Monday, April 09, 2018
People who are more fit have less atrial fibrillation and less strokes if they develop AF
Individuals who are more fit ( have a higher functional aerobic capacity) are less likely to develop atrial fibrillation (AF) and if they do develop AF they are less likely to have a stroke or die.
These are the conclusions from a long , large study from Mayo Clinic.See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29221502. ref 1
The final study cohort included 12,043 patients referred for a treadmill exercise test and were followed for a median time of 14 years (9-17).They were classified into four groups based on functional aerobic capacity (FAC) .Each 10% increase in FAC was associated with an decreased risk of incident AF ,stroke and mortality by 7 %.
Was the decreased risk observed in the more fit due to a direct physiological effect of exercise or a result of the reduction in the standard risk factors observed in the more fit individuals or is that a distinction without a difference?
Folks who may be accused of exercising too much may find some satisfaction in the data revealing no level of fitness above which there was an increased risk of AF demonstrated in this study.In other words they found no "U-shaped curve" regarding level of exercise ( or more properly of fitness as this study did not measure exercise level) and AF risk.
1)Hussain, N, Impact of cardiorespiratory fitness on frequency of atrial fibrillation,stroke and all cause mortality. Am J Cardiol 2018, Jan 1, 121 41-49
Thursday, April 05, 2018
More on the "lying"or at best really stupid electronic medical record
My medical record at a well known medical center -which shall remain nameless-has labelled me as having atrial fibrillation and it seems to be written in indelible electronic ink refractory to my attempts to erase it.
It came about because of two computers conspiring together. The first was the computer inside of my pace maker.Its algorithm to detect atrial fibrillation detected signals which were interpreted at "AT/AF", meaning atrial tachycardia/ atrial fibrillation. It was a false positive , tricked by a Pacemaker phenomenon called far field sensing. This occur when the sensing lead in one cardiac chamber senses activity in the other chamber and miscounts it. Ultimately the Medtronic tech recognized it and adjusted the atrial lead sensitivity so that the double counting would not occur. Problem fixed but..
The second computer, my electronic medical record (EMR) latched on to the "diagnosis of atrial fibrillation and will not let go. I have written my "patient portal" with a full explanation indicating that my EP cardiologist concurred.
Recently, I met with my new primary care internist who is attached to the same computer system and we discussed my blood pressure, my pacemaker and no mention was made of AF.He never said the words atrial fibrillation.I gave him two of my old EKGs which did not show atrial fibrillation . Yet when he gave me a copy of my patient visit summary my current health issues were said to be 1.pacemaker 2.atrial fibrillation.
Did the computer write the second diagnosis on its own. Did the doc see it, did he even read what was printed out? I cannot believe he even saw it. I cannot believe a board certified internist of over 25 years experience would not have asked why was I not taking an anticoagulant as my CHADS2-VASc score of 3 would warrant anticoagulation according to all guidelines.In the days of the paper medical record can one imagine an internist handing a patient a report that said he had atrial fibrillation when he was aware of no evidence that he in fact had AF?
Of perhaps less significance, my printout also listed a physician who I had never seen, never heard of before and apparently is a pediatrician not even affiliated with the hospital.
The computer systems with which physicians try to make "meaningful use" were designed to assist coding and quality reporting,have little to do with improving patient care and often have the opposite effect and not infrequently are harmful and at least sometimes seem invulnerable to correction by the patient.
It came about because of two computers conspiring together. The first was the computer inside of my pace maker.Its algorithm to detect atrial fibrillation detected signals which were interpreted at "AT/AF", meaning atrial tachycardia/ atrial fibrillation. It was a false positive , tricked by a Pacemaker phenomenon called far field sensing. This occur when the sensing lead in one cardiac chamber senses activity in the other chamber and miscounts it. Ultimately the Medtronic tech recognized it and adjusted the atrial lead sensitivity so that the double counting would not occur. Problem fixed but..
The second computer, my electronic medical record (EMR) latched on to the "diagnosis of atrial fibrillation and will not let go. I have written my "patient portal" with a full explanation indicating that my EP cardiologist concurred.
Recently, I met with my new primary care internist who is attached to the same computer system and we discussed my blood pressure, my pacemaker and no mention was made of AF.He never said the words atrial fibrillation.I gave him two of my old EKGs which did not show atrial fibrillation . Yet when he gave me a copy of my patient visit summary my current health issues were said to be 1.pacemaker 2.atrial fibrillation.
Did the computer write the second diagnosis on its own. Did the doc see it, did he even read what was printed out? I cannot believe he even saw it. I cannot believe a board certified internist of over 25 years experience would not have asked why was I not taking an anticoagulant as my CHADS2-VASc score of 3 would warrant anticoagulation according to all guidelines.In the days of the paper medical record can one imagine an internist handing a patient a report that said he had atrial fibrillation when he was aware of no evidence that he in fact had AF?
Of perhaps less significance, my printout also listed a physician who I had never seen, never heard of before and apparently is a pediatrician not even affiliated with the hospital.
The computer systems with which physicians try to make "meaningful use" were designed to assist coding and quality reporting,have little to do with improving patient care and often have the opposite effect and not infrequently are harmful and at least sometimes seem invulnerable to correction by the patient.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)