of seals dangling below a waistcoat of ribbed black satin, arrived with all speed, and taking his seat by the bedside of poor Nell, drew out his watch, and felt her pulse. Then he looked at her tongue, then he felt her pulse again, and while he did so, he eyed the half-emptied wine-glass as if in profound abstraction.

‘I should give her,’ said the doctor at length, ‘a tea-spoonful, every now and then, of hot brandy and water.’

‘Why, that’s exactly what we’ve done, sir!’ said the delighted landlady.

‘I should also,’ observed the doctor, who had passed the foot-bath on the stairs, ‘I should also,’ said the doctor, in the voice of an oracle, ‘put her feet in hot water, and wrap them up in flannel. I should likewise,’ said the doctor with increased solemnity, ‘give her something light for supper—the wing of a roasted fowl now—’

‘Why, goodness gracious me, sir, it’s cooking at the kitchen fire this instant!’ cried the landlady. And so indeed it was, for the schoolmaster had ordered it to be put down, and it was getting on so well that the doctor might have smelt it if he had tried; perhaps he did.

‘You may then,’ said the doctor, rising gravely, ‘give her a glass of hot mulled port wine, if she likes wine—’

‘And a toast, Sir?’ suggested the landlady. ‘Ay,’ said the doctor, in the tone of a man who makes a dignified concession. ‘And a toast—of bread. But be very particular to make it of bread, if you please, ma’am.’

With which parting injunction, slowly and portentously delivered, the doctor departed, leaving the whole house in admiration of that wisdom which tallied so closely with their own. Everybody said he was a very shrewd doctor indeed, and knew perfectly what people’s constitutions were; which there appears some reason to suppose he did.”

Since reading this I have endeavored to make all my medical pronouncements with solemnity and gravity and as slowly and portentously as possible.

Portentously Yours,

-ACP

N.B. The Old Curiosity Shop was the fourth novel of Charles Dickens.  The novel was published in installments in the periodical Master Humphrey’s Clock.  The first installment was printed in April of 1840 and the last was printed in February of 1841.

 

 

A Voodoo Coronary Calcium Scan Could Save Your Life

The skeptical cardiologist received this reader comment recently:

So I went and got a Cardiac Calcium Score on my own since my cardiologist wouldn’t order one because he says they are basically voodoo.. Family History is awful for me.. I got my score of 320 and I’m 48 years old.. Doc looked at it and basically did the oh well.. so I switched docs and the other doc basically did the same thing.. I try so very hard to live a good lifestyle..I just don’t understand why docs wait so long to actually take a look at your heart.. I would have thought a score of 320 would have brought on more testing.. It did not..

I was shocked that a cardiologist practicing in 2019 would term a coronary artery calcium (CAC) scan (aka, heart scan or calcium score) “voodoo.”

I’m a strong advocate of what I wrote in a recent post with the ridiculously long title, “Prevention of Heart Attack and Stroke-Early Detection Of Risk Using Coronary Artery Calcium Scans In The Youngish“:

It’s never too early to start thinking about your risk of cardiovascular disease. If heart disease runs in your family or you have any of the “risk-enhancing” factors listed above, consider a CAC, nontraditional lipid/biomarkers, or vascular screening to better determine where you stand and what you can do about it.

Here’s what I told this young man:

If your cardiologist tells you coronary calcium scores are voodoo I would strongly consider changing cardiologists.

A score of 320 at age 48 puts you in a very high risk category for stroke and heart attack over the next 10 years.

You need to find a physician who understands how to incorporate coronary calcium into his practice and will help you with lifestyle changes and medications to reduce that risk


Let’s analyze my points in detail and see if these off the cuff remarks are really justified

1,  Changing cardiologists.

Recent studies and recent guideline recommendations (see here) all support utilization of CAC in this kind of patient. If you have a strong family history of premature heart disease or sudden death you want a cardiologist who is actively keeping up on the published literature in preventive cardiology,  Such cardiologists are not dismissing CAC as “voodoo” they are incorporating it into their assessment of patient’s risk on a daily basis.

2. High risk of CAC score 320  at age 48

I plugged normal numbers for cholesterol and BP into the MESA risk calculator (see my discussion on how to use this here) for a 48 year old white male.

As you can see the high CAC score puts this patient at almost triple the 10 year risk of heart attack and stroke.

Immediate action is warranted to adjust lifestyle to reduce this risk! This high score will provide great motivation to the patient to stop smoking, exercise, lose excess weight, and modify diet.

Hidden risk factors such as lipoprotein(a),  hs-CRP and LDL-P need to be assessed.

Drug treatment should be considered.

3. Find physician who will be more proactive in preventing heart disease

This may be the hardest part of all my recommendations. On your own you can get a CAC performed and advanced lipoprotein analysis.

However, finding progressive, enlightened, up-to-date preventive cardiologists can be a challenge.

We need a network of such cardiologists.

I frequently receive requests from readers or patients leaving St. Louis for recommendations on cardiologists.

If you are aware of such preventive cardiologists in your area email me or post in comments and I will keep a log and post on the website for reference.

Voodoophobically Yours,

-ACP

Enlightened Medical Management of Atrial Fibrillation: Part I. Amiodarone, Kardia And Cardioversions

The skeptical cardiologist is a firm believer in the benefit of maintaining normal rhythm in most patients who develop atrial fibrillation (AF, see here.)

Sometimes this can be accomplished by lifestyle changes (losing pounds and cutting back on alcohol , treating sleep apnea, etc.) but more often successful long term maintenance of normal rhythm (NSR) requires a judicious combination of medications and electrical cardioversions (ECV).

It is also greatly facilitated by a compliant and knowledgeable patient who is regularly self-monitoring with a personal ECG device.

My article on electrical cardioversion (see here)  was inspired by a patient (we’ll call her Sandy) who asked me  in April of 2016, “how many times can you shock the heart?”

In 2016 I performed her fifth cardioversion and last week I did her sixth.

Her story of AF is a common one which exemplifies how excellent medical management of AF can cure heart failure and mitral regurgitation and create decades of AF-free, happy and healthy existence.

A Tale Of Six Cardioversions

Sandy had her first episode of atrial fibrillation in 2001 and underwent a cardioversion at that time and as far as she knew had no AF problems for 14 years. I’ve seen numerous cases like this where following a cardioversion, patients maintain NSR for a long time without medications but I’ve also seen  many in whom AF came back in days to months.

In 2015 she saw her PCP for routine follow-up and AF with a rapid rate was detected.  She had been noticing shortness of breath on exertion and a cough at night but otherwise had no clue she was out of rhythm.

When I saw her in consultation she was in heart failure and her echocardiogram demonstrated a left ventricular  ejection fraction of 50% with severe mitral regurgitation.  She quickly went back into AF after an electrical cardioverson (ECV) and  reverted to AF again following a repeat ECV  after four days on amiodarone.

Since amiodarone can take months to reach effective levels in the heart we tried one more time to cardiovert after loading on higher dosage amiodarone for one month. This time she stayed in NSR

Following that cardioversion she has done extremely well. Her shortness of breath resolved and follow up echocardiograms have demonstrated resolution of her mitral regurgitation.

She had purchased a Kardia mobile ECG device for personal monitoring of her rhythm and we were able to monitor her rhythm using the KardiaPro dashboard. Recordings showed she was consistently maintaining NSR after her 2016 ECV

Image from my online KardiaPro Dashboard showing the date and HR of patient’s home ECG recordings leading up to the cardioversion and following it. The orange dots were Kardia diagnosed AF and following the cardioversion the green dots are NSR.

 

 

 

I’ve written extensively on the great value of KardiaPro used in conjunction with the Kardia mobile ECG device for monitoring patients pre and post cardioversion for atrial fibrillation.  Sandy  does a great job of making frequent Kardia ECG recordings, almost on a daily basis so even though she has no symptoms we are alerted to any AF within 24 hours of it happening.

Amiodarone-The Big Medical Gun For Stopping Atrial Fibrillation

The recurrence of AF Sandy had in 2016 occurred 8 months after I had lowered her amiodarone dosage to 100 mg daily.

Amiodarone is a unique drug in the AF toolkit.

It is the by far the most effective drug for maintaining sinus rhythm, an effect that makes it our most useful antiarrhythmic drug (AAD).

  1. It is cheap and well-tolerated.
  2. Uniquely among drugs that we use for controlling atrial fibrillation it takes a long time to build up in heart tissue and a long time to wear off.
  3. It is the safest antiarrhythmic drug from a cardiac standpoint. Unlike many of the other AADs we don’t have to worry about pro-arrhythmia (bringing out more dangerous rhythms such as ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation) with amio.
  4. Amiodarone, however, is not for all patients-it has significant long term side effects that necessitate constant vigilance by prescribing physicians including thyroid, liver and lung toxicity.

I monitor my patients on amiodarone with thyroid and liver blood tests every 4 months and a chest x-ray yearly and I try to utilize the minimal dosage that will keep them out of AF.

In Sandy’s case it was apparent that 100 mg was too little but with an increase back to 200 mg daily, the AF remained at bay.

In early 2017, Sandy read on Facebook that amio was a “poison” and after discussing risks and benefits we decided to lower the dosage to 200 mg alternating with 100 mg. It is common and appropriate for patients to be fearful of the potential long term and serious consequences of medications. For any patient taking amiodarone I always offer the option of stopping the drug with the understanding that there is a strong likelihood of recurrent AF within 3 months once the drug wears off.

In October, 2018 with Sandy continuing to show normal heart function and maintain SR as documented by her daily Kardia ECG tracings we decided to further lower the dosage to 100 mg daily.

Six months later she noted one day that her Kardia reading was showing a heart rate of 159 bpm and diagnosing atrial fibrillation. AF had recurred on the lower dosage of amiodarone.  She had no symptoms but based on prior experience we knew that soon she would go into heart failure.

Image from my online KardiaPro report on Sandy showing all green dots (NSR) until she went into AF (orange dots). Upon discharge from the hospital the daily Kardia recordings now show NSR (green dots).

Thus, her amiodarone was increased and a sixth cardioversion was performed. We could find no trigger for this episode (unless the  bloody mary she consumed at a  Mother’s Day Brunch 2 days prior was the culprit.)

Medical Management With Antiarrhythmics Versus Ablation

Many patients seek a “cure” for atrial fibrillation. They hear from friends and neighbors or the interweb of ablation or surgical procedures that promise this.  Stopafib.org, for example,  promotes these types of procedures saying “Catheter ablation and surgical maze procedures cure atrial fibrillation”

In my experience the majority of patients receiving ablation or surgical procedures (Maze procedure and its variants) ultimately end up having recurrent episodes of atrial fibrillation. Guidelines do not suggest that anticoagulants can be stopped in such patients. Often, they end up on AADs.

I’ve prepared a whole post on ablation for AF but the bottom line is that there is no evidence that ablation lowers the AF patient’s risk of dying, stroke, or bleeding. My post will dig deeper into the risks and benefits of ablation.

There is no cure for AF, surgical, catheter-based or medical.

In the right hands most patients can do very well with medical management combined with occasional cardioversion.

Who posseses the right hands?

In my opinion, most AF patients are best served by a cardiologist who has a special interest in atrial fibrillation and takes the time to read extensively and keep up with the latest developments and guideline recommendations in the area. This does not need to a be an electrophysiologist (EP doctor-one who specializes in the electrical abnormalities of the heart and performs ablations, pacemakers and defibrillators.)

I have a ton of respect for the EP doctors I work with and send patients to but I think that when it comes to doing invasive, risky procedures the decision should be based on a referral/recommendation from a cardiologist who is not doing the procedure.

In many areas of cardiology we are moving toward an interdisciplinary team of diagnosticians, interventionalists, surgeons and non-cardiac specialists to make decisions on performance of high-risk and high-cost but high-benefit procedures like valve repair and replacement, closure of PFOs and implantation of left atrial appendage closure devices.

It makes sense that decisions to perform high-risk , high-cost atrial fibrillation procedures also be determined by a multi-disciplinary team with members who don’t do the procedure.

This is a rule of thumb that can also be applied to many surgical procedures as well.  For example, the decision to proceed to surgical treatment of carotid artery blockages (carotid endarterectomy) is typically  made by the vascular surgeons who perform the procedure. In my opinion this decision should be made by a neurologist with expertise in neurovascular disease combined with a good cardiologist who has kept up with the latest studies on the risks and benefits of carotid surgery and is fully briefed on the latest guideline recommendations.

Unbenightedly Yours,

-ACP

Is An Unneeded Beta-Blocker Making You Feel Logy?

The skeptical cardiologist saw a patient recently who  had undergone stenting of a 95% blocked right coronary artery. Mr Jones had presented  a year ago to our ER 2 days after he first began experiencing a light pressure-type discomfort in his left shoulder and scapular region. This pain persisted, waxing and waning, without a clear relationship to exertion or position or movement of his shoulder.

Upon arrival in the ER, his ECG was normal but his cardiac enzymes were slightly elevated (troponin peaking 0.92), thus he was diagnosed with a non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (MI).

He’s done great since the stent procedure fixed the coronary blockage that caused his infarct and chest pain, but during our office visit he related that since his hospitalization he had been feeling “logy.” 

Being a lover of words, my ears perked up at this new-to-me adjective, and I asked him to describe what he meant by logy. For him, loginess was a feeling of fatigue or lacking energy.

Indeed, the online Merriam-Webster dictionary defines logy as sluggish or groggy. It is pronounced usually with a long o and a hard g.

The origin is unclear but has nothing to do with rum:

Based on surface resemblance, you might guess that “logy” (also sometimes spelled “loggy”) is related to “groggy,” but that’s not the case. “Groggy” ultimately comes from “Old Grog,” the nickname of an English admiral who was notorious for his cloak made of a fabric called grogram – and for adding water to his crew’s rum. The sailors called the rum mixture “grog” after the admiral. Because of the effect of grog, “groggy” came to mean “weak and unsteady on the feet or in action.” No one is really sure about the origin of “logy,” but experts speculate that it comes from the Dutch word log, meaning “heavy.” Its first recorded use in English, from an 1847 London newspaper, refers to a “loggy stroke” in rowing.

Fatigue is a common, nonspecific symptom that we all feel at times. It is more common as we age and it can be challenging for both patients and physicians to sort out when it needs to be further evaluated.

Occasionally, fatigue is the only symptom of a significant cardiac condition, but more frequently in the patient population I see it is either noncardiac (low thyroid, anemia, etc.) or iatrogenic

When a patient tells me they are feeling fatigued I immediately scan their med list for potential logigenic drugs.

In this case, my patient had been started on a low dosage of the beta-blocker carvedilol (brand name Coreg) after his stent, and I suspected this was why he had felt logy for the past year.

In cardiology, we utilize beta-blockers in many situations-arrhythmias, heart failure, and heart attacks to name a few, and they are well-known to have fatigue as a common side effect. There was a really good chance that Mr. Jones’s loginess was due to the carvedilol.

It’s important to review all medications at each patient visit to check for side effects, interactions and benefits, and in the case of Mr. Jones’ carvedilol, loginess.

Do All Patients Post-Revascularization or Post-MI Need To Take Beta-Blockers

Beta-blockers (BBs) are frequently started in patients after a stenting procedure or coronary bypass surgery, and continued indefinitely. However, the evidence for their benefit in such  patients with normal LV function long term is lacking.

If any post-revascularization population benefits from BBs, it is those, like Mr. Jones who have had a myocardial infarction (MI, heart attack) prior to the procedure, however the smaller the infarct, the less the benefits.

And with the widespread use of early stenting to treat MI, infarcts are much smaller and dysfunction of the left ventricle (LV) less likely.

In those patients with minimal damage and normal LV function, the benefits appear minimal. For this reason in the last 5 to 10 years I’ve been stopping BBs in this population if there are any significant side effects.

An “Expert Analysis” published in JACC in 2017 noted that:

A 2015 meta-analysis of 10 observational acute MI studies including more than 40,000 patients showed that beta-blockers reduced the risk of all-cause death  However, the benefit of these agents was not found in all subgroups and seemed confined to the patients with reduced LVEF, with low use of other secondary prevention drugs, or NSTEMI.

In a study of almost 180,000 patients post MI with normal LV systolic function in the UK between 2007 and 2013 there was no difference in mortality at one year in patients discharged with or without beta-blockers.

The only way to answer this question definitely would be with a randomized controlled trial and, to my surprise and delight, such a study (CAPITAL-RCT (Carvedilol Post-Intervention Long-Term Administration in Large-scale Randomized Controlled Trial) was published in PLOS One in August of 2018.

I’ll save readers the details, but the bottom line is that patients treated with optimal contemporary therapy for acute MI, whose LV function was not significantly impaired, did not benefit in any way from treatment with carvedilol, the beta-blocker my patient was taking.

It’s rare that we get such definitive evidence for a change in treatment that reverses what is in current guidelines. This has the potential to affect tens of thousands of patients and improve their quality of life. It should be trumpeted far and wide. The cynic in me suspects that if it were a study demonstrating the benefits of a new drug, physicians would be bombarded with the new information.

Helping Patients Feel Less Logy

We will be ordering an echocardiogram on Mr. Jones, and if his LV function is normal we will stop his carvedilol and see if he feels significantly better.  

I feel like stopping a drug that is not beneficial and that is causing a lifetime of loginess is an incredibly important intervention a cardiologist can make. It’s not as life-saving as stenting for acute MI, but saving quality of life is something this non-invasive cardiologist can do every day for every patient.

Skeptically Yours,

-ACP

N.B. The summary of the recent CAPITAL-RCT:

STEMI patients with successful primary PCI within 24 hours from the onset and with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥40% were randomly assigned in a 1-to-1 fashion either to the carvedilol group or to the no beta-blocker group within 7 days after primary PCI. The primary endpoint is a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, hospitalization for heart failure, and hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome. Between August 2010 and May 2014, 801 patients were randomly assigned to the carvedilol group (N = 399) or the no beta-blocker group (N = 402) at 67 centers in Japan. The carvedilol dose was up-titrated from 3.4±2.1 mg at baseline to 6.3±4.3 mg at 1-year. During median follow-up of 3.9 years with 96.4% follow-up, the cumulative 3-year incidences of both the primary endpoint and any coronary revascularization were not significantly different between the carvedilol and no beta-blocker groups (6.8% and 7.9%, P = 0.20, and 20.3% and 17.7%, P = 0.65, respectively). There also was no significant difference in LVEF at 1-year between the 2 groups (60.9±8.4% and 59.6±8.8%, P = 0.06).

 

 

 

 

Is Your Doctor’s White Coat (Or Tie Or Hand Shake) a Threat to Your Health?

The patients of the skeptical cardiologist have probably noted that over the last 10 years he has transitioned from wearing a tie to not wearing a tie and from always wearing a white coat to rarely wearing a white coat.

I wrote about this in 2015  in a previous post entitled “The Tie, The White Coat and The Fist Bump“:”

“My role models and mentors during my medical training taught me what I considered to be the proper appearance and demeanor of the professional  physician.

The male doctor wore a dress shirt and a tie. The doctor wore a white coat over his/her regular clothes. The more senior the doctor was in the medical hierarchy the longer the white coat and the more impressive the words written on the coat.

Presumably, this professional appearance of the doctor increased the confidence that the patient had in the professionalism of the doctor.

Upon encountering a patient in the hospital room or office exam room, the doctor extends his right hand, greets the patient and smiles and shakes hands.

I wore a tie and a white coat and shook hands consistently during the first 20 years of my practice but gradually these markers of a good doctor have fallen under scrutiny.”

A major issue with all three of these, I pointed out , is transmission of bacteria and viruses.

Now Aaron Frakt at The Incidental Economist has summarized the concerns about the doctor’s white coat in particular in a great article originally published in the New York Times entitled Why Your Doctor’s White Coat Can Be a Threat to Your Health | The Incidental Economist.

It’s a good short read I highly recommend.

Don’t be surprised if the next time you see me I am sans tie and white coat and do not offer a handshake.

Casually Yours,

-ACP

In Flight Medical Emergencies: This Doctor Is Now Ready To Heed The Call

In a previous post the skeptical cardiologist wrote about the reluctance  of doctors to “heed the call” , i.e., to respond to an in-flight medical emergency (IME) when the flight crew requests assistance from qualified medical professionals.

Only 20% of physicians in my (very unscientific) poll would respond to such requests.

I pointed out that:

“In 1998 Congress passed the Aviation Medical Assistance Act, which tries to protect medical Good Samaritans who heed an airplane call. The act protects physicians, nurses, physician assistants, state-qualified EMTs and paramedics:

“An individual shall not be liable for damages in any action brought in a Federal or State court arising out of the acts or omissions of the individual in providing or attempting to provide assistance in the case of an in-flight medical emergency unless the individual, while rendering such assistance, is guilty of gross negligence or willful misconduct.”

but I and other physicians  had concerns beyond medical liability, as I detailed in my post.

Physicians Who Prefer Not To Head The Call

At the time I wrote that piece, to be honest, I was in the camp of physicians who would prefer not to heed the call.

I tended to agree with Dr. Winocour on Larry David’s  Curb Your Enthusiasm who justifies his failure to respond in flight with two comments:

“Give it a minute. He’s gonna be fine.” and

“Have you ever been part of an emergency landing? Is that what you want, Larry? To spend the night in Lubbock, Texas, at a Days Inn with a $15 voucher from Cinnabon? Think about it.”

Although Winocour was correct that the vast majority of in-flight medical “emergencies” resolve without any specific intervention it is still helpful for a physician to attend on such patients and assess the situation.

And it is true that if he had attended on a patient with a serious non-transient medical problem he would suddenly find himself having to make an incredibly difficult and life-deciding decision on whether or not to  divert the plane or make an emergency landing with insufficient diagnostic tools and inadequate information.

But somebody has to make that call and the physician heeding the call will have the assistance of experts in the field on the ground.

Qualified Physicians Should Be Prepared To Heed The Call!

After pondering the issue for a few years and reading an excellent review on the topic in a recent JAMA I have changed my stance and am now completely ready (almost eager)  to heed the call.

Leslie Nielsen as Dr. Rumack in Airplane! He heeded the call.

In fact, I am currently writing this while en route from frigid and
snowy St. Louis to sunny and warm San Diego on a Southwest Airlines flight and I’m considering pre-identifying myself as a physician in case an IME develops. (The only thing stopping me is that it seems a little pretentious and likely unnecessary, perhaps if I just put wear my stethoscope constantly that will be enough.)

I have in my backpack several items that will assist me in handling cardiovascular emergencies should they arise:

  1. AliveCor Mobile ECG-With this and my iPhone I will be able to rapidly ascertain the stricken passengers heart rate and rhythm-crucial information to help diagnosis and proper treatment. (I also have my Apple Watch 4 for the same purpose.)
  2. Qardioarm BP cuff-Rapid, efficient assessment of BP without tubes, or wires.
  3. Stethoscope-a good one with which I can hear heart murmurs and lung sounds. Although the FAA-mandated emergency medical kit on board should have both a BP cuff and a stethoscope , I have no confidence they will be either accurate or functional.
  4. Sublingual nitroglycerin. The kit on the plane should have these  along with 325 mg aspirin tablets, IV atropine, and injectable glucose, epinephrine and lidocaine.
  5. An epinephrine auto-injector. For the stricken passenger who is suffering anaphylaxis from the mixed nuts being served across the aisle.

Should there actually be a cardiac arrest I’m completely up to date on Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) and CPR training and there should be an AED on board to defibrillate if appropriate.

I’ve also decided that despite my reluctance to bring attention to myself, it is highly likely that I will be the most qualified person to rapidly diagnose and treat any serious cardiovascular condition that arises on my flight.  As a doctor, I believe, I should be striving to provide assistance to those suffering whenever and wherever I can, be that in the air, on the sea, in the hospital or in the office.

Call-heedingly Yours,

-ACP

N.B. One (of many) of the newly-minted wife’s favorite Airplane! lines  comes from the doctor who heeded the call.

  • Rumack : You’d better tell the Captain we’ve got to land as soon as we can. This woman has to be gotten to a hospital.

    Elaine Dickinson : A hospital? What is it?

    Rumack : It’s a big building with patients, but that’s not important right now.

Why We Need To Replace Hippocrates’ Oath And Apocryphal Trope

The skeptical cardiologist has never liked the Hippocratic Oath and so was quite pleased to read that it is gradually being replaced by more appropriate oaths with many medical graduates taking an excellent pledge created by the World Medical Association.

Here’s the first line of the Hippocratic Oath

Asclepius with his serpent-entwined staff, Archaeological Museum of Epidaurus

I swear by Apollo the Healer, by Asclepius, by Hygieia, by Panacea, and by all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will carry out, according to my ability and judgment, this oath and this indenture.

Much as I enjoy the ribald hi jinx of the gods and goddesses in Greek mythology and appreciate the back story behind words like panacea and hygiene* I just don’t feel it is appropriate to swear an oath to mythical super beings.

Let Food Be Thy Medicine-The Apocryphal Hippocratic Trope

Hippocrates is often cited these days in alternative medicine circles because he is alleged to have said “let food be thy medicine and medicine thy food.”

I’ve come across two articles that are well worth reading on the food=medicine trope which is often used by snake oil salesmen to justify their useless (presumably food-based) supplements.

The first , entitled “Hey, Hippocrates: Food isn’t medicine. It’s just food” comes from  Dylan Mckay, a nutritional biochemist at the Richardson Centre for Functional Foods and Nutraceuticals, He writes:

Food is so much more than medicine. Food is intrinsically related to human social interactions and community. Food is culture, love, and joy. Turning food into medicine robs it of these positive attributes.

A healthy relationship with food is essential to a person’s well-being, but not because it has medicinal properties. Food is not just fuel and it is more than nutrients — and we don’t consume it just to reduce our disease risk.

Seeing food as a medicine can contribute to obsessing about macronutrientintake, to unfairly canonizing or demonizing certain foods, and to turning eating into a joyless and stressful process.

People tend to overvalue the immediate impact of what they eat, thinking that a “super food” can have instant benefits while undervaluing the long-term effects of what they consume over their lifetime.

The Appeal to Antiquity

The second article is from the always excellent David Gorski at Science-based Medicine entitled let-food-be-thy-medicine-and-medicine-be-thy-food-the-fetishism-of-medicinal-foods.

Gorski notes that just because Hippocrates is considered by some to be the “father of medicine” and his ideas are ancient doesn’t make them correct:

one of the best examples out there of the logical fallacy known as the appeal to antiquity; in other words, the claim that if something is ancient and still around it must be correct (or at least there must be something to it worth considering).

Of course, just because an idea is old doesn’t mean it’s good, any more than just because Hippocrates said it means it must be true. Hippocrates was an important figure in the history of medicine because he was among the earliest to assert that diseases were caused by natural processes rather than the gods and because of his emphasis on the careful observation and documentation of patient history and physical findings, which led to the discovery of physical signs associated with diseases of specific organs. However, let’s not also forget that Hippocrates and his followers also believed in humoral theory, the idea that all disease results from an imbalance of the “four humors.” It’s also amusing to note that this quote by Hippocrates is thought to be a misquote, as it is nowhere to be found in the more than 60 texts known as The Hippocratic Corpus (Corpus Hippocraticum).

Gorski goes on to point out that:

this ancient idea that virtually all disease could be treated with diet, however much or little it was embraced by Hippocrates, has become an idée fixe in alternative medicine, so much so that it leads its proponents twist new science (like epigenetics) to try to fit it into a framework where diet rules all, often coupled with the idea that doctors don’t understand or care about nutrition and it’s big pharma that’s preventing the acceptance of dietary interventions. That thinking also permeates popular culture, fitting in very nicely with an equally ancient phenomenon, the moralization of food choices (discussed ably by Dr. Jones a month ago


We’ve learned a lot about medicine and nutrition in the last 3 thousand years. We can thank Hippocrates, perhaps, for the idea that diseases don’t come from the gods but little else.

It’s time to upgrade the physician pledge  and jettison the antiquated Hippocratic Oath.

We now have real, effective medicines that have nothing to do with food for many diseases. It’s important to eat a healthy diet.

But the food=medicine trope is just too often a  marker for pseudo and anti-science humbuggery and should also be left behind.

Hygienically Yours,

-ACP

*From Wikipedia, an explanation of the Gods and Goddesses mentioned in the Hippocratic oath

Asclepius represents the healing aspect of the medical arts; his daughters are Hygieia(“Hygiene”, the goddess/personification of health, cleanliness, and sanitation), Iaso (the goddess of recuperation from illness), Aceso(the goddess of the healing process), Aglæa/Ægle (the goddess of the glow of good health), and Panacea (the goddess of universal remedy).


The Physician’s Pledge

  • Adopted by the 2nd General Assembly of the World Medical Association, Geneva, Switzerland, September 1948
    and amended by the 22nd World Medical Assembly, Sydney, Australia, August 1968
    and the 35th World Medical Assembly, Venice, Italy, October 1983
    and the 46th WMA General Assembly, Stockholm, Sweden, September 1994
    and editorially revised by the 170th WMA Council Session, Divonne-les-Bains, France, May 2005
    and the 173rd WMA Council Session, Divonne-les-Bains, France, May 2006
    and the WMA General Assembly, Chicago, United States, October 2017

  • AS A MEMBER OF THE MEDICAL PROFESSION:

  • I SOLEMNLY PLEDGE to dedicate my life to the service of humanity;

  • THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF MY PATIENT will be my first consideration;

  • I WILL RESPECT the autonomy and dignity of my patient;

  • I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life;

  • I WILL NOT PERMIT considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing, or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient;

  • I WILL RESPECT the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died;

  • I WILL PRACTISE my profession with conscience and dignity and in accordance with good medical practice;

  • I WILL FOSTER the honour and noble traditions of the medical profession;

  • I WILL GIVE to my teachers, colleagues, and students the respect and gratitude that is their due;

  • I WILL SHARE my medical knowledge for the benefit of the patient and the advancement of healthcare;

  • I WILL ATTEND TO my own health, well-being, and abilities in order to provide care of the highest standard;

  • I WILL NOT USE my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat;

  • I MAKE THESE PROMISES solemnly, freely, and upon my honour.