bb Albert Provocateur: May 2007

Albert Provocateur

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Machiavellian Mechanism


Wow! I didn't know hypertension could be so complicated. Sodium and potassium play extremely important roles in the pathogenesis of hypertension. So, up your intake of fresh fruits and vegetables, which are high in potassium and low in sodium, and you will live to be 100 (or almost). Those wishing to live longer should pray for a miracle. (diagram taken from NEJM, 5-10-07) Dr. Al Posted by Picasa

Monday, May 28, 2007

Hail to the Chiefs, Snow and Jenner!

Both John Snow (1832) and Edward Jenner (1768), though separated in time by half a century more or less, were keen observers and listeners in a scientific epoch fraught with superstition and lack of scientific method and technique. The relative tools at their disposal (microscopes, for the most part) were rudimentary and scarce at best, and the mechanisms and biology of their fields of interest, namely cholera and cowpox (Variolae vaccinae), respectively, had as yet to be elucidated. Snow and Jenner, therefore, were epidemiologic pioneers, in the truest sense of the word. They theorized, hypothesized, and postulated, based on their observations and conviction that believing did not mean seeing all things in great detail. In fact, while they strived to maximize their knowledge of the biology and pathogenesis of cholera and cowpox, they were conscious of their limitations and mindful of the fact that they might prevent disease in the absence of pathogenetic omniscience. The inability of our two heroes to view infectious material by the light of day or microscope, in no way lessened their contribution to the definition/individuation of the “morbid matter” or “poison” of cholera and cowpox. Due to the primitive nature of the scientific instrumentation and methodology of their day, Snow and Jenner were constrained (which honed their observational skills, however) to recognize infectious material by effect, not by physical properties. Voilà! The birth of observational epidemiology.
John Snow approached the problem of cholera in Great Britain in a systematic manner. He sought direct physical proof, and studied disease extension indirectly also, in order to clarify disease communication via passage of morbid material from the sick to the healthy. Snow’s insight into the route and mechanism of cholera infection, his definition and individuation of morbid matter, his equation of period of incubation to period of reproduction of infectious progeny, and his targeting of factors favoring spread of cholera and modes of communication, not only saved countless lives and served as a gold standard for the epidemiologic methodology to follow, but also provided a basis for preventive interventions and public policy in mid-19th century England. In fact, based on his observations and recommendations, an Act of Parliament was enacted to regulate common lodging-houses, where cholera festered. This had the effect of reducing fatality rates in later epidemics.
Edward Jenner, in 1768, became convinced that cowpox would confer immunity to smallpox. His inquisitive nature and perseverance served him well from 1768 to 1797, a particularly fertile period for his epidemiologic and experimental research. During that timeframe, by means of observational data collection, monitoring, and surveillance, he elucidated the etiology, route of communication, pathologic anatomy in both cow and human subjects, symptomatology, and progression of the cowpox disease. Jenner noted the similarities and differences between Variolae infectious material and that of other viruses. What makes that a singular feat was the fact that Jenner operated under purely observational criteria, in an 18th century devoid of deep understanding of the workings and biology of the cowpox virus. He set the machine in motion, proposing the hypothesis that infection with cowpox would protect against subsequent smallpox infestation, and then he sought to test that hypothesis in the notable cases of Elizabeth Wynne in 1797 and of William Smith from 1780 to 1795.
We come away from the stories of these two great men with one recurring theme in mind, and it is that incomplete knowledge of the biology and pathogenesis of disease in no way precludes disease prevention. While more is always better, something goes a long way in epidemiology, public heath, and preventive medicine.
Personally speaking, I learned four important lessons from reading about Snow and Jenner’s technical methodologies, which are as valid today as they were in the 18th and 19th centuries. First of all, epidemiologic observations in and of themselves are of little value if not translated into public policy. Secondly, effective preventive services can and must be implemented, regardless of the holes in our scientific knowledge. Next, public health medicine is an entity unto itself, and I would be a fool if I claimed right now to know the similarities and differences between public health medicine and clinical medicine. Finally, prevention and his little brother therapy are not mutually exclusive. While the former should come first, this is not a “chicken and egg” proposition. There is no shame in big brother asking the little fella to lend a hand.
In the days of their unrecognized glory, Snow and Jenner relied on “leg work,” determination, and force of ideas to accomplish what computers and artificial intelligence hands us today on a silver platter. That makes their contribution to the body of epidemiologic and scientific knowledge all the more awe inspiring. The simplicity of Snow’s “shoe leather epidemiology” and Jenner’s unwavering preoccupation with human experimentation (damn the ethical considerations and implications) stand tall in the arena of today’s billion dollar projects, especially when cost-effectiveness (doing the greatest good with the resources available) is a concern.
All hail the chiefs! In a post-9/11 world, we may find ourselves looking more to the likes of Snow and Jenner than to Hubble telescopes.

© 2007, Albert M. Balesh, M.D. All rights reserved.

Sunday, May 27, 2007

House of Cards

We build them up meticulously, with tender loving care, only to watch them come tumbling down just when we are convinced of their firm foundation and stable armament, and least expect it. We want to believe in our medical institutions. We want to believe in their quality of care. Wishful thinking may abound here, however, as horror stories continue to mount and testimony comes out of the closet. The predominant question remains unanswered. Are our hospitals safe?
The cards have been dealt. Read them and weep. Hospital-acquired infections amount to 2 million each year, with one in 20 hospitalized patients falling victim. With more and more bacteria becoming resistant to our dwindling arsenal of antibiotics, it comes as no surprise that hospital infections are the eighth-leading cause of death in the U.S. The numbers are staggering. Every year 90,000 Americans die of infections contracted during hospital stays for other causes. Those who manage to dodge the infectious bullet are plain fortunate. Those who take a “flesh wound” curse the hospital, their caregivers, and they day they were born, as weeks of intravenous antibiotics and major surgery to remove necrotic tissue are their compensation for attempting to keep their organism in tiptop shape in the first place.
We as a society must ask ourselves the questions, do we feel lucky? Are hospital-acquired infections inevitable? Does pro-action really work? While the answers to our queries may be sobering, they will nonetheless reap rewards in the future. Currently, it has been estimated that more than 60 percent of staphylococcal germs are resistant to antibiotics. With those cards stacked against us, we must seek to prevent rather than treat infections. To do that, patient education and caregiver attention to detail must become first and foremost, as is usually the case. Hands must be washed on a regular and repetitive basis (as bacteria are largely spread through touch), blood pressure cuffs and other instruments must be cleaned for every patient, antibiotics must be administered before surgery, and overuse of catheters and intravenous lines must become a “no-no.” What good are latex gloves, if the hands they house are dirty! And let’s not forget our doctors’ neckties. In a recent study conducted on those silk status symbols, 20 of 43 neckties tested harbored bacteria and other creepy crawlers in them. While demanding that your physician remove his necktie and wash his hands might be an exaggeration, it might not be such a bad idea, after all, before physical examination or instrumentation.
Hospital infections, when care trumps lip service, should be no more common in the old and immunocompromised than in average patients on the hospital ward. Common sense should reign. Doorknobs, curtains, cabinets, blood pressure cuffs, writing implements, charts, and other extraneous paraphernalia should not be touched once our fearless men and women in white have scrubbed or gloved. Now, that might sound redundant and go without saying, but our modern-day reliance on antibiotics has clouded good old conventional wisdom.
Currently, hospital infection rates in the U.S. hover around a wound infection for one of every 24 surgical patients, and a urinary tract infection for up to 25 percent of patients requiring a catheter for a week or longer. While those are national averages, we can certainly do better. Focused infection prevention will not only save lives, but will pay dividends of $1.2 million or more to an average hospital over a two-year period. With the average charge for an infection case reaching $185,260, compared with $31,389 for a non-infection case, the time has come to “debug” the health care system before the roof comes down and costs become unsustainable.
Now that you know the problem, what can you can you, the health care consumer, do? Or are you just a small fish in an underworld of card sharks? Some simple rules to follow will call their bluffs. Wash your hands frequently, and ask your caregivers to wash theirs. Sometimes easier said than done! Lose weight and stop smoking before surgery to cut down on the chances of infection. Make sure your physician prescribes an antibiotic before surgery, and don’t allow the doctor to shave the surgical site. Hair clippers are less infection-provoking than razors. If your friends are ill, tell them to stay away from the hospital. Finally, when IVs and catheters become loose, call for help.
If all else fails, there is always Russian roulette……

© 2007, Albert M. Balesh, M.D. All rights reserved.

Saturday, May 05, 2007

Alien Abduction or CPAP?


Is this an alien abduction, or just a patient undergoing continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for obstructive sleep apnea? (photo taken from NEJM, 4-26-07) Dr. Al Posted by Picasa

When Old is New

Machines hum, oscilloscopes beep, and telemetry thunders. In today’s world of impersonal, high-tech medicine, it has become downright tough to get well, what with all those inanimate eyes staring at us. As we long for the days of house calls, glass thermometers, enemas, kind words, gentle hands, and a reassuring smile, we come to realize that those times are long gone. Were the patients of yesteryear any more deserving than we are? Were the physicians of the past any more competent and compassionate than their contemporary compadres? Where has all the love gone? Personally, my ticker refuses to play for an audience of lifeless electrodes, cathode-ray screens, sonic probes, and drones, in the absence of the expert and caring supervision of a human conductor.
The human side of medicine has been forgotten or, at the least, overlooked for far too long now. Patients’ emotions and concerns are no less important than their physical ailments. To ignore the former inevitably exacerbates the latter. The human mind and spirit are quite sensitive and all too discerning. They sense a wolf in sheep’s clothing and a physician in a hurry. While this has become the status quo, the name of the game should be patience and putting the patient’s psyche at ease. When this is accomplished, only good things can follow.
The attitude and conduct of a physician in the presence of a patient, namely bedside manner, is an art form created and perfected over countless years of observation and relation to innumerable faces whose names are long forgotten. The maladies etched in those countenances, however, are the stuff of a physician’s long-term memory, sleepless nights, and vivid nightmares. Doctors of old knew this, and sought every conceivable opportunity to learn from their patients. Medical texts and learning tools were mere ancillary implements, clarifying a gospel expounded by the sick, but not replacing it. Our healers of today, with their personal data assistants (PDAs), laptop computers, portable instruments, and fiber optics are more “wired” than ever to their patients, and yet there is no real connection. What Bruce Springsteen once said in a lyric, our men and women in white have forgotten in a song. The intangible power of “human touch” is what makes the moderately or severely ill feel secure, supported, cared for, and understood. Human touch is what makes them get better.
As doctors hurry between examining rooms, hide in inner sanctums, and shield themselves behind legions of gatekeepers, they lose sight of the fact that they are fooling no one. The sick, for the most part, recognize that their health care providers are human, and stressed out over the demands and productivity of managed care. So, why not meet each other half way? Symbiosis is a beautiful thing, and give-and-take can be mutually beneficial. A joke, a pat on the back, or the mischievous wink of an eye consumes seconds, minutes at most. The return on it, in an outpatient, can be notable, especially since upwards of 80% of people who visit a medical office are not stricken by strange and exotic medical dilemmas. They simple don’t feel well. Complicity, in the noblest sense of the word, in resolving the day-to-day trials and tribulations of a patient’s life, not only achieves more than truckloads of medical silver bullets and heroic measures, but is curative in most cases.
Inpatients, on the other hand, are horses of a different color. While computers and electronic medical records enable our knights in white armor to detail and annotate a myriad of signs, symptoms, and complaints from A to Z, archival collections of bytes are as useless as buried treasure, if the reasons for their existence succumb for wont of humanity and psychologic sustenance, rather than science.
Placebos, psychosomatics, and hypochondriasis have shown us that the mind really does exert an overbearing influence on matter. That being the case, why has it taken so long for physicians to embrace this, or, if they accept it as a forgone conclusion, why have they been so reluctant to put the tenet into practice? Shakespeare stated it succinctly in Julius Caesar, “Men at some time are masters of their fates. The fault, Dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings.” As physicians, we must break the current mold, and, not meaning to sound trite, proverbially return to the future.
Patients must never be backed into a corner, left to apply the principle of caveat emptor, i.e., that they be ultimately responsible for assessing and directing the quality of their medical care. That onus rests proactively with their caregivers, whose return to the old will inevitably revitalize the new.

© 2007, Albert M. Balesh, M.D. All rights reserved.