On May 19th the Journal of the American College of Cardiology published an illuminating paper by Pant et al. examining the impact of a dramatic change in one of the Cardiac Guidelines. The paper was entitled “Trends in Infective Endocarditis Incidence, Microbiology, and Valve Replacement in the United States from 2000 to 2011”. In 2007 the ACC/AHA Guidelines were radically shifted, advocating an enormous reduction in sub-acute bacterial endocarditis prophylaxis (SBEP) precautions. The rationale for the dramatic shift from an aggressive to a conservative stance emanated from two findings: a lack of RCT evidence for the need for SBEP precautions under most circumstances, and the growing problem of antibiotic resistance. Without claiming prescience or any other such miraculous gift, I will tell you that at the time I predicted a significant future rise in endocarditis. My belief was that the guidelines overshot their intentions. Some individuals, I surmised, have valvular heart disease that predisposes them to developing SBE yet fails to be “significant” enough to make them candidates for the revised SBEP recommendations.
For several years I bucked the system and continued my aggressive prophylaxis. Then I buckled. I followed the guidelines to a tee. Though none of my patients has developed SBE, I now question my decision to cave under the pressure of the guidelines. I have always been one to try to think through issues, to treat patients outside any preordained box and beyond an overly simplified algorithmic construct. But in this case I felt perhaps I should just go with the flow. In truth, it was just easier to do so. My liability was lessened and my decision-making efforts were simplified. Yet, in retrospect, seeing the predictable rise in streptococcal SBE, I have been forced to re-examine my decision. In doing so, once again I am confronted with our current fixation on RCTs as proof positive “evidence,” with all other levels of understanding being “non-evidence”.
The absence of RCTs in this construct is tantamount to a lack of evidence. This paradigm is of course false. Many levels of valid evidence exist and oversimplification, though appealing, is inherently flawed and theoretically dangerous. We see this now in eight years of follow up after the change in ACC/AHA SBEP Guidelines. We also see this in many other aspects of everyday practice. Though I chose an easier and perhaps idler path in this circumstance, I will now reverse my position and once again give greater thought to each SBEP recommendation I render. It will take longer to do so; more complex doctor-patient discussions will be required; and larger liability will fall upon my shoulders. But these are the elements required to be a better physician. I owe it to my patients, and equally importantly to myself, to do so. Having said this, pragmatic issues remain. How do we practice medicine in an efficient, cost-effective, economically sound, intellectually stimulating, personalized, high-level fashion, while adhering to the mounting pressure of regulatory changes and requirements? This is the question that requires our most focused attention yet typically receives short shrift. For modern American Medicine to enjoy the future we all believe it deserves, this question, along with its counterparts, deserves our full and undivided attention.
Learn more about preventive cardiology at www.preventivecardiologyinc.com.
For more information about the supplements and vitamins critical to your everyday health visit www.vitalremedymd.com.