In a joint venture, the American College of Cardiology Foundation and several other organizations have published an extensive evidence-based document outlining when revascularization is clinically appropriate. Of 180 clinical scenarios, each was graded 1-9, with 7-9 indicating clinical appropriateness of revascularization (likely to improve health outcomes or survival), and 1-3 inappropriate (unlikely to improve health outcomes or survival). The full document is available at (link). In general, the use of revascularization for acute coronary syndromes, and for symptoms with ischemia, was considered appropriate. Inappropriate scenarios included asymptomatic patients, or those with low-risk findings on stress testing and minimal medical therapy.
Fill in the Blanks: Q: “The diagnosis of type 2 MI is associated with a _____ prognosis. ___% of patients will live five years after their diagnosis.” The answer is a) POOR and b) a staggering 40%. I did not know that. However, what I am aware of is the ambiguity around Type 2 MIs and […]
What comes to mind when you think of getting CME? I bet most of you would say sitting in an auditorium, whether that be during your local grand rounds or at our professional society meeting, like Hospital Medicine 16 in sunny San Diego this past March. Hanging out in the Twitterverse? Probably not so much… […]
As a nurse practitioner in hospital medicine I have multiple opportunities to interact with all sorts of physician hospitalist colleagues, hospital medicine group leaders, quality officers etc. Often their interactions with me take on a certain wary curiosity, like I am some exotic monkey or another creature that is unfamiliar to them. If I am […]