Robert A. Harrington, MD

This transcript has been edited for clarity .

Robert A. Harrington, MD: I’m here in London at the European Society of Cardiology meetings, at theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology booth, using the meetings as an opportunity to meet with colleagues to talk about recent things that they’ve been writing about.

Today I’m joined by a good friend and colleague, Dr. Dhruv Kazi from Beth Israel Deaconess in Boston. Thanks for joining us.

Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, MS: Thank you for having me.

Harrington: Dr. Kazi is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. He’s also the associate director of the Smith Center, which is an outcomes research center at the Beth Israel Deaconess. Thanks for joining us.

Kazi: Excited to be here.

Harrington: The topic I think you know that I want to discuss is a really important paper. There are two papers. They’re part of the American Heart Association’s 100th anniversary celebration, if you will. Many of the papers looked back at where science taken us.

With your coauthor, Karen Joynt Maddox, your papers are looking forward. They’re about the burden of cardiovascular disease in 2050. One paper really focused on what I would call the clinical and public health issues. Yours is focused on the economics. Is that a good description?

Kazi: Perfect.

Harrington: Tell us what you, Karen, and the other writers set out to do. What were you asked to do?

Kazi: As you know, the American Heart Association is entering its second century. Part of this was an exercise to say, where will the country be in 2050, which is a long enough time horizon for us to start planning for the future. What are the conditions that affect the magnitude of the disease, and the kinds of people who will be affected, that we should be aware of?

We looked back and said, if prior trends remain the same, where will we be in 2050, accounting for changes in demographics, changes in the composition of the population, and knowing that some of the cardiovascular risk factors are getting worse?

Harrington: For me, what was really striking is that, when I first saw the title and read “2050,” I thought, Oh, that’s a long way away. Then as I started reading it, I realized that this is not so far away.

Kazi: Absolutely.

Harrington: If we’re going to make a difference, it might take us 25 years.

Kazi: Especially if we set ourselves ambitious goals, we›re going to have to dig deep. Business-as-usual is not going to get us there.

Harrington: No. What I think has happened is we›ve spent so much time taking care of acute illness. Case fatality rates are fantastic. I was actually making the comment yesterday to a colleague that when I was an intern, the 30-day death rate from acute myocardial infarction was about 20%.

Kazi: Oh, wow.

Harrington: Now it’s 5%. That’s a big difference in a career.
 

Trends in the Wrong Direction

Kazi: There are fundamental trends. The decline in case fatalities is a really positive development, and I would hope that, going forward, that would continue. Those are risk-adjusted death rates and what is happening is that risk is going up. This is a function of the fact that the US population is aging; 2030 will be the first year that all the baby boomers will be over the age of 65.

By the mid-2030s, we’ll have more adults over the age of 65 than kids. That aging of the population is going to increase risk. The second is — and this is a positive development — we are a more diverse population, but the populations that are minoritized have higher cardiovascular risk, for a variety of reasons.

As the population of Asian Americans increases and doubles, in fact, as the population of Hispanic Americans doubles, we’re going to see an increase in risk related to cardiovascular disease. The third is that, over the past decade, there are some risk factors that are going in the wrong direction.

Harrington: Let’s talk about that because that’s humbling. I’m involved, as you know, with the American Heart Association, as are you. Despite all the work on Life’s Simple 7 and now Life’s Essential 8, we still have some issues.

Kazi: The big ones that come to mind are hypertension, diabetes, and obesity, all of which are trending in the wrong direction. Hypertension, we were gaining traction; and then over the past decade, we’ve slipped again. As you know, national blood pressure control rates have declined in many populations.

Harrington: Rather substantially.

Kazi: Substantially so, which has implications, in particular, for stroke rates in the future and stroke rates in young adults in the future. Obesity is a problem that we have very little control over. We’re already at 40% on average, which means that some populations are already in the 60% range.

Harrington: We also have obesity in kids — the burden, I’ll call it, of obesity. It’s not that you become obese in your thirties or your forties; you›re becoming obese as a teenager or even younger.

Kazi: Exactly. Since the 1990s, obesity in US adults has doubled, but obesity in US children has quadrupled. It’s starting from a lower base, but it’s very much an escalating problem.

Harrington: Diabetes is tightly linked to it but not totally explained.

Kazi: Exactly. The increase in diabetes is largely driven by obesity, but it›s probably also driven by changes in diet and lifestyle that don›t go through obesity.

Harrington: Yeah, it’s interesting. I think I have this figure correctly. It used to be rare that you saw a child with type 2 diabetes or what we call type 2 diabetes.

Kazi: Yeah.

Harrington: Now, the vast majority of kids with diabetes have type 2 diabetes.

Kazi: In the adolescents/young adults age group, most of it is type 2.

Harrington: Diabetes going up, obesity up, hypertension not well controlled, smoking combustible cigarettes way down.

Kazi: Yeah.

Harrington: Cholesterol levels. I was surprised. Cholesterol looked better. You said — because I was at a meeting where somebody asked you — that’s not explained by treatment.

Kazi: No, it’s not, at least going back to the ‘70s, but likely even sooner. I think that can only be attributed to substantial dietary changes. We are consuming less fat and less trans-fat. It’s possible that those collectively are improving our cholesterol levels, possibly at the expense of our glucose levels, because we basically substituted fats in our diet with more carbs at a population level.
 

Cigarettes and Vaping

Harrington: Some things certainly trend in the right direction but others in a really difficult direction. It’s going to lead to pretty large changes in risk for coronary disease, atrial fibrillation, and heart failure.

Kazi: I want to go back to the tobacco point. There are definitely marked declines in tobacco, still tightly related to income in the country. You see much higher prevalence of tobacco use in lower-income populations, but it’s unclear to me where it’s going in kids. We know that combustible tobacco use is going down but e-cigarettes went up. What that leads to over the next 30 years is unclear to me.

Harrington: That is a really important comment that’s worth sidebarring. The vaping use has been a terrible epidemic among our high schoolers. What is that going to lead to? Is it going to lead to the use of combustible cigarettes and we’re going to see that go back up? It remains to be seen.

Kazi: Yes, it remains to be seen. Going back to your point about this change in risk factors and this change in demographics, both aging and becoming a more diverse population means that we have large increases in some healthcare conditions.

Coronary heart disease goes up some, there›s a big jump in stroke — nearly a doubling in stroke — which is related to hypertension, obesity, an aging population, and a more diverse population. There are changes in stroke in the young, and atrial fibrillation related to, again, hypertension. We’re seeing these projections, and with them come these pretty large projections in changes in healthcare spending.
 

Healthcare Spending Not Sustainable

Harrington: Big. I mean, it’s not sustainable. Give the audience the number — it’s pretty frightening.

Kazi: We’re talking about a quadrupling of healthcare costs related to cardiovascular disease over 25 years. We’ve gotten used to the narrative that healthcare in the US is expensive and drugs are expensive, but this is an enormous problem — an unsustainable problem, like you called it.

It’s a doubling as a proportion of the economy. I was looking this up this morning. If the US healthcare economy were its own economy, it would be the fourth largest economy in the world.

Harrington: Healthcare as it is today, is it 21% of our economy?

Kazi: It’s 17% now. If it were its own economy, it would be the fourth largest in the world. We are spending more on healthcare than all but two other countries’ total economies. It’s kind of crazy.

Harrington: We’re talking about a quadrupling.

Kazi: Within that, the cardiovascular piece is a big piece, and we›re talking about a quadrupling.

Harrington: That’s both direct and indirect costs.

Kazi: The quadrupling of costs is just the direct costs. Indirect costs, for the listeners, refer to costs unrelated to healthcare but changes in productivity, either because people are disabled and unable to participate fully in the workforce or they die early.

The productivity costs are also increased substantially as a result. If you look at both healthcare and productivity, that goes up threefold. These are very large changes.

Harrington: Let’s now get to what we can do about it. I made the comment to you when I first read the papers that I was very depressed. Then, after I went through my Kübler-Ross stages of depression, death, and dying, I came to acceptance.

What are we going to do about it? This is a focus on policy, but also a focus on how we deliver healthcare, how we think about healthcare, and how we develop drugs and devices.

The drug question is going to be the one the audience is thinking about. They say, well, what about GLP-1 agonists? Aren’t those going to save the day?

Kazi: Yes and no. I’ll say that, early in my career, I used to be very attracted to simple solutions to complex problems. I’ve come to realize that simple solutions are elegant, attractive, and wrong. We›re dealing with a very complex issue and I think we’re going to need a multipronged approach.

The way I think about it is that there was a group of people who are at very high risk today. How do we help those individuals? Then how do we help the future generation so that they’re not dealing with the projections that we’re talking about.

My colleague, Karen Joynt Maddox, who led one of the papers, as you mentioned, has an elegant line in the paper where she says projections are not destiny. These are things we can change.

Harrington: If nothing changes, this is what it’s going to look like.

Kazi: This is where we’re headed.

Harrington: We can change. We’ve got some time to change, but we don’t have forever.

Kazi: Yes, exactly. We picked the 25-year timeline instead of a “let’s plan for the next century” timeline because we want something concrete and actionable. It’s close enough to be meaningful but far enough to give us the runway we need to act.

Harrington: Give me two things from the policy perspective, because it’s mostly policy.

Kazi: There are policy and clinical interventions. From the policy perspective, if I had to list two things, one is expansion of access to care. As we talk about this big increase in the burden of disease and risk factors, if you have a large proportion of your population that has hypertension or diabetes, you’re going to have to expand access to care to ensure that people get treated so they can get access to this care before they develop the complications that we worry about, like stroke and heart disease, that are very expensive to treat downstream.

The second, more broadly related to access to care, is the access to medications that are effective. You bring up GLP-1s. I think we need a real strategy for how we can give people access to GLP-1s at a price that is affordable to individuals but also affordable to the health system, and to help them stay on the drugs.

GLP-1s are transformative in what they do for weight loss and for diabetes, but more than 50% of people who start one are off it at 12 months. There’s something fundamentally wrong about how we’re delivering GLP-1s today. It’s not just about the cost of the drugs but the support system people need to stay on.

Harrington: I’ve made the comment, in many forms now, that we know the drugs work. We have to figure out how to use them.

Kazi: Exactly, yes.

Harrington: Using them includes chronicity. This is a chronic condition. Some people can come off the drugs, but many can’t. We’re going to have to figure this out, and maybe the newer generations of drugs will help us address what people call the off-ramping. How are we going to do that? I think you’re spot-on. Those are critically important questions.

Kazi: As we looked at this modeling, I’ll tell you — I had a come-to-Jesus moment where I was like, there is no way to fix cardiovascular disease in the US without going through obesity and diabetes. We have to address obesity in the US. We can’t just treat our way out of it. Obesity is fundamentally a food problem and we’ve got to engage again with food policy in a meaningful way.

Harrington: As you know, with the American Heart Association, we›re doing a large amount of work now on food as medicine and food is medicine. We are trying to figure out what the levers are that we can pull to actually help people eat healthier diets.

Kazi: Yes. Rather than framing it as an individual choice that people are eating poorly, it’s, how do we make healthy diets the default in the environment?

Harrington: This is where you get to the children as well.

Kazi: Exactly.

Harrington: I could talk about this all day. I’ve had the benefit of reading the papers now a few times and talking to you on several occasions. Thank you for joining us.

Kazi: Thank you.
 

Dr. Harrington, Stephen and Suzanne Weiss Dean, Weill Cornell Medicine; Provost for Medical Affairs, Cornell University, New York, NY, disclosed ties with Baim Institute (DSMB); CSL (RCT Executive Committee); Janssen (RCT Char), NHLBI (RCT Executive Committee, DSMB Chair); PCORI (RCT Co-Chair); DCRI, Atropos Health; Bitterroot Bio; Bristol Myers Squibb; BridgeBio; Element Science; Edwards Lifesciences; Foresite Labs; Medscape/WebMD Board of Directors for: American Heart Association; College of the Holy Cross; and Cytokinetics. Dr. Kazi, Associate Director, Smith Center for Outcomes Research, Associate Professor, Department of Medicine (Cardiology), Harvard Medical School, Director, Department of Cardiac Critical Care Unit, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, has disclosed receiving a research grant from Boston Scientific (grant to examine the economics of stroke prevention).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity .

Robert A. Harrington, MD: I’m here in London at the European Society of Cardiology meetings, at theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology booth, using the meetings as an opportunity to meet with colleagues to talk about recent things that they’ve been writing about.

Today I’m joined by a good friend and colleague, Dr. Dhruv Kazi from Beth Israel Deaconess in Boston. Thanks for joining us.

Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, MS: Thank you for having me.

Harrington: Dr. Kazi is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. He’s also the associate director of the Smith Center, which is an outcomes research center at the Beth Israel Deaconess. Thanks for joining us.

Kazi: Excited to be here.

Harrington: The topic I think you know that I want to discuss is a really important paper. There are two papers. They’re part of the American Heart Association’s 100th anniversary celebration, if you will. Many of the papers looked back at where science taken us.

With your coauthor, Karen Joynt Maddox, your papers are looking forward. They’re about the burden of cardiovascular disease in 2050. One paper really focused on what I would call the clinical and public health issues. Yours is focused on the economics. Is that a good description?

Kazi: Perfect.

Harrington: Tell us what you, Karen, and the other writers set out to do. What were you asked to do?

Kazi: As you know, the American Heart Association is entering its second century. Part of this was an exercise to say, where will the country be in 2050, which is a long enough time horizon for us to start planning for the future. What are the conditions that affect the magnitude of the disease, and the kinds of people who will be affected, that we should be aware of?

We looked back and said, if prior trends remain the same, where will we be in 2050, accounting for changes in demographics, changes in the composition of the population, and knowing that some of the cardiovascular risk factors are getting worse?

Harrington: For me, what was really striking is that, when I first saw the title and read “2050,” I thought, Oh, that’s a long way away. Then as I started reading it, I realized that this is not so far away.

Kazi: Absolutely.

Harrington: If we’re going to make a difference, it might take us 25 years.

Kazi: Especially if we set ourselves ambitious goals, we›re going to have to dig deep. Business-as-usual is not going to get us there.

Harrington: No. What I think has happened is we›ve spent so much time taking care of acute illness. Case fatality rates are fantastic. I was actually making the comment yesterday to a colleague that when I was an intern, the 30-day death rate from acute myocardial infarction was about 20%.

Kazi: Oh, wow.

Harrington: Now it’s 5%. That’s a big difference in a career.
 

Trends in the Wrong Direction

Kazi: There are fundamental trends. The decline in case fatalities is a really positive development, and I would hope that, going forward, that would continue. Those are risk-adjusted death rates and what is happening is that risk is going up. This is a function of the fact that the US population is aging; 2030 will be the first year that all the baby boomers will be over the age of 65.

By the mid-2030s, we’ll have more adults over the age of 65 than kids. That aging of the population is going to increase risk. The second is — and this is a positive development — we are a more diverse population, but the populations that are minoritized have higher cardiovascular risk, for a variety of reasons.

As the population of Asian Americans increases and doubles, in fact, as the population of Hispanic Americans doubles, we’re going to see an increase in risk related to cardiovascular disease. The third is that, over the past decade, there are some risk factors that are going in the wrong direction.

Harrington: Let’s talk about that because that’s humbling. I’m involved, as you know, with the American Heart Association, as are you. Despite all the work on Life’s Simple 7 and now Life’s Essential 8, we still have some issues.

Kazi: The big ones that come to mind are hypertension, diabetes, and obesity, all of which are trending in the wrong direction. Hypertension, we were gaining traction; and then over the past decade, we’ve slipped again. As you know, national blood pressure control rates have declined in many populations.

Harrington: Rather substantially.

Kazi: Substantially so, which has implications, in particular, for stroke rates in the future and stroke rates in young adults in the future. Obesity is a problem that we have very little control over. We’re already at 40% on average, which means that some populations are already in the 60% range.

Harrington: We also have obesity in kids — the burden, I’ll call it, of obesity. It’s not that you become obese in your thirties or your forties; you›re becoming obese as a teenager or even younger.

Kazi: Exactly. Since the 1990s, obesity in US adults has doubled, but obesity in US children has quadrupled. It’s starting from a lower base, but it’s very much an escalating problem.

Harrington: Diabetes is tightly linked to it but not totally explained.

Kazi: Exactly. The increase in diabetes is largely driven by obesity, but it›s probably also driven by changes in diet and lifestyle that don›t go through obesity.

Harrington: Yeah, it’s interesting. I think I have this figure correctly. It used to be rare that you saw a child with type 2 diabetes or what we call type 2 diabetes.

Kazi: Yeah.

Harrington: Now, the vast majority of kids with diabetes have type 2 diabetes.

Kazi: In the adolescents/young adults age group, most of it is type 2.

Harrington: Diabetes going up, obesity up, hypertension not well controlled, smoking combustible cigarettes way down.

Kazi: Yeah.

Harrington: Cholesterol levels. I was surprised. Cholesterol looked better. You said — because I was at a meeting where somebody asked you — that’s not explained by treatment.

Kazi: No, it’s not, at least going back to the ‘70s, but likely even sooner. I think that can only be attributed to substantial dietary changes. We are consuming less fat and less trans-fat. It’s possible that those collectively are improving our cholesterol levels, possibly at the expense of our glucose levels, because we basically substituted fats in our diet with more carbs at a population level.
 

Cigarettes and Vaping

Harrington: Some things certainly trend in the right direction but others in a really difficult direction. It’s going to lead to pretty large changes in risk for coronary disease, atrial fibrillation, and heart failure.

Kazi: I want to go back to the tobacco point. There are definitely marked declines in tobacco, still tightly related to income in the country. You see much higher prevalence of tobacco use in lower-income populations, but it’s unclear to me where it’s going in kids. We know that combustible tobacco use is going down but e-cigarettes went up. What that leads to over the next 30 years is unclear to me.

Harrington: That is a really important comment that’s worth sidebarring. The vaping use has been a terrible epidemic among our high schoolers. What is that going to lead to? Is it going to lead to the use of combustible cigarettes and we’re going to see that go back up? It remains to be seen.

Kazi: Yes, it remains to be seen. Going back to your point about this change in risk factors and this change in demographics, both aging and becoming a more diverse population means that we have large increases in some healthcare conditions.

Coronary heart disease goes up some, there›s a big jump in stroke — nearly a doubling in stroke — which is related to hypertension, obesity, an aging population, and a more diverse population. There are changes in stroke in the young, and atrial fibrillation related to, again, hypertension. We’re seeing these projections, and with them come these pretty large projections in changes in healthcare spending.
 

Healthcare Spending Not Sustainable

Harrington: Big. I mean, it’s not sustainable. Give the audience the number — it’s pretty frightening.

Kazi: We’re talking about a quadrupling of healthcare costs related to cardiovascular disease over 25 years. We’ve gotten used to the narrative that healthcare in the US is expensive and drugs are expensive, but this is an enormous problem — an unsustainable problem, like you called it.

It’s a doubling as a proportion of the economy. I was looking this up this morning. If the US healthcare economy were its own economy, it would be the fourth largest economy in the world.

Harrington: Healthcare as it is today, is it 21% of our economy?

Kazi: It’s 17% now. If it were its own economy, it would be the fourth largest in the world. We are spending more on healthcare than all but two other countries’ total economies. It’s kind of crazy.

Harrington: We’re talking about a quadrupling.

Kazi: Within that, the cardiovascular piece is a big piece, and we›re talking about a quadrupling.

Harrington: That’s both direct and indirect costs.

Kazi: The quadrupling of costs is just the direct costs. Indirect costs, for the listeners, refer to costs unrelated to healthcare but changes in productivity, either because people are disabled and unable to participate fully in the workforce or they die early.

The productivity costs are also increased substantially as a result. If you look at both healthcare and productivity, that goes up threefold. These are very large changes.

Harrington: Let’s now get to what we can do about it. I made the comment to you when I first read the papers that I was very depressed. Then, after I went through my Kübler-Ross stages of depression, death, and dying, I came to acceptance.

What are we going to do about it? This is a focus on policy, but also a focus on how we deliver healthcare, how we think about healthcare, and how we develop drugs and devices.

The drug question is going to be the one the audience is thinking about. They say, well, what about GLP-1 agonists? Aren’t those going to save the day?

Kazi: Yes and no. I’ll say that, early in my career, I used to be very attracted to simple solutions to complex problems. I’ve come to realize that simple solutions are elegant, attractive, and wrong. We›re dealing with a very complex issue and I think we’re going to need a multipronged approach.

The way I think about it is that there was a group of people who are at very high risk today. How do we help those individuals? Then how do we help the future generation so that they’re not dealing with the projections that we’re talking about.

My colleague, Karen Joynt Maddox, who led one of the papers, as you mentioned, has an elegant line in the paper where she says projections are not destiny. These are things we can change.

Harrington: If nothing changes, this is what it’s going to look like.

Kazi: This is where we’re headed.

Harrington: We can change. We’ve got some time to change, but we don’t have forever.

Kazi: Yes, exactly. We picked the 25-year timeline instead of a “let’s plan for the next century” timeline because we want something concrete and actionable. It’s close enough to be meaningful but far enough to give us the runway we need to act.

Harrington: Give me two things from the policy perspective, because it’s mostly policy.

Kazi: There are policy and clinical interventions. From the policy perspective, if I had to list two things, one is expansion of access to care. As we talk about this big increase in the burden of disease and risk factors, if you have a large proportion of your population that has hypertension or diabetes, you’re going to have to expand access to care to ensure that people get treated so they can get access to this care before they develop the complications that we worry about, like stroke and heart disease, that are very expensive to treat downstream.

The second, more broadly related to access to care, is the access to medications that are effective. You bring up GLP-1s. I think we need a real strategy for how we can give people access to GLP-1s at a price that is affordable to individuals but also affordable to the health system, and to help them stay on the drugs.

GLP-1s are transformative in what they do for weight loss and for diabetes, but more than 50% of people who start one are off it at 12 months. There’s something fundamentally wrong about how we’re delivering GLP-1s today. It’s not just about the cost of the drugs but the support system people need to stay on.

Harrington: I’ve made the comment, in many forms now, that we know the drugs work. We have to figure out how to use them.

Kazi: Exactly, yes.

Harrington: Using them includes chronicity. This is a chronic condition. Some people can come off the drugs, but many can’t. We’re going to have to figure this out, and maybe the newer generations of drugs will help us address what people call the off-ramping. How are we going to do that? I think you’re spot-on. Those are critically important questions.

Kazi: As we looked at this modeling, I’ll tell you — I had a come-to-Jesus moment where I was like, there is no way to fix cardiovascular disease in the US without going through obesity and diabetes. We have to address obesity in the US. We can’t just treat our way out of it. Obesity is fundamentally a food problem and we’ve got to engage again with food policy in a meaningful way.

Harrington: As you know, with the American Heart Association, we›re doing a large amount of work now on food as medicine and food is medicine. We are trying to figure out what the levers are that we can pull to actually help people eat healthier diets.

Kazi: Yes. Rather than framing it as an individual choice that people are eating poorly, it’s, how do we make healthy diets the default in the environment?

Harrington: This is where you get to the children as well.

Kazi: Exactly.

Harrington: I could talk about this all day. I’ve had the benefit of reading the papers now a few times and talking to you on several occasions. Thank you for joining us.

Kazi: Thank you.
 

Dr. Harrington, Stephen and Suzanne Weiss Dean, Weill Cornell Medicine; Provost for Medical Affairs, Cornell University, New York, NY, disclosed ties with Baim Institute (DSMB); CSL (RCT Executive Committee); Janssen (RCT Char), NHLBI (RCT Executive Committee, DSMB Chair); PCORI (RCT Co-Chair); DCRI, Atropos Health; Bitterroot Bio; Bristol Myers Squibb; BridgeBio; Element Science; Edwards Lifesciences; Foresite Labs; Medscape/WebMD Board of Directors for: American Heart Association; College of the Holy Cross; and Cytokinetics. Dr. Kazi, Associate Director, Smith Center for Outcomes Research, Associate Professor, Department of Medicine (Cardiology), Harvard Medical School, Director, Department of Cardiac Critical Care Unit, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, has disclosed receiving a research grant from Boston Scientific (grant to examine the economics of stroke prevention).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity .

Robert A. Harrington, MD: I’m here in London at the European Society of Cardiology meetings, at theheart.org | Medscape Cardiology booth, using the meetings as an opportunity to meet with colleagues to talk about recent things that they’ve been writing about.

Today I’m joined by a good friend and colleague, Dr. Dhruv Kazi from Beth Israel Deaconess in Boston. Thanks for joining us.

Dhruv S. Kazi, MD, MS: Thank you for having me.

Harrington: Dr. Kazi is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School. He’s also the associate director of the Smith Center, which is an outcomes research center at the Beth Israel Deaconess. Thanks for joining us.

Kazi: Excited to be here.

Harrington: The topic I think you know that I want to discuss is a really important paper. There are two papers. They’re part of the American Heart Association’s 100th anniversary celebration, if you will. Many of the papers looked back at where science taken us.

With your coauthor, Karen Joynt Maddox, your papers are looking forward. They’re about the burden of cardiovascular disease in 2050. One paper really focused on what I would call the clinical and public health issues. Yours is focused on the economics. Is that a good description?

Kazi: Perfect.

Harrington: Tell us what you, Karen, and the other writers set out to do. What were you asked to do?

Kazi: As you know, the American Heart Association is entering its second century. Part of this was an exercise to say, where will the country be in 2050, which is a long enough time horizon for us to start planning for the future. What are the conditions that affect the magnitude of the disease, and the kinds of people who will be affected, that we should be aware of?

We looked back and said, if prior trends remain the same, where will we be in 2050, accounting for changes in demographics, changes in the composition of the population, and knowing that some of the cardiovascular risk factors are getting worse?

Harrington: For me, what was really striking is that, when I first saw the title and read “2050,” I thought, Oh, that’s a long way away. Then as I started reading it, I realized that this is not so far away.

Kazi: Absolutely.

Harrington: If we’re going to make a difference, it might take us 25 years.

Kazi: Especially if we set ourselves ambitious goals, we›re going to have to dig deep. Business-as-usual is not going to get us there.

Harrington: No. What I think has happened is we›ve spent so much time taking care of acute illness. Case fatality rates are fantastic. I was actually making the comment yesterday to a colleague that when I was an intern, the 30-day death rate from acute myocardial infarction was about 20%.

Kazi: Oh, wow.

Harrington: Now it’s 5%. That’s a big difference in a career.
 

Trends in the Wrong Direction

Kazi: There are fundamental trends. The decline in case fatalities is a really positive development, and I would hope that, going forward, that would continue. Those are risk-adjusted death rates and what is happening is that risk is going up. This is a function of the fact that the US population is aging; 2030 will be the first year that all the baby boomers will be over the age of 65.

By the mid-2030s, we’ll have more adults over the age of 65 than kids. That aging of the population is going to increase risk. The second is — and this is a positive development — we are a more diverse population, but the populations that are minoritized have higher cardiovascular risk, for a variety of reasons.

As the population of Asian Americans increases and doubles, in fact, as the population of Hispanic Americans doubles, we’re going to see an increase in risk related to cardiovascular disease. The third is that, over the past decade, there are some risk factors that are going in the wrong direction.

Harrington: Let’s talk about that because that’s humbling. I’m involved, as you know, with the American Heart Association, as are you. Despite all the work on Life’s Simple 7 and now Life’s Essential 8, we still have some issues.

Kazi: The big ones that come to mind are hypertension, diabetes, and obesity, all of which are trending in the wrong direction. Hypertension, we were gaining traction; and then over the past decade, we’ve slipped again. As you know, national blood pressure control rates have declined in many populations.

Harrington: Rather substantially.

Kazi: Substantially so, which has implications, in particular, for stroke rates in the future and stroke rates in young adults in the future. Obesity is a problem that we have very little control over. We’re already at 40% on average, which means that some populations are already in the 60% range.

Harrington: We also have obesity in kids — the burden, I’ll call it, of obesity. It’s not that you become obese in your thirties or your forties; you›re becoming obese as a teenager or even younger.

Kazi: Exactly. Since the 1990s, obesity in US adults has doubled, but obesity in US children has quadrupled. It’s starting from a lower base, but it’s very much an escalating problem.

Harrington: Diabetes is tightly linked to it but not totally explained.

Kazi: Exactly. The increase in diabetes is largely driven by obesity, but it›s probably also driven by changes in diet and lifestyle that don›t go through obesity.

Harrington: Yeah, it’s interesting. I think I have this figure correctly. It used to be rare that you saw a child with type 2 diabetes or what we call type 2 diabetes.

Kazi: Yeah.

Harrington: Now, the vast majority of kids with diabetes have type 2 diabetes.

Kazi: In the adolescents/young adults age group, most of it is type 2.

Harrington: Diabetes going up, obesity up, hypertension not well controlled, smoking combustible cigarettes way down.

Kazi: Yeah.

Harrington: Cholesterol levels. I was surprised. Cholesterol looked better. You said — because I was at a meeting where somebody asked you — that’s not explained by treatment.

Kazi: No, it’s not, at least going back to the ‘70s, but likely even sooner. I think that can only be attributed to substantial dietary changes. We are consuming less fat and less trans-fat. It’s possible that those collectively are improving our cholesterol levels, possibly at the expense of our glucose levels, because we basically substituted fats in our diet with more carbs at a population level.
 

Cigarettes and Vaping

Harrington: Some things certainly trend in the right direction but others in a really difficult direction. It’s going to lead to pretty large changes in risk for coronary disease, atrial fibrillation, and heart failure.

Kazi: I want to go back to the tobacco point. There are definitely marked declines in tobacco, still tightly related to income in the country. You see much higher prevalence of tobacco use in lower-income populations, but it’s unclear to me where it’s going in kids. We know that combustible tobacco use is going down but e-cigarettes went up. What that leads to over the next 30 years is unclear to me.

Harrington: That is a really important comment that’s worth sidebarring. The vaping use has been a terrible epidemic among our high schoolers. What is that going to lead to? Is it going to lead to the use of combustible cigarettes and we’re going to see that go back up? It remains to be seen.

Kazi: Yes, it remains to be seen. Going back to your point about this change in risk factors and this change in demographics, both aging and becoming a more diverse population means that we have large increases in some healthcare conditions.

Coronary heart disease goes up some, there›s a big jump in stroke — nearly a doubling in stroke — which is related to hypertension, obesity, an aging population, and a more diverse population. There are changes in stroke in the young, and atrial fibrillation related to, again, hypertension. We’re seeing these projections, and with them come these pretty large projections in changes in healthcare spending.
 

Healthcare Spending Not Sustainable

Harrington: Big. I mean, it’s not sustainable. Give the audience the number — it’s pretty frightening.

Kazi: We’re talking about a quadrupling of healthcare costs related to cardiovascular disease over 25 years. We’ve gotten used to the narrative that healthcare in the US is expensive and drugs are expensive, but this is an enormous problem — an unsustainable problem, like you called it.

It’s a doubling as a proportion of the economy. I was looking this up this morning. If the US healthcare economy were its own economy, it would be the fourth largest economy in the world.

Harrington: Healthcare as it is today, is it 21% of our economy?

Kazi: It’s 17% now. If it were its own economy, it would be the fourth largest in the world. We are spending more on healthcare than all but two other countries’ total economies. It’s kind of crazy.

Harrington: We’re talking about a quadrupling.

Kazi: Within that, the cardiovascular piece is a big piece, and we›re talking about a quadrupling.

Harrington: That’s both direct and indirect costs.

Kazi: The quadrupling of costs is just the direct costs. Indirect costs, for the listeners, refer to costs unrelated to healthcare but changes in productivity, either because people are disabled and unable to participate fully in the workforce or they die early.

The productivity costs are also increased substantially as a result. If you look at both healthcare and productivity, that goes up threefold. These are very large changes.

Harrington: Let’s now get to what we can do about it. I made the comment to you when I first read the papers that I was very depressed. Then, after I went through my Kübler-Ross stages of depression, death, and dying, I came to acceptance.

What are we going to do about it? This is a focus on policy, but also a focus on how we deliver healthcare, how we think about healthcare, and how we develop drugs and devices.

The drug question is going to be the one the audience is thinking about. They say, well, what about GLP-1 agonists? Aren’t those going to save the day?

Kazi: Yes and no. I’ll say that, early in my career, I used to be very attracted to simple solutions to complex problems. I’ve come to realize that simple solutions are elegant, attractive, and wrong. We›re dealing with a very complex issue and I think we’re going to need a multipronged approach.

The way I think about it is that there was a group of people who are at very high risk today. How do we help those individuals? Then how do we help the future generation so that they’re not dealing with the projections that we’re talking about.

My colleague, Karen Joynt Maddox, who led one of the papers, as you mentioned, has an elegant line in the paper where she says projections are not destiny. These are things we can change.

Harrington: If nothing changes, this is what it’s going to look like.

Kazi: This is where we’re headed.

Harrington: We can change. We’ve got some time to change, but we don’t have forever.

Kazi: Yes, exactly. We picked the 25-year timeline instead of a “let’s plan for the next century” timeline because we want something concrete and actionable. It’s close enough to be meaningful but far enough to give us the runway we need to act.

Harrington: Give me two things from the policy perspective, because it’s mostly policy.

Kazi: There are policy and clinical interventions. From the policy perspective, if I had to list two things, one is expansion of access to care. As we talk about this big increase in the burden of disease and risk factors, if you have a large proportion of your population that has hypertension or diabetes, you’re going to have to expand access to care to ensure that people get treated so they can get access to this care before they develop the complications that we worry about, like stroke and heart disease, that are very expensive to treat downstream.

The second, more broadly related to access to care, is the access to medications that are effective. You bring up GLP-1s. I think we need a real strategy for how we can give people access to GLP-1s at a price that is affordable to individuals but also affordable to the health system, and to help them stay on the drugs.

GLP-1s are transformative in what they do for weight loss and for diabetes, but more than 50% of people who start one are off it at 12 months. There’s something fundamentally wrong about how we’re delivering GLP-1s today. It’s not just about the cost of the drugs but the support system people need to stay on.

Harrington: I’ve made the comment, in many forms now, that we know the drugs work. We have to figure out how to use them.

Kazi: Exactly, yes.

Harrington: Using them includes chronicity. This is a chronic condition. Some people can come off the drugs, but many can’t. We’re going to have to figure this out, and maybe the newer generations of drugs will help us address what people call the off-ramping. How are we going to do that? I think you’re spot-on. Those are critically important questions.

Kazi: As we looked at this modeling, I’ll tell you — I had a come-to-Jesus moment where I was like, there is no way to fix cardiovascular disease in the US without going through obesity and diabetes. We have to address obesity in the US. We can’t just treat our way out of it. Obesity is fundamentally a food problem and we’ve got to engage again with food policy in a meaningful way.

Harrington: As you know, with the American Heart Association, we›re doing a large amount of work now on food as medicine and food is medicine. We are trying to figure out what the levers are that we can pull to actually help people eat healthier diets.

Kazi: Yes. Rather than framing it as an individual choice that people are eating poorly, it’s, how do we make healthy diets the default in the environment?

Harrington: This is where you get to the children as well.

Kazi: Exactly.

Harrington: I could talk about this all day. I’ve had the benefit of reading the papers now a few times and talking to you on several occasions. Thank you for joining us.

Kazi: Thank you.
 

Dr. Harrington, Stephen and Suzanne Weiss Dean, Weill Cornell Medicine; Provost for Medical Affairs, Cornell University, New York, NY, disclosed ties with Baim Institute (DSMB); CSL (RCT Executive Committee); Janssen (RCT Char), NHLBI (RCT Executive Committee, DSMB Chair); PCORI (RCT Co-Chair); DCRI, Atropos Health; Bitterroot Bio; Bristol Myers Squibb; BridgeBio; Element Science; Edwards Lifesciences; Foresite Labs; Medscape/WebMD Board of Directors for: American Heart Association; College of the Holy Cross; and Cytokinetics. Dr. Kazi, Associate Director, Smith Center for Outcomes Research, Associate Professor, Department of Medicine (Cardiology), Harvard Medical School, Director, Department of Cardiac Critical Care Unit, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, has disclosed receiving a research grant from Boston Scientific (grant to examine the economics of stroke prevention).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert A. Harrington, MD: I’m continuing my series of conversations with leaders in the field of cardiovascular medicine who are working on interesting projects and making contributions in the science and policy space. We have three guests joining us today who have recently written two papers in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. One is an original research paper dealing with the issue of private equity’s acquisition of outpatient cardiology practices. And the second is an editorial that really tries to get at why this is happening. Is it a problem? Is it a solution to a problem?

Fortunately, I have all three as guests to think about this important issue that has implications for clinical care, reimbursement, physician wellness, and clinician wellness, and it has implications regarding public policy and how we should be thinking about the practice of medicine in this country.

Dr. Victoria L. Bartlett is an internal medicine resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and a research fellow in the Smith Center at the Beth Israel Lahey medical center in Boston. Dr Rishi K. Wadhera is the senior author of the paper written by Dr. Bartlett. Dr. Rishi is associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and he is the associate director of the Smith Center at Beth Israel Lahey.

Rishi K. Wadhera, MD, MPP, MPhil: Thanks for having us, Bob.

Dr. Harrington: The editorialist, Dr. Ed Fry, is the national service line leader for cardiovascular medicine, for Ascension Health. Dr. Frey is a recent past president of the American College of Cardiology (ACC).

Edward T. A. Fry, MD: Great to be here. Thanks.
 

What is private equity? Why the interest in medicine?

Dr. Harrington: I was intrigued by the papers and it caused me to do a deeper dive into some of the earlier works that you have referenced about this growing topic of private equity making its way into medical practice. Rishi, I’ll start with you. For the casual reader like myself, what is the business of private equity?

Dr. Wadhera: Private equity firms basically used pooled investments from multiple sources. These can be individual and institutional investors, pension funds, endowments, and they use those funds to invest in private companies that have the potential to return a profit. Private equity firms typically try to add value to the company — or the case that we’re talking about today, the outpatient cardiology practices — within 3-7 years, and then subsequently tend to sell their stake in that entity or practice at a higher price than what they purchased it at. The goal really is to turn a profit for institutional investors over a shorter time horizon.

Dr. Harrington: How do they do that? I can understand, you buy a factory and you want to make the factory a little more efficient, and you think that perhaps, by combining some technologies, etc., that you might have in other factories, you can drive more value out of the one you just invested in in a short period of time. What’s the general business sense of how they’re going to do that in a cardiology practice? Is it all about making us more efficient?

Dr. Wadhera: Operational efficiency is the overarching theme here. One could argue that perhaps, private equity firms have the expertise to bring that kind of organizational know-how and operational efficiency to medicine. But there’s evidence that the way that private equity firms maximize their margin is maybe through mechanisms that aren’t necessarily good for patient care, such as reduced nursing staffing. When private equity acquires hospitals or practices in the same location, they have greater negotiating power at the payer table, to have higher prices for the services they deliver. There’s a lot of discussion about whether the sort of changes that private equity firms tend to implement are good or bad for patient care and also for clinicians.

Dr. Harrington: Great summary. Ed. Why is this happening in medicine? What did we do in medicine that made us ripe for investment by private equity? When you and I started out years ago, I don’t think we ever would have thought that this was in the future.

Dr. Fry: I think number one, as we know, is that medicine represents about 20% of our economy. There are huge amounts of money involved in these considerations. If players in this space can access even a small fraction of that money, it’s a lot of money and a lot of incentive for them.

In medicine in general, and then maybe more specifically, in cardiology, we’ve seen a shift away from private practice into employed practice. When people made those decisions over the past 10-15 years, there were certainly positives and risks that they took. I think for some, along the way, they realized that perhaps they gave up more than they thought in terms of control and running their own business and the opportunity to shape that themselves and be rewarded for that as they were in private practice. In cardiology, more specifically, we’ve seen this shift to the outpatient space: moving diagnostics and even therapeutics into ambulatory surgical centers and outpatient-based labs, and that is another potential source of revenue for these private equity companies.

As I wrote in the editorial, there are certainly a lot of pressures and frustrations that the day-to-day clinician feels, and maybe, this move to private equity is more of a symptom of those concerns and that this could be an opportunity to take the bull by the horns again in cardiology. We’ve evolved from a predominantly hospital-based acute care specialty into one of diagnosis, chronic disease management, and longitudinal care punctuated by diagnostics and therapeutics, which are, again, I think, attractive to private equity firms as potential sources for revenue.

Dr. Harrington: Ed, why cardiology? What’s happened over the years that has led to that appearance, if you will, of private equity and cardiovascular medicine?

Dr. Fry: Some of the earlier specialties were dermatology, ophthalmology, and gastroenterology, in particular. And interestingly, those tend to be specialties that have less chronic disease management and are more based on procedures and things like that. Within cardiology, obviously, the big driver is that our population is aging: 11,000 people turn 65 every day and become eligible for Medicare. With that, we see a rise in disease prevalence and then the rise in risk factors, obviously, with obesity and diabetes driving that, so there are more people who are going to have an illness that requires evaluation, diagnostics, and procedures. Because of that, it is a very target rich environment for private equity.

Dr. Harrington: That’s great background. Now, let’s dive into what you did, Victoria. What got you interested in the question? And give us some background on the literature that you were trying to build upon when you asked your series of questions.

Victoria L. Bartlett, MD: There’s been a lot of interest in private equity acquisitions and healthcare. A lot of the existing literature has been around hospital acquisitions and what happens there. There’s some literature, as you’ve mentioned, in outpatient practices, in certain specialties, where private equity has existed a little bit longer than in cardiology. They’ve been asking really similar questions to what we have been asking about cardiology, which is what happens when practices are acquired.

A kind of overview is that many of those studies have found increased costs to payers, to patients, and many have also found evidence of decreased quality. The evidence for the latter is honestly more difficult to figure out, but there has been evidence of decreased nursing ratios in nursing homes. There’s been evidence of changing the mix in clinics to more advanced practice providers than physicians. There’s been some evidence in hospitals that maybe quality doesn’t change too much. But the deeper layer under that is that these private equity–acquired hospitals may be selecting certain patients that are less sick, that are not going to negatively affect their metrics as much. That’s the environment that we had been reading about and starting to ask: Are we seeing that in cardiology too?

Dr. Harrington: Share with the audience what you did. You took what I would call a descriptive approach to try to understand the current landscape in cardiovascular medicine. As Ed already pointed out, a lot of the earlier data does not concern cardiology practices. My read of your paper is that you were trying to at least lay the groundwork for us to understand as a community what’s going on out there. Is that a fair interpretation?

Dr. Bartlett: Absolutely. Even that initial question of what’s happening is more challenging than it seems it might be to answer, partly because with private equity, these are private transactions. They don’t have to publicly report anything. So there’s a lot of manual work to gather these data. Our first questions were: What are these transactions? When are they happening? Where are they happening? What are the clinics that private equity is interested in? What are the community characteristics of those clinics? And what could that tell us about what’s going on?


 

Who Is Getting Acquired?

Dr. Harrington: Tell the audience broadly what you found. What are those clinics? And how often does this happen?

Dr. Bartlett: We looked at acquisitions between 2013 and 2023, and in that 10-year span, we found 41 acquisitions of outpatient cardiology practices, which corresponded to 342 acquisitions of clinics. The vast majority of these, pretty much 95%, occurred between 2021 and 2023. We calculated that about 3% of cardiology clinics in the US are owned by private equity. The states with the highest number of acquisitions were Florida, Texas, and Arizona, and particularly the urban areas in those states, ie, Jacksonville, Houston, Dallas. And interestingly, that mirrors what we’ve seen before in anesthesia and dermatology.

Our last question was around community characteristics, we looked at several that had a statistically significant association with private equity acquisition, and we found that private equity firms were less likely to acquire clinics in the highest poverty communities. Within the communities, we looked at the proportion of adults over 65, the proportion of racial and ethnic minorities, educational level, rurality, and didn’t find any significant associations between private equity acquisition and those characteristics.

Dr. Harrington: Thank you. Rishi, do you want to interpret why private equity was targeting certain areas?

Dr. Wadhera: Private equity goes where they can actually acquire practices. Those states, in particular, have more independent practices than, say, Massachusetts does. Then there’s the target population available in those states. Building on what Ed said earlier, why all of a sudden? Because Victoria just pointed out that the vast majority of these acquisitions happened between 2020 and 2023 and you see the surge, and I expect that surge to continue over the next several years. And the question is why?

We know with the rise in cardiometabolic risk factors at a population level, that the cardiovascular disease is only going to become more common. Cardiac procedures are very well reimbursed. There’s likely a lot of appeal in entering a specialty with a highly profitable service line. Over the past decade, federal policymakers very intentionally have created incentives to shift the delivery of cardiac procedures to nonhospital settings. We see that with the rise of ambulatory surgical centers and more cardiac procedures are being reimbursed in these types of settings. And I think that private equity firms may see this as an opportunity to maximize profits.

Victoria created this beautiful map in our study that showed how concentrated these acquisitions are. They really concentrated in specific markets. And I think that parallels what we’re seeing with health systems more broadly, this consolidation, and concentration is the ultimate goal. These different stakeholders, it’s not just private equity, have more market power, so that when they go to insurers, they can demand higher prices for procedures and services.

Dr. Harrington: It’s hard to look at the dates of 2021 or 2020 to 2023, and not wonder if there is a COVID effect. Victoria, do you think there’s a COVID effect, or is it just true, true, unrelated?

Dr. Bartlett: COVID definitely put a lot of financial pressure on providers, and particularly small independent practices. They would have felt that the most, and I certainly think is a piece of the picture but may not be all the picture.

Dr. Harrington: That’s what I would have guessed. We were all under financial pressures, but the small, independent practices didn’t have the big health system behind them to backstop things. Ed, as a former leader of the ACC, and the ACC very much works at the local level, are you hearing from the governors of these states that this is an issue, and not hearing from other states?

Dr. Fry: Certainly this activity is concentrated in the states that Victoria and Rishi described for the reasons that they outlined. This is still a very small number and probably will remain relatively small if we consider that 85% of cardiologists are employed, and the bar to exit an employment arrangement and enter into a private equity situation is pretty darn high. There’s a lot of costs associated with that. So it may have a finite cap to it, and that may be part of what buffers some of the response.

I would like to go back and address other reasons why this is happening. Particularly because of the aging population of cardiovascular patients, we’ve also seen the rise of Medicare Advantage, which is a type of value, if you consider it a type of value-based care. There are incentives built into Medicare Advantage to manage costs and to do various things so there is certainly a reward incentive. I am not wearing my hat as a representative of the ACC nor Ascension, and I will probably be a consumer of these services before I’m ever a participant, but I would say that private equity in some respects, is acting as a disruptor in this entire process. One of the positive outcomes from this is for a reevaluation of the role of clinicians in the overall delivery of care for health systems and academic medical centers. I think that can be a positive; I always try to look at the bright side of things too.
 

Patient and Clinician Satisfaction

Dr. Harrington: To your last comment. Ed, maybe I’ll ask you Rishi or Victoria, any insights into clinician wellness, how people feel when their practice has been bought by private equity? Are there any data out there?

Dr. Wadhera: Not that I know of. I will say that we have a study under review right now that doesn’t answer your question directly, Bob, but that looks at how private equity acquisitions of US hospitals affect the patient care experience. And what we found, using a rigorous, quasi experimental study design comparing private equity–acquired hospitals to neighboring control hospitals, is that private equity acquisition leads to a pretty marked decrease in patient care experience and satisfaction.

That’s capturing another dimension of quality that mortality and readmissions don’t necessarily reflect. It doesn’t answer your question directly, but I think an important area for future research is understanding the effects on the clinician experience as well as, most importantly, the patient experience.

Dr. Harrington: Nicely said, it seems like a good time to think about mixed qualitative methods such as focus groups, etc., coupled with the more quantitative research methods. Victoria, I suspect you talked to people in acquired practices. Any insight into whether it’s observational or rigorous data on the clinician experience?

Dr. Bartlett: Not that I have seen. I imagine it’s probably mixed because as we’ve been saying, there’s a lot of financial pressure on practices, small, independent practices, and it can become overwhelming to run them. Private equity firms offer a very attractive value proposition or can. But I think it’s a great point that should be highlighted.

Dr. Harrington: Ed, taking off your cardiovascular leadership hat, not representing any specific organization, what are the policy things that we should be thinking about?

Dr. Fry: There’s an opportunity to combine these conversations around research, collecting more data, and the advocacy issues related to that. One of the things that perhaps differentiates cardiology in this space from other specialties, or subspecialties, surgical subspecialties, is the plethora of data that we already have with well-established registry tools. We have good benchmarks. From a professional society standpoint, we have an obligation to make sure that the care that is provided in whatever environment meets the standards and is measurable, reportable, and provides a level of consumerism to patients and payers to be able to look at that. I think we have an obligation to advocate for the use of well-validated registry tools to track the data, to have objective data, to be able to demonstrate outcomes.

Interestingly, there’s an ACC/American Heart Association policy document from 2020 on professionalism and ethics in cardiology. And it calls for the obligation of the profession to make sure that in alternative sites of care, that we are achieving at least as good a result, if not better. We have to be true to that.

Dr. Harrington: I was actually a coauthor on that paper on professionalism and talking about some of the research and education issues within the academic medical centers. You’re spot on. And I love the comment about the importance of long-standing registries, whether maintained by the ACC, the Heart Association, or the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, where we can get insights into the quality issues.

We need more work done on the patient experience, the clinician experience, but I also take the positive, Ed, that this may be a disruptor that could lend itself to some positive change in other areas that need to change.

This has been a fantastic conversation on the appearance, if you will, of private equity in cardiovascular medicine and some of the observations made by colleagues at the Smith Center at the Beth Israel Lahey, with great commentary by Ed Fry on whether this is a symptom or a solution and what we should be thinking about from a broader societal perspective. I want to thank my three guests today, Victoria, Ed, and Rishi, for joining us here.


Dr. Harrington is the Stephen and Suzanne Weiss Dean of Weill Cornell Medicine and provost for medical affairs of Cornell University, as well as a former president of the American Heart Association. He disclosed ties with several companies. Dr. Bartlett is resident physician, Department of Internal Medicine, Brigham & women’s Hospital, Boston, and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fry is chair, Ascension National Cardiovascular Service Line, Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis, Indiana. Dr. Wadhera is associate professor, Harvard Medical School, and associate director, Richard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston. Dr. Wadhera disclosed ties with Abbott, ChamberCardio, CVS Health, the National Institutes of Health, American Heart Association, and the Donaghue Foundation.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert A. Harrington, MD: I’m continuing my series of conversations with leaders in the field of cardiovascular medicine who are working on interesting projects and making contributions in the science and policy space. We have three guests joining us today who have recently written two papers in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. One is an original research paper dealing with the issue of private equity’s acquisition of outpatient cardiology practices. And the second is an editorial that really tries to get at why this is happening. Is it a problem? Is it a solution to a problem?

Fortunately, I have all three as guests to think about this important issue that has implications for clinical care, reimbursement, physician wellness, and clinician wellness, and it has implications regarding public policy and how we should be thinking about the practice of medicine in this country.

Dr. Victoria L. Bartlett is an internal medicine resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and a research fellow in the Smith Center at the Beth Israel Lahey medical center in Boston. Dr Rishi K. Wadhera is the senior author of the paper written by Dr. Bartlett. Dr. Rishi is associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and he is the associate director of the Smith Center at Beth Israel Lahey.

Rishi K. Wadhera, MD, MPP, MPhil: Thanks for having us, Bob.

Dr. Harrington: The editorialist, Dr. Ed Fry, is the national service line leader for cardiovascular medicine, for Ascension Health. Dr. Frey is a recent past president of the American College of Cardiology (ACC).

Edward T. A. Fry, MD: Great to be here. Thanks.
 

What is private equity? Why the interest in medicine?

Dr. Harrington: I was intrigued by the papers and it caused me to do a deeper dive into some of the earlier works that you have referenced about this growing topic of private equity making its way into medical practice. Rishi, I’ll start with you. For the casual reader like myself, what is the business of private equity?

Dr. Wadhera: Private equity firms basically used pooled investments from multiple sources. These can be individual and institutional investors, pension funds, endowments, and they use those funds to invest in private companies that have the potential to return a profit. Private equity firms typically try to add value to the company — or the case that we’re talking about today, the outpatient cardiology practices — within 3-7 years, and then subsequently tend to sell their stake in that entity or practice at a higher price than what they purchased it at. The goal really is to turn a profit for institutional investors over a shorter time horizon.

Dr. Harrington: How do they do that? I can understand, you buy a factory and you want to make the factory a little more efficient, and you think that perhaps, by combining some technologies, etc., that you might have in other factories, you can drive more value out of the one you just invested in in a short period of time. What’s the general business sense of how they’re going to do that in a cardiology practice? Is it all about making us more efficient?

Dr. Wadhera: Operational efficiency is the overarching theme here. One could argue that perhaps, private equity firms have the expertise to bring that kind of organizational know-how and operational efficiency to medicine. But there’s evidence that the way that private equity firms maximize their margin is maybe through mechanisms that aren’t necessarily good for patient care, such as reduced nursing staffing. When private equity acquires hospitals or practices in the same location, they have greater negotiating power at the payer table, to have higher prices for the services they deliver. There’s a lot of discussion about whether the sort of changes that private equity firms tend to implement are good or bad for patient care and also for clinicians.

Dr. Harrington: Great summary. Ed. Why is this happening in medicine? What did we do in medicine that made us ripe for investment by private equity? When you and I started out years ago, I don’t think we ever would have thought that this was in the future.

Dr. Fry: I think number one, as we know, is that medicine represents about 20% of our economy. There are huge amounts of money involved in these considerations. If players in this space can access even a small fraction of that money, it’s a lot of money and a lot of incentive for them.

In medicine in general, and then maybe more specifically, in cardiology, we’ve seen a shift away from private practice into employed practice. When people made those decisions over the past 10-15 years, there were certainly positives and risks that they took. I think for some, along the way, they realized that perhaps they gave up more than they thought in terms of control and running their own business and the opportunity to shape that themselves and be rewarded for that as they were in private practice. In cardiology, more specifically, we’ve seen this shift to the outpatient space: moving diagnostics and even therapeutics into ambulatory surgical centers and outpatient-based labs, and that is another potential source of revenue for these private equity companies.

As I wrote in the editorial, there are certainly a lot of pressures and frustrations that the day-to-day clinician feels, and maybe, this move to private equity is more of a symptom of those concerns and that this could be an opportunity to take the bull by the horns again in cardiology. We’ve evolved from a predominantly hospital-based acute care specialty into one of diagnosis, chronic disease management, and longitudinal care punctuated by diagnostics and therapeutics, which are, again, I think, attractive to private equity firms as potential sources for revenue.

Dr. Harrington: Ed, why cardiology? What’s happened over the years that has led to that appearance, if you will, of private equity and cardiovascular medicine?

Dr. Fry: Some of the earlier specialties were dermatology, ophthalmology, and gastroenterology, in particular. And interestingly, those tend to be specialties that have less chronic disease management and are more based on procedures and things like that. Within cardiology, obviously, the big driver is that our population is aging: 11,000 people turn 65 every day and become eligible for Medicare. With that, we see a rise in disease prevalence and then the rise in risk factors, obviously, with obesity and diabetes driving that, so there are more people who are going to have an illness that requires evaluation, diagnostics, and procedures. Because of that, it is a very target rich environment for private equity.

Dr. Harrington: That’s great background. Now, let’s dive into what you did, Victoria. What got you interested in the question? And give us some background on the literature that you were trying to build upon when you asked your series of questions.

Victoria L. Bartlett, MD: There’s been a lot of interest in private equity acquisitions and healthcare. A lot of the existing literature has been around hospital acquisitions and what happens there. There’s some literature, as you’ve mentioned, in outpatient practices, in certain specialties, where private equity has existed a little bit longer than in cardiology. They’ve been asking really similar questions to what we have been asking about cardiology, which is what happens when practices are acquired.

A kind of overview is that many of those studies have found increased costs to payers, to patients, and many have also found evidence of decreased quality. The evidence for the latter is honestly more difficult to figure out, but there has been evidence of decreased nursing ratios in nursing homes. There’s been evidence of changing the mix in clinics to more advanced practice providers than physicians. There’s been some evidence in hospitals that maybe quality doesn’t change too much. But the deeper layer under that is that these private equity–acquired hospitals may be selecting certain patients that are less sick, that are not going to negatively affect their metrics as much. That’s the environment that we had been reading about and starting to ask: Are we seeing that in cardiology too?

Dr. Harrington: Share with the audience what you did. You took what I would call a descriptive approach to try to understand the current landscape in cardiovascular medicine. As Ed already pointed out, a lot of the earlier data does not concern cardiology practices. My read of your paper is that you were trying to at least lay the groundwork for us to understand as a community what’s going on out there. Is that a fair interpretation?

Dr. Bartlett: Absolutely. Even that initial question of what’s happening is more challenging than it seems it might be to answer, partly because with private equity, these are private transactions. They don’t have to publicly report anything. So there’s a lot of manual work to gather these data. Our first questions were: What are these transactions? When are they happening? Where are they happening? What are the clinics that private equity is interested in? What are the community characteristics of those clinics? And what could that tell us about what’s going on?


 

Who Is Getting Acquired?

Dr. Harrington: Tell the audience broadly what you found. What are those clinics? And how often does this happen?

Dr. Bartlett: We looked at acquisitions between 2013 and 2023, and in that 10-year span, we found 41 acquisitions of outpatient cardiology practices, which corresponded to 342 acquisitions of clinics. The vast majority of these, pretty much 95%, occurred between 2021 and 2023. We calculated that about 3% of cardiology clinics in the US are owned by private equity. The states with the highest number of acquisitions were Florida, Texas, and Arizona, and particularly the urban areas in those states, ie, Jacksonville, Houston, Dallas. And interestingly, that mirrors what we’ve seen before in anesthesia and dermatology.

Our last question was around community characteristics, we looked at several that had a statistically significant association with private equity acquisition, and we found that private equity firms were less likely to acquire clinics in the highest poverty communities. Within the communities, we looked at the proportion of adults over 65, the proportion of racial and ethnic minorities, educational level, rurality, and didn’t find any significant associations between private equity acquisition and those characteristics.

Dr. Harrington: Thank you. Rishi, do you want to interpret why private equity was targeting certain areas?

Dr. Wadhera: Private equity goes where they can actually acquire practices. Those states, in particular, have more independent practices than, say, Massachusetts does. Then there’s the target population available in those states. Building on what Ed said earlier, why all of a sudden? Because Victoria just pointed out that the vast majority of these acquisitions happened between 2020 and 2023 and you see the surge, and I expect that surge to continue over the next several years. And the question is why?

We know with the rise in cardiometabolic risk factors at a population level, that the cardiovascular disease is only going to become more common. Cardiac procedures are very well reimbursed. There’s likely a lot of appeal in entering a specialty with a highly profitable service line. Over the past decade, federal policymakers very intentionally have created incentives to shift the delivery of cardiac procedures to nonhospital settings. We see that with the rise of ambulatory surgical centers and more cardiac procedures are being reimbursed in these types of settings. And I think that private equity firms may see this as an opportunity to maximize profits.

Victoria created this beautiful map in our study that showed how concentrated these acquisitions are. They really concentrated in specific markets. And I think that parallels what we’re seeing with health systems more broadly, this consolidation, and concentration is the ultimate goal. These different stakeholders, it’s not just private equity, have more market power, so that when they go to insurers, they can demand higher prices for procedures and services.

Dr. Harrington: It’s hard to look at the dates of 2021 or 2020 to 2023, and not wonder if there is a COVID effect. Victoria, do you think there’s a COVID effect, or is it just true, true, unrelated?

Dr. Bartlett: COVID definitely put a lot of financial pressure on providers, and particularly small independent practices. They would have felt that the most, and I certainly think is a piece of the picture but may not be all the picture.

Dr. Harrington: That’s what I would have guessed. We were all under financial pressures, but the small, independent practices didn’t have the big health system behind them to backstop things. Ed, as a former leader of the ACC, and the ACC very much works at the local level, are you hearing from the governors of these states that this is an issue, and not hearing from other states?

Dr. Fry: Certainly this activity is concentrated in the states that Victoria and Rishi described for the reasons that they outlined. This is still a very small number and probably will remain relatively small if we consider that 85% of cardiologists are employed, and the bar to exit an employment arrangement and enter into a private equity situation is pretty darn high. There’s a lot of costs associated with that. So it may have a finite cap to it, and that may be part of what buffers some of the response.

I would like to go back and address other reasons why this is happening. Particularly because of the aging population of cardiovascular patients, we’ve also seen the rise of Medicare Advantage, which is a type of value, if you consider it a type of value-based care. There are incentives built into Medicare Advantage to manage costs and to do various things so there is certainly a reward incentive. I am not wearing my hat as a representative of the ACC nor Ascension, and I will probably be a consumer of these services before I’m ever a participant, but I would say that private equity in some respects, is acting as a disruptor in this entire process. One of the positive outcomes from this is for a reevaluation of the role of clinicians in the overall delivery of care for health systems and academic medical centers. I think that can be a positive; I always try to look at the bright side of things too.
 

Patient and Clinician Satisfaction

Dr. Harrington: To your last comment. Ed, maybe I’ll ask you Rishi or Victoria, any insights into clinician wellness, how people feel when their practice has been bought by private equity? Are there any data out there?

Dr. Wadhera: Not that I know of. I will say that we have a study under review right now that doesn’t answer your question directly, Bob, but that looks at how private equity acquisitions of US hospitals affect the patient care experience. And what we found, using a rigorous, quasi experimental study design comparing private equity–acquired hospitals to neighboring control hospitals, is that private equity acquisition leads to a pretty marked decrease in patient care experience and satisfaction.

That’s capturing another dimension of quality that mortality and readmissions don’t necessarily reflect. It doesn’t answer your question directly, but I think an important area for future research is understanding the effects on the clinician experience as well as, most importantly, the patient experience.

Dr. Harrington: Nicely said, it seems like a good time to think about mixed qualitative methods such as focus groups, etc., coupled with the more quantitative research methods. Victoria, I suspect you talked to people in acquired practices. Any insight into whether it’s observational or rigorous data on the clinician experience?

Dr. Bartlett: Not that I have seen. I imagine it’s probably mixed because as we’ve been saying, there’s a lot of financial pressure on practices, small, independent practices, and it can become overwhelming to run them. Private equity firms offer a very attractive value proposition or can. But I think it’s a great point that should be highlighted.

Dr. Harrington: Ed, taking off your cardiovascular leadership hat, not representing any specific organization, what are the policy things that we should be thinking about?

Dr. Fry: There’s an opportunity to combine these conversations around research, collecting more data, and the advocacy issues related to that. One of the things that perhaps differentiates cardiology in this space from other specialties, or subspecialties, surgical subspecialties, is the plethora of data that we already have with well-established registry tools. We have good benchmarks. From a professional society standpoint, we have an obligation to make sure that the care that is provided in whatever environment meets the standards and is measurable, reportable, and provides a level of consumerism to patients and payers to be able to look at that. I think we have an obligation to advocate for the use of well-validated registry tools to track the data, to have objective data, to be able to demonstrate outcomes.

Interestingly, there’s an ACC/American Heart Association policy document from 2020 on professionalism and ethics in cardiology. And it calls for the obligation of the profession to make sure that in alternative sites of care, that we are achieving at least as good a result, if not better. We have to be true to that.

Dr. Harrington: I was actually a coauthor on that paper on professionalism and talking about some of the research and education issues within the academic medical centers. You’re spot on. And I love the comment about the importance of long-standing registries, whether maintained by the ACC, the Heart Association, or the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, where we can get insights into the quality issues.

We need more work done on the patient experience, the clinician experience, but I also take the positive, Ed, that this may be a disruptor that could lend itself to some positive change in other areas that need to change.

This has been a fantastic conversation on the appearance, if you will, of private equity in cardiovascular medicine and some of the observations made by colleagues at the Smith Center at the Beth Israel Lahey, with great commentary by Ed Fry on whether this is a symptom or a solution and what we should be thinking about from a broader societal perspective. I want to thank my three guests today, Victoria, Ed, and Rishi, for joining us here.


Dr. Harrington is the Stephen and Suzanne Weiss Dean of Weill Cornell Medicine and provost for medical affairs of Cornell University, as well as a former president of the American Heart Association. He disclosed ties with several companies. Dr. Bartlett is resident physician, Department of Internal Medicine, Brigham & women’s Hospital, Boston, and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fry is chair, Ascension National Cardiovascular Service Line, Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis, Indiana. Dr. Wadhera is associate professor, Harvard Medical School, and associate director, Richard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston. Dr. Wadhera disclosed ties with Abbott, ChamberCardio, CVS Health, the National Institutes of Health, American Heart Association, and the Donaghue Foundation.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert A. Harrington, MD: I’m continuing my series of conversations with leaders in the field of cardiovascular medicine who are working on interesting projects and making contributions in the science and policy space. We have three guests joining us today who have recently written two papers in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. One is an original research paper dealing with the issue of private equity’s acquisition of outpatient cardiology practices. And the second is an editorial that really tries to get at why this is happening. Is it a problem? Is it a solution to a problem?

Fortunately, I have all three as guests to think about this important issue that has implications for clinical care, reimbursement, physician wellness, and clinician wellness, and it has implications regarding public policy and how we should be thinking about the practice of medicine in this country.

Dr. Victoria L. Bartlett is an internal medicine resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and a research fellow in the Smith Center at the Beth Israel Lahey medical center in Boston. Dr Rishi K. Wadhera is the senior author of the paper written by Dr. Bartlett. Dr. Rishi is associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and he is the associate director of the Smith Center at Beth Israel Lahey.

Rishi K. Wadhera, MD, MPP, MPhil: Thanks for having us, Bob.

Dr. Harrington: The editorialist, Dr. Ed Fry, is the national service line leader for cardiovascular medicine, for Ascension Health. Dr. Frey is a recent past president of the American College of Cardiology (ACC).

Edward T. A. Fry, MD: Great to be here. Thanks.
 

What is private equity? Why the interest in medicine?

Dr. Harrington: I was intrigued by the papers and it caused me to do a deeper dive into some of the earlier works that you have referenced about this growing topic of private equity making its way into medical practice. Rishi, I’ll start with you. For the casual reader like myself, what is the business of private equity?

Dr. Wadhera: Private equity firms basically used pooled investments from multiple sources. These can be individual and institutional investors, pension funds, endowments, and they use those funds to invest in private companies that have the potential to return a profit. Private equity firms typically try to add value to the company — or the case that we’re talking about today, the outpatient cardiology practices — within 3-7 years, and then subsequently tend to sell their stake in that entity or practice at a higher price than what they purchased it at. The goal really is to turn a profit for institutional investors over a shorter time horizon.

Dr. Harrington: How do they do that? I can understand, you buy a factory and you want to make the factory a little more efficient, and you think that perhaps, by combining some technologies, etc., that you might have in other factories, you can drive more value out of the one you just invested in in a short period of time. What’s the general business sense of how they’re going to do that in a cardiology practice? Is it all about making us more efficient?

Dr. Wadhera: Operational efficiency is the overarching theme here. One could argue that perhaps, private equity firms have the expertise to bring that kind of organizational know-how and operational efficiency to medicine. But there’s evidence that the way that private equity firms maximize their margin is maybe through mechanisms that aren’t necessarily good for patient care, such as reduced nursing staffing. When private equity acquires hospitals or practices in the same location, they have greater negotiating power at the payer table, to have higher prices for the services they deliver. There’s a lot of discussion about whether the sort of changes that private equity firms tend to implement are good or bad for patient care and also for clinicians.

Dr. Harrington: Great summary. Ed. Why is this happening in medicine? What did we do in medicine that made us ripe for investment by private equity? When you and I started out years ago, I don’t think we ever would have thought that this was in the future.

Dr. Fry: I think number one, as we know, is that medicine represents about 20% of our economy. There are huge amounts of money involved in these considerations. If players in this space can access even a small fraction of that money, it’s a lot of money and a lot of incentive for them.

In medicine in general, and then maybe more specifically, in cardiology, we’ve seen a shift away from private practice into employed practice. When people made those decisions over the past 10-15 years, there were certainly positives and risks that they took. I think for some, along the way, they realized that perhaps they gave up more than they thought in terms of control and running their own business and the opportunity to shape that themselves and be rewarded for that as they were in private practice. In cardiology, more specifically, we’ve seen this shift to the outpatient space: moving diagnostics and even therapeutics into ambulatory surgical centers and outpatient-based labs, and that is another potential source of revenue for these private equity companies.

As I wrote in the editorial, there are certainly a lot of pressures and frustrations that the day-to-day clinician feels, and maybe, this move to private equity is more of a symptom of those concerns and that this could be an opportunity to take the bull by the horns again in cardiology. We’ve evolved from a predominantly hospital-based acute care specialty into one of diagnosis, chronic disease management, and longitudinal care punctuated by diagnostics and therapeutics, which are, again, I think, attractive to private equity firms as potential sources for revenue.

Dr. Harrington: Ed, why cardiology? What’s happened over the years that has led to that appearance, if you will, of private equity and cardiovascular medicine?

Dr. Fry: Some of the earlier specialties were dermatology, ophthalmology, and gastroenterology, in particular. And interestingly, those tend to be specialties that have less chronic disease management and are more based on procedures and things like that. Within cardiology, obviously, the big driver is that our population is aging: 11,000 people turn 65 every day and become eligible for Medicare. With that, we see a rise in disease prevalence and then the rise in risk factors, obviously, with obesity and diabetes driving that, so there are more people who are going to have an illness that requires evaluation, diagnostics, and procedures. Because of that, it is a very target rich environment for private equity.

Dr. Harrington: That’s great background. Now, let’s dive into what you did, Victoria. What got you interested in the question? And give us some background on the literature that you were trying to build upon when you asked your series of questions.

Victoria L. Bartlett, MD: There’s been a lot of interest in private equity acquisitions and healthcare. A lot of the existing literature has been around hospital acquisitions and what happens there. There’s some literature, as you’ve mentioned, in outpatient practices, in certain specialties, where private equity has existed a little bit longer than in cardiology. They’ve been asking really similar questions to what we have been asking about cardiology, which is what happens when practices are acquired.

A kind of overview is that many of those studies have found increased costs to payers, to patients, and many have also found evidence of decreased quality. The evidence for the latter is honestly more difficult to figure out, but there has been evidence of decreased nursing ratios in nursing homes. There’s been evidence of changing the mix in clinics to more advanced practice providers than physicians. There’s been some evidence in hospitals that maybe quality doesn’t change too much. But the deeper layer under that is that these private equity–acquired hospitals may be selecting certain patients that are less sick, that are not going to negatively affect their metrics as much. That’s the environment that we had been reading about and starting to ask: Are we seeing that in cardiology too?

Dr. Harrington: Share with the audience what you did. You took what I would call a descriptive approach to try to understand the current landscape in cardiovascular medicine. As Ed already pointed out, a lot of the earlier data does not concern cardiology practices. My read of your paper is that you were trying to at least lay the groundwork for us to understand as a community what’s going on out there. Is that a fair interpretation?

Dr. Bartlett: Absolutely. Even that initial question of what’s happening is more challenging than it seems it might be to answer, partly because with private equity, these are private transactions. They don’t have to publicly report anything. So there’s a lot of manual work to gather these data. Our first questions were: What are these transactions? When are they happening? Where are they happening? What are the clinics that private equity is interested in? What are the community characteristics of those clinics? And what could that tell us about what’s going on?


 

Who Is Getting Acquired?

Dr. Harrington: Tell the audience broadly what you found. What are those clinics? And how often does this happen?

Dr. Bartlett: We looked at acquisitions between 2013 and 2023, and in that 10-year span, we found 41 acquisitions of outpatient cardiology practices, which corresponded to 342 acquisitions of clinics. The vast majority of these, pretty much 95%, occurred between 2021 and 2023. We calculated that about 3% of cardiology clinics in the US are owned by private equity. The states with the highest number of acquisitions were Florida, Texas, and Arizona, and particularly the urban areas in those states, ie, Jacksonville, Houston, Dallas. And interestingly, that mirrors what we’ve seen before in anesthesia and dermatology.

Our last question was around community characteristics, we looked at several that had a statistically significant association with private equity acquisition, and we found that private equity firms were less likely to acquire clinics in the highest poverty communities. Within the communities, we looked at the proportion of adults over 65, the proportion of racial and ethnic minorities, educational level, rurality, and didn’t find any significant associations between private equity acquisition and those characteristics.

Dr. Harrington: Thank you. Rishi, do you want to interpret why private equity was targeting certain areas?

Dr. Wadhera: Private equity goes where they can actually acquire practices. Those states, in particular, have more independent practices than, say, Massachusetts does. Then there’s the target population available in those states. Building on what Ed said earlier, why all of a sudden? Because Victoria just pointed out that the vast majority of these acquisitions happened between 2020 and 2023 and you see the surge, and I expect that surge to continue over the next several years. And the question is why?

We know with the rise in cardiometabolic risk factors at a population level, that the cardiovascular disease is only going to become more common. Cardiac procedures are very well reimbursed. There’s likely a lot of appeal in entering a specialty with a highly profitable service line. Over the past decade, federal policymakers very intentionally have created incentives to shift the delivery of cardiac procedures to nonhospital settings. We see that with the rise of ambulatory surgical centers and more cardiac procedures are being reimbursed in these types of settings. And I think that private equity firms may see this as an opportunity to maximize profits.

Victoria created this beautiful map in our study that showed how concentrated these acquisitions are. They really concentrated in specific markets. And I think that parallels what we’re seeing with health systems more broadly, this consolidation, and concentration is the ultimate goal. These different stakeholders, it’s not just private equity, have more market power, so that when they go to insurers, they can demand higher prices for procedures and services.

Dr. Harrington: It’s hard to look at the dates of 2021 or 2020 to 2023, and not wonder if there is a COVID effect. Victoria, do you think there’s a COVID effect, or is it just true, true, unrelated?

Dr. Bartlett: COVID definitely put a lot of financial pressure on providers, and particularly small independent practices. They would have felt that the most, and I certainly think is a piece of the picture but may not be all the picture.

Dr. Harrington: That’s what I would have guessed. We were all under financial pressures, but the small, independent practices didn’t have the big health system behind them to backstop things. Ed, as a former leader of the ACC, and the ACC very much works at the local level, are you hearing from the governors of these states that this is an issue, and not hearing from other states?

Dr. Fry: Certainly this activity is concentrated in the states that Victoria and Rishi described for the reasons that they outlined. This is still a very small number and probably will remain relatively small if we consider that 85% of cardiologists are employed, and the bar to exit an employment arrangement and enter into a private equity situation is pretty darn high. There’s a lot of costs associated with that. So it may have a finite cap to it, and that may be part of what buffers some of the response.

I would like to go back and address other reasons why this is happening. Particularly because of the aging population of cardiovascular patients, we’ve also seen the rise of Medicare Advantage, which is a type of value, if you consider it a type of value-based care. There are incentives built into Medicare Advantage to manage costs and to do various things so there is certainly a reward incentive. I am not wearing my hat as a representative of the ACC nor Ascension, and I will probably be a consumer of these services before I’m ever a participant, but I would say that private equity in some respects, is acting as a disruptor in this entire process. One of the positive outcomes from this is for a reevaluation of the role of clinicians in the overall delivery of care for health systems and academic medical centers. I think that can be a positive; I always try to look at the bright side of things too.
 

Patient and Clinician Satisfaction

Dr. Harrington: To your last comment. Ed, maybe I’ll ask you Rishi or Victoria, any insights into clinician wellness, how people feel when their practice has been bought by private equity? Are there any data out there?

Dr. Wadhera: Not that I know of. I will say that we have a study under review right now that doesn’t answer your question directly, Bob, but that looks at how private equity acquisitions of US hospitals affect the patient care experience. And what we found, using a rigorous, quasi experimental study design comparing private equity–acquired hospitals to neighboring control hospitals, is that private equity acquisition leads to a pretty marked decrease in patient care experience and satisfaction.

That’s capturing another dimension of quality that mortality and readmissions don’t necessarily reflect. It doesn’t answer your question directly, but I think an important area for future research is understanding the effects on the clinician experience as well as, most importantly, the patient experience.

Dr. Harrington: Nicely said, it seems like a good time to think about mixed qualitative methods such as focus groups, etc., coupled with the more quantitative research methods. Victoria, I suspect you talked to people in acquired practices. Any insight into whether it’s observational or rigorous data on the clinician experience?

Dr. Bartlett: Not that I have seen. I imagine it’s probably mixed because as we’ve been saying, there’s a lot of financial pressure on practices, small, independent practices, and it can become overwhelming to run them. Private equity firms offer a very attractive value proposition or can. But I think it’s a great point that should be highlighted.

Dr. Harrington: Ed, taking off your cardiovascular leadership hat, not representing any specific organization, what are the policy things that we should be thinking about?

Dr. Fry: There’s an opportunity to combine these conversations around research, collecting more data, and the advocacy issues related to that. One of the things that perhaps differentiates cardiology in this space from other specialties, or subspecialties, surgical subspecialties, is the plethora of data that we already have with well-established registry tools. We have good benchmarks. From a professional society standpoint, we have an obligation to make sure that the care that is provided in whatever environment meets the standards and is measurable, reportable, and provides a level of consumerism to patients and payers to be able to look at that. I think we have an obligation to advocate for the use of well-validated registry tools to track the data, to have objective data, to be able to demonstrate outcomes.

Interestingly, there’s an ACC/American Heart Association policy document from 2020 on professionalism and ethics in cardiology. And it calls for the obligation of the profession to make sure that in alternative sites of care, that we are achieving at least as good a result, if not better. We have to be true to that.

Dr. Harrington: I was actually a coauthor on that paper on professionalism and talking about some of the research and education issues within the academic medical centers. You’re spot on. And I love the comment about the importance of long-standing registries, whether maintained by the ACC, the Heart Association, or the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, where we can get insights into the quality issues.

We need more work done on the patient experience, the clinician experience, but I also take the positive, Ed, that this may be a disruptor that could lend itself to some positive change in other areas that need to change.

This has been a fantastic conversation on the appearance, if you will, of private equity in cardiovascular medicine and some of the observations made by colleagues at the Smith Center at the Beth Israel Lahey, with great commentary by Ed Fry on whether this is a symptom or a solution and what we should be thinking about from a broader societal perspective. I want to thank my three guests today, Victoria, Ed, and Rishi, for joining us here.


Dr. Harrington is the Stephen and Suzanne Weiss Dean of Weill Cornell Medicine and provost for medical affairs of Cornell University, as well as a former president of the American Heart Association. He disclosed ties with several companies. Dr. Bartlett is resident physician, Department of Internal Medicine, Brigham & women’s Hospital, Boston, and has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fry is chair, Ascension National Cardiovascular Service Line, Ascension St. Vincent Heart Center in Indianapolis, Indiana. Dr. Wadhera is associate professor, Harvard Medical School, and associate director, Richard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston. Dr. Wadhera disclosed ties with Abbott, ChamberCardio, CVS Health, the National Institutes of Health, American Heart Association, and the Donaghue Foundation.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Recorded Aug. 26, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert A. Harrington, MD: I’m here with my good friend, Manesh Patel, from Duke University. We’re at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) congress in Amsterdam, and I pulled Manesh into the studio for a conversation about something that’s really topical right now: sudden cardiac death in athletes.

What I hope to do [in this interview] is really pick Manesh’s brain on how we are thinking about this. Are we going to think about treatment issues? Are we going to think about prevention issues? Are we thinking about screening? We’ll try to make it practical.

Dr. Manesh Patel is chief of cardiovascular medicine at Duke University and also the director of the Duke Heart Center. Manesh, thanks for joining me here.
 

Bronny James and Damar Hamlin

Manesh R. Patel, MD: Excited to be here, Bob. Always.

Harrington: [Recently,] a news article comes out about the cause of Bronny James’ sudden cardiac death. Let me put this into a bigger societal context.

Last winter, Damar Hamlin, from the Buffalo Bills, suffered a traumatic injury on the field, and with that, had cardiac arrest. He’s back playing football – great to see. You and I are involved with the American Heart Association. He’s been very supportive of our efforts around things like CPR. He’s been terrific. It’s great to see him playing.

We know a little less about Bronny James. The news articles say the cause is both functional and anatomical, and it seems to be congenital, but we don’t have any details beyond this. Let’s not focus on the people; let’s focus on the topic.

Patel: I’m excited that we’re having the conversation. First and foremost, we’re excited that, with what we’ve seen on a national stage, these two individuals are doing well. They survived sudden cardiac death, which is a testament to all the things that we’ll talk about.

There are many important questions, like, is this increasing? Is this something we can prevent? And what are those things that might be happening to athletes?

Harrington: Can we predict it?

Patel: Right. I think the idea of sudden cardiac death in athletes is really a critical one for us to think about because it does concern participation and what we think about that. There are many experts who’ve been studying this for years that I now get to work with.

Harrington: Tell us a little bit about the kind of things you’ve been doing in this area.

Patel: Even before these events in the COVID era, we were wondering about athletes getting myocarditis, just in general, what do we know about that? People like Aaron Baggish, Kim Harmon, Jonathan Drezner, and others have been studying this.

Harrington: You and I did a show on athletes and COVID-19.

Patel: With the American Heart Association (AHA), the Cornell Foundation, and others, we started the Outcomes Registry for Cardiac Conditions in Athletes (ORCCA). This registry is across the United States, and athletes can sign up.

Harrington: Is it voluntary? Do the schools sign them up?

Patel: The athletes sign up. Team trainers and doctors talk to the athletes. We don’t really know the risks of some of these conditions. There’s a lot of gray area – people with certain conditions that were really interesting; aortas that are dilated in tall people.

Harrington: Long QT.

Patel: Long QT. There are certainly things that we know we should be intervening on and others where participation is a question. All of these we are trying to longitudinally put into the registry and follow them over time.

The second thing is understanding from the last Bethesda Conference that we want shared decision-making. There are going to be conditions where you say, “Look, I think your risk is high. You’ve a family history of sudden cardiac death. You have arrhythmias while you’re exercising.”

Harrington: You have a big, thick heart.

Patel: If you have hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, whether you’re an athlete or a 40-year-old adult, we’re going to have the same conversation. I think that holds. There’s a variety or a spectrum where we don’t know. I think the registry is one big step.

Thinking back to when somebody has an event, I would say take the teachable moment with the AHA and others to make sure your communities and your areas have automated external defibrillators (AEDs) and CPR training, and that we get to 100%: 100% response, 100% CPR, 100% defibrillation. I think that’s the first step.
 

Chain of survival

Harrington: Let’s really focus on the chain of survival. It is a chain: If any link is broken, your chance of survival really drops. We’ve had some well-known cases within our AHA community, including somebody who talks about it regularly: Kevin Volpp, from the University of Pennsylvania, a health economist. He had almost the perfect chain of survival. He had sudden cardiac death in a restaurant that was immediately observed, CPR started, EMTs called, and AED on the scene. Impressive.

Patel: That was in Cincinnati, where there are communities that have really worked on these things. I think you’re right. The chain of survival with rapid CPR to build a nation of survivors is key. The people at the AHA are helping us do this; there is a national call to make sure CPR is something that people feel comfortable doing. That they do it in men and women. They do it for anyone that goes down. And realize that it’s CPR that is hands-only. I think that’s an important lesson from Damar’s work, Nancy Brown’s, and AHA’s. Actually, schools in many countries require that to get through primary school.

Harrington: CPR training is a requirement to graduate from high school in some states.

Patel: My son just graduated from high school, and we spent time at his school making sure that everybody had access to CPR training. I think the way to do this is to start with that. Now, getting more specific about teams and athletes, I think most have emergency action plans, but it’s having action plans that work because of where you are and where the AED locations might be, or what the sport is. Having a plan on how you’re going to get that athlete to a place where you can help them recover is an important piece.

From there, I think the conversation for us is about what can we do as a society and as a country to answer some critical questions, including some real-world questions that people are asking: We had COVID-19 and we’re hearing these cases. Is this going up or down, and are these related?

Soon, hopefully the same group I talked about and others will have a publication, working with the NCAA to look at all of the deaths that they observed in NCAA Division I athletes over 20 years, including the sudden cardiac deaths. I won’t share the results because the publication isn’t out, but I think that’s the kind of important information that will help us understand if these rates are going up or down.

Harrington: What’s associated with that risk? Then we can start getting at whether it is something that, when we’re doing assessment for suitability for sports, has risk factors that should warrant more investigation.

Patel: Much like the field of cardiology, we haven’t enough of an evidence base, the right technologies, or the studies to determine how we should do screening, or not screening, across the board. Again, there is variation. There are some countries where anyone participating is going to get an ECG and an echocardiogram. There are other countries, like the United States, where it’s going to be a bit dependent on athlete risk.

Harrington: And where you live.

Patel: And where you live. Unfortunately, again, that brings in the idea that it might not be equitable in how we’re evaluating these individuals. I do think the opportunity to start to standardize that evaluation exists, and it likely comes from the ability to look back and say, “Here are some higher-risk individuals or some higher-risk scenarios.”

Harrington: Isn’t this what we do all the time in clinical medicine?

Patel: It’s going to be applied to a population that maybe is not as studied. I said this to you before we came on. The other thing is to make sure that the shared decision-making allows athletes who feel like they have a chance or want to play. During COVID, we had many college athletes, high school athletes, and kids not able to participate in sports. There was significant depression, feeling of loneliness, and even physical loss. People were actually getting less conditioned quickly. There’s a great benefit to sports participation.

Harrington: We were extrapolating from older data. If I’ve just had this new infection, COVID, and I’ve maybe got some signs of it in my heart, why can’t I exercise? That’s extrapolating from old myocarditis data.

Patel: We’re having to learn and follow it. I think there’s value in following that and getting those data. The second thing I think is really valuable is that we’ve shown that these individuals, if you do have these conversations and follow them, can participate and can be part of understanding the risk just like anything else.

Harrington: Is it sport specific? Are there some sports where maybe the conversation should be a little more intense than in other sports?

Patel: I think what we’ll see is that the conversations may be sport specific, and some may concern the number of athletes tested. At times, it’s pretty complicated. It does look like there are, as you know, different weight-bearing performance athletes, endurance athletes, or what I’ll call burst sports. There will probably be data that will identify certain sports where we may need to pay a bit more attention.

Harrington: What about the contact issues? Damar had a very specific thing, we think, happen to him. Football is a violent, contact-oriented sport, but fortunately we don’t regularly see what happened to Damar.

Patel: We’re talking about sudden cardiac death, but obviously, contact issues and neurologic evaluation is a whole other topic. That’s another big issue that I know many are following, and the NCAA is carefully, too. For Damar, I think we know that it was commotio cordis. At least when that happens, when there’s a ball or a trauma to the chest, those things have to be timed just so to actually lead to this event. Thankfully, it’s not very frequent, but it can happen.

Harrington: Hockey pucks, baseballs, soccer balls, a helmet to the chest ...

Patel: You have to be in a specific cycle of the squeeze. We don’t see that very frequently. I do think the evaluation and treatment, hopefully, makes a difference. One thing that we’re evolving in the screening world is our imaging; it’s getting better. We are not just doing echocardiograms; we are able to do other studies. There’s a mix of imaging and other technologies.

Is screening the answer?

Harrington: Let’s talk about that because screening is the area, I would say, with the most controversy – and a large amount of emotional controversy. Some argue that the data are not good enough to screen, or doctors are saying, “Wait a minute, why are we screening all these kids?” You said you were at your son’s high school doing CPR training. How many athletes are at his high school? There are many, and that’s a pretty small high school. Big communities, big universities, and the professional sports can afford it. Should we be doing this at the community level?

Patel: There have been some data. The Italians have done standard screening for some time, and it’s shown us that if you did echocardiograms in many individuals, you do find some cases that are hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in pathology. The issue is just how much you have to do and the resource utilization. I think as we get to a world where screening studies can happen with smaller technology and AI, that can be democratizing in how we get to athletes.

Harrington: Give an example of that. We were talking outside, you and I, about some of the new stethoscope technology.

Patel: Yes, stethoscopes are going to be one of the examples. We have stethoscopes that have the ability to get sounds and ECG signals, or at least some lead signals.

Harrington: Yes.

Patel: Potentially you can imagine that sound and ECG tracing in an AI environment, at least getting you from “everyone gets a listen with one stethoscope in their gym from their coach,” and it goes to the cloud. When there are enough questions, these are the ones that have to go further. Now, that’s a big study that has to be carried out; I’m not in any way saying we should do that.

Harrington: The technology is coming.

Patel: We start to see that our ability to rapidly do something to meet our athletes or our patients where they are will happen soon. Remember that the performance curve can vary, but once you have a sound where you can start to say that this is a regular flow murmur vs. “I’m worried about this,” especially as you mark it with ECG – that’s one example.

Smaller imaging is another example. For many years, ECGs have been talked about. There are entire courses that we run looking at ECGs in athletes. Remembering that Aaron Baggish and others are publishing that these individuals are large. When we look at their hearts, we see that they’re large, but when you adjust for size, often you can identify that many of them are within what we think are normal. Structurally, there are still many cases where you look at hearts and you’re asking, “Is this a thick heart? Is this noncompaction? Is this some pathology?”

That’s where you need imaging expertise. I think you have to have those individuals. I’m not advocating screening. I’m advocating studying it and that we should be thinking about the population. I don’t see a world where we don’t eventually start to really look to prevent those.

Harrington: Right. Whether it’s understanding that there are certain risk factors associated with this and we have to dedicate screening resources to those individuals, or if we want to do it more broadly on the population level to understand this with deeper dives into certain individuals, we’ve got to study it.

Patel: Some of the experts in sports medicine and sports cardiology have been collecting these data for a while. It’s time that we are there, because with these events we have the opportunity to share more of these data and maybe raise awareness – not in the teachable moment only – to get others to contribute.

I do believe that long term there’s an opportunity. We’ve seen that. We see that the rates, unfortunately, for marathon runners, where people unfortunately have events, seem to be higher. And we’ve seen the studies on troponin leaks in these individuals or evidence that there’s some effect on the heart from these events. We want people to be able to be long-term healthy.
 

Early defibrillation

Harrington: A large amount of work needs to be done. We talked with regard to screening, we’ve talked about CPR. We really need to have a nation of people who can do hands-only CPR. Let’s talk about AEDs, another key part of the chain of survival.

Patel: We have another important study going on, but an important message first: AEDs are critical to survival. We know that CPR is critical, but so is getting people to a defibrillator.

Harrington: Early defibrillation.

Patel: Early defibrillation. Early CPR is one of the biggest markers of making sure we perfuse people to get to early defibrillation, but then you have to get early defibrillation. There’s been a huge push in many communities, again, along with AHA and others, to make sure that AEDs are available not only in the U.S. but around the world. We’re at ESC and we see the push around the world to get AEDs available. They’ve come down in size and come down in cost, and that’s made it much more accessible. That’s really good. They’re still not always there.

We’ve seen really interesting randomized studies with people in some European countries where they have certain areas, just because of the locations, where bystanders will help get an AED  vs. randomizing to the EMS truck. They seem better in some of those variations. Chris Granger, at our institution, with Monique Starks, Dan Mark, and others, is doing a study in North Carolina where we’re testing different ways to potentially get AEDs in communities. We’re randomizing counties to one or two ways of getting AEDs to those individuals.

Harrington: Can you have an app where you just click “Find me an AED”?

Patel: Is there a world where the AED is found or is something bringing you the AED? Are there drones? Are there people driving? Are there ways that an AED is brought to the scene? All of those are going to be critical. It starts with continuing to figure out ways to support the costs of getting AEDs in places. The technology is continuing to evolve.

Harrington: It really is the premedical system stuff that makes the difference. Once EMS arrives with trained individuals who can defibrillate, they can transport you to a medical facility where trained physicians are at. It’s that pre-EMS thing that is so critical.

Patel: We talk often about athletes, but cardiac arrest care in general, and the chain of survival with CPR and AEDs, is critical. I still see patients in the CICU at Duke where, unfortunately, the biggest driver, as you just highlighted in that chain of survival, is how rapid we were in that golden hour. In the first 15 minutes, are you getting CPR, are you getting AED? Are you getting to a system?

Harrington: Are you getting a rapid transport?

Patel: Are you getting a neurologic assessment? Are you getting cooled or not? Those are important things.

Harrington: All right. Let’s try to wrap this up. Teachable moments, we talked about. One of the things about cases in prominent athletes is that it makes it to the newspaper and then it raises awareness. There is a drawing inference from a small group of cases to the broader societal issues. That’s an important topic.

We’ve talked about possible screening options, identifying at-risk individuals and high-risk individuals. A large amount of data has already been accumulated, but there is more work to be done. We focused on how to use those teachable moments to really influence the chain of survival, not just for athletes but for society at large.

I love your point about the Bethesda Conference on shared decision-making. Like with everything else, we have to have that two-way conversation: What are the athlete’s goals, hopes, and aspirations?

Patel: That group of experts, in addition to shared decision-making, gave us a whole list of conditions that we should be aware of and the cutpoints of where we think normal and not normal live for athletes. I think that’s used by many.

Can we build our systems to make research happen faster for the individuals? These athletes are at colleges that are obviously doing so much to make sure they’re okay. The people who are helping with this registry, and others, are going to continue to work to ask whether we can engage them as citizen participants and scientists. I think athletes are going to become some of our best advocates for why you’d want to know about yourself and how to perform CPR.

Harrington: I love the concept of citizen scientists, that we all have an obligation to contribute to the evidence base because we all want to use that evidence.

This has been a terrific conversation. I’ve been joined by my good friend, Dr. Manesh Patel from Duke University. I hope you’ve enjoyed our discussion here at the ESC. We have been taking a little break from the science going on around us to talk about sudden cardiac death in athletes. It really does have implications for broader societal concepts.

Dr. Harrington is the Stephen and Suzanne Weiss Dean of Weill Cornell Medicine and provost for medical affairs of Cornell University, New York, as well as a former president of the American Heart Association. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Research relationships with Baim Institute (DSMB); CSL (RCT executive committee); Janssen (RCT chair); National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (RCT executive committee, DSMB chair); Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (RCT co-chair); Duke Clinical Research Institute. Consulting relationships with Atropos Health; Bitterroot Bio; Bristol Myers Squibb; BridgeBio; Element Science; Edwards Lifesciences; Foresite Labs; Medscape/WebMD Board of Directors for: American Heart Association; College of the Holy Cross; Cytokinetics. Dr. Patel is professor of medicine, Duke University; chief, division of cardiology; director, Duke Heart Center, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Bayer; Janssen; Novartis (consultant). Received research grant from Bayer; Janssen.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recorded Aug. 26, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert A. Harrington, MD: I’m here with my good friend, Manesh Patel, from Duke University. We’re at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) congress in Amsterdam, and I pulled Manesh into the studio for a conversation about something that’s really topical right now: sudden cardiac death in athletes.

What I hope to do [in this interview] is really pick Manesh’s brain on how we are thinking about this. Are we going to think about treatment issues? Are we going to think about prevention issues? Are we thinking about screening? We’ll try to make it practical.

Dr. Manesh Patel is chief of cardiovascular medicine at Duke University and also the director of the Duke Heart Center. Manesh, thanks for joining me here.
 

Bronny James and Damar Hamlin

Manesh R. Patel, MD: Excited to be here, Bob. Always.

Harrington: [Recently,] a news article comes out about the cause of Bronny James’ sudden cardiac death. Let me put this into a bigger societal context.

Last winter, Damar Hamlin, from the Buffalo Bills, suffered a traumatic injury on the field, and with that, had cardiac arrest. He’s back playing football – great to see. You and I are involved with the American Heart Association. He’s been very supportive of our efforts around things like CPR. He’s been terrific. It’s great to see him playing.

We know a little less about Bronny James. The news articles say the cause is both functional and anatomical, and it seems to be congenital, but we don’t have any details beyond this. Let’s not focus on the people; let’s focus on the topic.

Patel: I’m excited that we’re having the conversation. First and foremost, we’re excited that, with what we’ve seen on a national stage, these two individuals are doing well. They survived sudden cardiac death, which is a testament to all the things that we’ll talk about.

There are many important questions, like, is this increasing? Is this something we can prevent? And what are those things that might be happening to athletes?

Harrington: Can we predict it?

Patel: Right. I think the idea of sudden cardiac death in athletes is really a critical one for us to think about because it does concern participation and what we think about that. There are many experts who’ve been studying this for years that I now get to work with.

Harrington: Tell us a little bit about the kind of things you’ve been doing in this area.

Patel: Even before these events in the COVID era, we were wondering about athletes getting myocarditis, just in general, what do we know about that? People like Aaron Baggish, Kim Harmon, Jonathan Drezner, and others have been studying this.

Harrington: You and I did a show on athletes and COVID-19.

Patel: With the American Heart Association (AHA), the Cornell Foundation, and others, we started the Outcomes Registry for Cardiac Conditions in Athletes (ORCCA). This registry is across the United States, and athletes can sign up.

Harrington: Is it voluntary? Do the schools sign them up?

Patel: The athletes sign up. Team trainers and doctors talk to the athletes. We don’t really know the risks of some of these conditions. There’s a lot of gray area – people with certain conditions that were really interesting; aortas that are dilated in tall people.

Harrington: Long QT.

Patel: Long QT. There are certainly things that we know we should be intervening on and others where participation is a question. All of these we are trying to longitudinally put into the registry and follow them over time.

The second thing is understanding from the last Bethesda Conference that we want shared decision-making. There are going to be conditions where you say, “Look, I think your risk is high. You’ve a family history of sudden cardiac death. You have arrhythmias while you’re exercising.”

Harrington: You have a big, thick heart.

Patel: If you have hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, whether you’re an athlete or a 40-year-old adult, we’re going to have the same conversation. I think that holds. There’s a variety or a spectrum where we don’t know. I think the registry is one big step.

Thinking back to when somebody has an event, I would say take the teachable moment with the AHA and others to make sure your communities and your areas have automated external defibrillators (AEDs) and CPR training, and that we get to 100%: 100% response, 100% CPR, 100% defibrillation. I think that’s the first step.
 

Chain of survival

Harrington: Let’s really focus on the chain of survival. It is a chain: If any link is broken, your chance of survival really drops. We’ve had some well-known cases within our AHA community, including somebody who talks about it regularly: Kevin Volpp, from the University of Pennsylvania, a health economist. He had almost the perfect chain of survival. He had sudden cardiac death in a restaurant that was immediately observed, CPR started, EMTs called, and AED on the scene. Impressive.

Patel: That was in Cincinnati, where there are communities that have really worked on these things. I think you’re right. The chain of survival with rapid CPR to build a nation of survivors is key. The people at the AHA are helping us do this; there is a national call to make sure CPR is something that people feel comfortable doing. That they do it in men and women. They do it for anyone that goes down. And realize that it’s CPR that is hands-only. I think that’s an important lesson from Damar’s work, Nancy Brown’s, and AHA’s. Actually, schools in many countries require that to get through primary school.

Harrington: CPR training is a requirement to graduate from high school in some states.

Patel: My son just graduated from high school, and we spent time at his school making sure that everybody had access to CPR training. I think the way to do this is to start with that. Now, getting more specific about teams and athletes, I think most have emergency action plans, but it’s having action plans that work because of where you are and where the AED locations might be, or what the sport is. Having a plan on how you’re going to get that athlete to a place where you can help them recover is an important piece.

From there, I think the conversation for us is about what can we do as a society and as a country to answer some critical questions, including some real-world questions that people are asking: We had COVID-19 and we’re hearing these cases. Is this going up or down, and are these related?

Soon, hopefully the same group I talked about and others will have a publication, working with the NCAA to look at all of the deaths that they observed in NCAA Division I athletes over 20 years, including the sudden cardiac deaths. I won’t share the results because the publication isn’t out, but I think that’s the kind of important information that will help us understand if these rates are going up or down.

Harrington: What’s associated with that risk? Then we can start getting at whether it is something that, when we’re doing assessment for suitability for sports, has risk factors that should warrant more investigation.

Patel: Much like the field of cardiology, we haven’t enough of an evidence base, the right technologies, or the studies to determine how we should do screening, or not screening, across the board. Again, there is variation. There are some countries where anyone participating is going to get an ECG and an echocardiogram. There are other countries, like the United States, where it’s going to be a bit dependent on athlete risk.

Harrington: And where you live.

Patel: And where you live. Unfortunately, again, that brings in the idea that it might not be equitable in how we’re evaluating these individuals. I do think the opportunity to start to standardize that evaluation exists, and it likely comes from the ability to look back and say, “Here are some higher-risk individuals or some higher-risk scenarios.”

Harrington: Isn’t this what we do all the time in clinical medicine?

Patel: It’s going to be applied to a population that maybe is not as studied. I said this to you before we came on. The other thing is to make sure that the shared decision-making allows athletes who feel like they have a chance or want to play. During COVID, we had many college athletes, high school athletes, and kids not able to participate in sports. There was significant depression, feeling of loneliness, and even physical loss. People were actually getting less conditioned quickly. There’s a great benefit to sports participation.

Harrington: We were extrapolating from older data. If I’ve just had this new infection, COVID, and I’ve maybe got some signs of it in my heart, why can’t I exercise? That’s extrapolating from old myocarditis data.

Patel: We’re having to learn and follow it. I think there’s value in following that and getting those data. The second thing I think is really valuable is that we’ve shown that these individuals, if you do have these conversations and follow them, can participate and can be part of understanding the risk just like anything else.

Harrington: Is it sport specific? Are there some sports where maybe the conversation should be a little more intense than in other sports?

Patel: I think what we’ll see is that the conversations may be sport specific, and some may concern the number of athletes tested. At times, it’s pretty complicated. It does look like there are, as you know, different weight-bearing performance athletes, endurance athletes, or what I’ll call burst sports. There will probably be data that will identify certain sports where we may need to pay a bit more attention.

Harrington: What about the contact issues? Damar had a very specific thing, we think, happen to him. Football is a violent, contact-oriented sport, but fortunately we don’t regularly see what happened to Damar.

Patel: We’re talking about sudden cardiac death, but obviously, contact issues and neurologic evaluation is a whole other topic. That’s another big issue that I know many are following, and the NCAA is carefully, too. For Damar, I think we know that it was commotio cordis. At least when that happens, when there’s a ball or a trauma to the chest, those things have to be timed just so to actually lead to this event. Thankfully, it’s not very frequent, but it can happen.

Harrington: Hockey pucks, baseballs, soccer balls, a helmet to the chest ...

Patel: You have to be in a specific cycle of the squeeze. We don’t see that very frequently. I do think the evaluation and treatment, hopefully, makes a difference. One thing that we’re evolving in the screening world is our imaging; it’s getting better. We are not just doing echocardiograms; we are able to do other studies. There’s a mix of imaging and other technologies.

Is screening the answer?

Harrington: Let’s talk about that because screening is the area, I would say, with the most controversy – and a large amount of emotional controversy. Some argue that the data are not good enough to screen, or doctors are saying, “Wait a minute, why are we screening all these kids?” You said you were at your son’s high school doing CPR training. How many athletes are at his high school? There are many, and that’s a pretty small high school. Big communities, big universities, and the professional sports can afford it. Should we be doing this at the community level?

Patel: There have been some data. The Italians have done standard screening for some time, and it’s shown us that if you did echocardiograms in many individuals, you do find some cases that are hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in pathology. The issue is just how much you have to do and the resource utilization. I think as we get to a world where screening studies can happen with smaller technology and AI, that can be democratizing in how we get to athletes.

Harrington: Give an example of that. We were talking outside, you and I, about some of the new stethoscope technology.

Patel: Yes, stethoscopes are going to be one of the examples. We have stethoscopes that have the ability to get sounds and ECG signals, or at least some lead signals.

Harrington: Yes.

Patel: Potentially you can imagine that sound and ECG tracing in an AI environment, at least getting you from “everyone gets a listen with one stethoscope in their gym from their coach,” and it goes to the cloud. When there are enough questions, these are the ones that have to go further. Now, that’s a big study that has to be carried out; I’m not in any way saying we should do that.

Harrington: The technology is coming.

Patel: We start to see that our ability to rapidly do something to meet our athletes or our patients where they are will happen soon. Remember that the performance curve can vary, but once you have a sound where you can start to say that this is a regular flow murmur vs. “I’m worried about this,” especially as you mark it with ECG – that’s one example.

Smaller imaging is another example. For many years, ECGs have been talked about. There are entire courses that we run looking at ECGs in athletes. Remembering that Aaron Baggish and others are publishing that these individuals are large. When we look at their hearts, we see that they’re large, but when you adjust for size, often you can identify that many of them are within what we think are normal. Structurally, there are still many cases where you look at hearts and you’re asking, “Is this a thick heart? Is this noncompaction? Is this some pathology?”

That’s where you need imaging expertise. I think you have to have those individuals. I’m not advocating screening. I’m advocating studying it and that we should be thinking about the population. I don’t see a world where we don’t eventually start to really look to prevent those.

Harrington: Right. Whether it’s understanding that there are certain risk factors associated with this and we have to dedicate screening resources to those individuals, or if we want to do it more broadly on the population level to understand this with deeper dives into certain individuals, we’ve got to study it.

Patel: Some of the experts in sports medicine and sports cardiology have been collecting these data for a while. It’s time that we are there, because with these events we have the opportunity to share more of these data and maybe raise awareness – not in the teachable moment only – to get others to contribute.

I do believe that long term there’s an opportunity. We’ve seen that. We see that the rates, unfortunately, for marathon runners, where people unfortunately have events, seem to be higher. And we’ve seen the studies on troponin leaks in these individuals or evidence that there’s some effect on the heart from these events. We want people to be able to be long-term healthy.
 

Early defibrillation

Harrington: A large amount of work needs to be done. We talked with regard to screening, we’ve talked about CPR. We really need to have a nation of people who can do hands-only CPR. Let’s talk about AEDs, another key part of the chain of survival.

Patel: We have another important study going on, but an important message first: AEDs are critical to survival. We know that CPR is critical, but so is getting people to a defibrillator.

Harrington: Early defibrillation.

Patel: Early defibrillation. Early CPR is one of the biggest markers of making sure we perfuse people to get to early defibrillation, but then you have to get early defibrillation. There’s been a huge push in many communities, again, along with AHA and others, to make sure that AEDs are available not only in the U.S. but around the world. We’re at ESC and we see the push around the world to get AEDs available. They’ve come down in size and come down in cost, and that’s made it much more accessible. That’s really good. They’re still not always there.

We’ve seen really interesting randomized studies with people in some European countries where they have certain areas, just because of the locations, where bystanders will help get an AED  vs. randomizing to the EMS truck. They seem better in some of those variations. Chris Granger, at our institution, with Monique Starks, Dan Mark, and others, is doing a study in North Carolina where we’re testing different ways to potentially get AEDs in communities. We’re randomizing counties to one or two ways of getting AEDs to those individuals.

Harrington: Can you have an app where you just click “Find me an AED”?

Patel: Is there a world where the AED is found or is something bringing you the AED? Are there drones? Are there people driving? Are there ways that an AED is brought to the scene? All of those are going to be critical. It starts with continuing to figure out ways to support the costs of getting AEDs in places. The technology is continuing to evolve.

Harrington: It really is the premedical system stuff that makes the difference. Once EMS arrives with trained individuals who can defibrillate, they can transport you to a medical facility where trained physicians are at. It’s that pre-EMS thing that is so critical.

Patel: We talk often about athletes, but cardiac arrest care in general, and the chain of survival with CPR and AEDs, is critical. I still see patients in the CICU at Duke where, unfortunately, the biggest driver, as you just highlighted in that chain of survival, is how rapid we were in that golden hour. In the first 15 minutes, are you getting CPR, are you getting AED? Are you getting to a system?

Harrington: Are you getting a rapid transport?

Patel: Are you getting a neurologic assessment? Are you getting cooled or not? Those are important things.

Harrington: All right. Let’s try to wrap this up. Teachable moments, we talked about. One of the things about cases in prominent athletes is that it makes it to the newspaper and then it raises awareness. There is a drawing inference from a small group of cases to the broader societal issues. That’s an important topic.

We’ve talked about possible screening options, identifying at-risk individuals and high-risk individuals. A large amount of data has already been accumulated, but there is more work to be done. We focused on how to use those teachable moments to really influence the chain of survival, not just for athletes but for society at large.

I love your point about the Bethesda Conference on shared decision-making. Like with everything else, we have to have that two-way conversation: What are the athlete’s goals, hopes, and aspirations?

Patel: That group of experts, in addition to shared decision-making, gave us a whole list of conditions that we should be aware of and the cutpoints of where we think normal and not normal live for athletes. I think that’s used by many.

Can we build our systems to make research happen faster for the individuals? These athletes are at colleges that are obviously doing so much to make sure they’re okay. The people who are helping with this registry, and others, are going to continue to work to ask whether we can engage them as citizen participants and scientists. I think athletes are going to become some of our best advocates for why you’d want to know about yourself and how to perform CPR.

Harrington: I love the concept of citizen scientists, that we all have an obligation to contribute to the evidence base because we all want to use that evidence.

This has been a terrific conversation. I’ve been joined by my good friend, Dr. Manesh Patel from Duke University. I hope you’ve enjoyed our discussion here at the ESC. We have been taking a little break from the science going on around us to talk about sudden cardiac death in athletes. It really does have implications for broader societal concepts.

Dr. Harrington is the Stephen and Suzanne Weiss Dean of Weill Cornell Medicine and provost for medical affairs of Cornell University, New York, as well as a former president of the American Heart Association. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Research relationships with Baim Institute (DSMB); CSL (RCT executive committee); Janssen (RCT chair); National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (RCT executive committee, DSMB chair); Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (RCT co-chair); Duke Clinical Research Institute. Consulting relationships with Atropos Health; Bitterroot Bio; Bristol Myers Squibb; BridgeBio; Element Science; Edwards Lifesciences; Foresite Labs; Medscape/WebMD Board of Directors for: American Heart Association; College of the Holy Cross; Cytokinetics. Dr. Patel is professor of medicine, Duke University; chief, division of cardiology; director, Duke Heart Center, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Bayer; Janssen; Novartis (consultant). Received research grant from Bayer; Janssen.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recorded Aug. 26, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert A. Harrington, MD: I’m here with my good friend, Manesh Patel, from Duke University. We’re at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) congress in Amsterdam, and I pulled Manesh into the studio for a conversation about something that’s really topical right now: sudden cardiac death in athletes.

What I hope to do [in this interview] is really pick Manesh’s brain on how we are thinking about this. Are we going to think about treatment issues? Are we going to think about prevention issues? Are we thinking about screening? We’ll try to make it practical.

Dr. Manesh Patel is chief of cardiovascular medicine at Duke University and also the director of the Duke Heart Center. Manesh, thanks for joining me here.
 

Bronny James and Damar Hamlin

Manesh R. Patel, MD: Excited to be here, Bob. Always.

Harrington: [Recently,] a news article comes out about the cause of Bronny James’ sudden cardiac death. Let me put this into a bigger societal context.

Last winter, Damar Hamlin, from the Buffalo Bills, suffered a traumatic injury on the field, and with that, had cardiac arrest. He’s back playing football – great to see. You and I are involved with the American Heart Association. He’s been very supportive of our efforts around things like CPR. He’s been terrific. It’s great to see him playing.

We know a little less about Bronny James. The news articles say the cause is both functional and anatomical, and it seems to be congenital, but we don’t have any details beyond this. Let’s not focus on the people; let’s focus on the topic.

Patel: I’m excited that we’re having the conversation. First and foremost, we’re excited that, with what we’ve seen on a national stage, these two individuals are doing well. They survived sudden cardiac death, which is a testament to all the things that we’ll talk about.

There are many important questions, like, is this increasing? Is this something we can prevent? And what are those things that might be happening to athletes?

Harrington: Can we predict it?

Patel: Right. I think the idea of sudden cardiac death in athletes is really a critical one for us to think about because it does concern participation and what we think about that. There are many experts who’ve been studying this for years that I now get to work with.

Harrington: Tell us a little bit about the kind of things you’ve been doing in this area.

Patel: Even before these events in the COVID era, we were wondering about athletes getting myocarditis, just in general, what do we know about that? People like Aaron Baggish, Kim Harmon, Jonathan Drezner, and others have been studying this.

Harrington: You and I did a show on athletes and COVID-19.

Patel: With the American Heart Association (AHA), the Cornell Foundation, and others, we started the Outcomes Registry for Cardiac Conditions in Athletes (ORCCA). This registry is across the United States, and athletes can sign up.

Harrington: Is it voluntary? Do the schools sign them up?

Patel: The athletes sign up. Team trainers and doctors talk to the athletes. We don’t really know the risks of some of these conditions. There’s a lot of gray area – people with certain conditions that were really interesting; aortas that are dilated in tall people.

Harrington: Long QT.

Patel: Long QT. There are certainly things that we know we should be intervening on and others where participation is a question. All of these we are trying to longitudinally put into the registry and follow them over time.

The second thing is understanding from the last Bethesda Conference that we want shared decision-making. There are going to be conditions where you say, “Look, I think your risk is high. You’ve a family history of sudden cardiac death. You have arrhythmias while you’re exercising.”

Harrington: You have a big, thick heart.

Patel: If you have hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, whether you’re an athlete or a 40-year-old adult, we’re going to have the same conversation. I think that holds. There’s a variety or a spectrum where we don’t know. I think the registry is one big step.

Thinking back to when somebody has an event, I would say take the teachable moment with the AHA and others to make sure your communities and your areas have automated external defibrillators (AEDs) and CPR training, and that we get to 100%: 100% response, 100% CPR, 100% defibrillation. I think that’s the first step.
 

Chain of survival

Harrington: Let’s really focus on the chain of survival. It is a chain: If any link is broken, your chance of survival really drops. We’ve had some well-known cases within our AHA community, including somebody who talks about it regularly: Kevin Volpp, from the University of Pennsylvania, a health economist. He had almost the perfect chain of survival. He had sudden cardiac death in a restaurant that was immediately observed, CPR started, EMTs called, and AED on the scene. Impressive.

Patel: That was in Cincinnati, where there are communities that have really worked on these things. I think you’re right. The chain of survival with rapid CPR to build a nation of survivors is key. The people at the AHA are helping us do this; there is a national call to make sure CPR is something that people feel comfortable doing. That they do it in men and women. They do it for anyone that goes down. And realize that it’s CPR that is hands-only. I think that’s an important lesson from Damar’s work, Nancy Brown’s, and AHA’s. Actually, schools in many countries require that to get through primary school.

Harrington: CPR training is a requirement to graduate from high school in some states.

Patel: My son just graduated from high school, and we spent time at his school making sure that everybody had access to CPR training. I think the way to do this is to start with that. Now, getting more specific about teams and athletes, I think most have emergency action plans, but it’s having action plans that work because of where you are and where the AED locations might be, or what the sport is. Having a plan on how you’re going to get that athlete to a place where you can help them recover is an important piece.

From there, I think the conversation for us is about what can we do as a society and as a country to answer some critical questions, including some real-world questions that people are asking: We had COVID-19 and we’re hearing these cases. Is this going up or down, and are these related?

Soon, hopefully the same group I talked about and others will have a publication, working with the NCAA to look at all of the deaths that they observed in NCAA Division I athletes over 20 years, including the sudden cardiac deaths. I won’t share the results because the publication isn’t out, but I think that’s the kind of important information that will help us understand if these rates are going up or down.

Harrington: What’s associated with that risk? Then we can start getting at whether it is something that, when we’re doing assessment for suitability for sports, has risk factors that should warrant more investigation.

Patel: Much like the field of cardiology, we haven’t enough of an evidence base, the right technologies, or the studies to determine how we should do screening, or not screening, across the board. Again, there is variation. There are some countries where anyone participating is going to get an ECG and an echocardiogram. There are other countries, like the United States, where it’s going to be a bit dependent on athlete risk.

Harrington: And where you live.

Patel: And where you live. Unfortunately, again, that brings in the idea that it might not be equitable in how we’re evaluating these individuals. I do think the opportunity to start to standardize that evaluation exists, and it likely comes from the ability to look back and say, “Here are some higher-risk individuals or some higher-risk scenarios.”

Harrington: Isn’t this what we do all the time in clinical medicine?

Patel: It’s going to be applied to a population that maybe is not as studied. I said this to you before we came on. The other thing is to make sure that the shared decision-making allows athletes who feel like they have a chance or want to play. During COVID, we had many college athletes, high school athletes, and kids not able to participate in sports. There was significant depression, feeling of loneliness, and even physical loss. People were actually getting less conditioned quickly. There’s a great benefit to sports participation.

Harrington: We were extrapolating from older data. If I’ve just had this new infection, COVID, and I’ve maybe got some signs of it in my heart, why can’t I exercise? That’s extrapolating from old myocarditis data.

Patel: We’re having to learn and follow it. I think there’s value in following that and getting those data. The second thing I think is really valuable is that we’ve shown that these individuals, if you do have these conversations and follow them, can participate and can be part of understanding the risk just like anything else.

Harrington: Is it sport specific? Are there some sports where maybe the conversation should be a little more intense than in other sports?

Patel: I think what we’ll see is that the conversations may be sport specific, and some may concern the number of athletes tested. At times, it’s pretty complicated. It does look like there are, as you know, different weight-bearing performance athletes, endurance athletes, or what I’ll call burst sports. There will probably be data that will identify certain sports where we may need to pay a bit more attention.

Harrington: What about the contact issues? Damar had a very specific thing, we think, happen to him. Football is a violent, contact-oriented sport, but fortunately we don’t regularly see what happened to Damar.

Patel: We’re talking about sudden cardiac death, but obviously, contact issues and neurologic evaluation is a whole other topic. That’s another big issue that I know many are following, and the NCAA is carefully, too. For Damar, I think we know that it was commotio cordis. At least when that happens, when there’s a ball or a trauma to the chest, those things have to be timed just so to actually lead to this event. Thankfully, it’s not very frequent, but it can happen.

Harrington: Hockey pucks, baseballs, soccer balls, a helmet to the chest ...

Patel: You have to be in a specific cycle of the squeeze. We don’t see that very frequently. I do think the evaluation and treatment, hopefully, makes a difference. One thing that we’re evolving in the screening world is our imaging; it’s getting better. We are not just doing echocardiograms; we are able to do other studies. There’s a mix of imaging and other technologies.

Is screening the answer?

Harrington: Let’s talk about that because screening is the area, I would say, with the most controversy – and a large amount of emotional controversy. Some argue that the data are not good enough to screen, or doctors are saying, “Wait a minute, why are we screening all these kids?” You said you were at your son’s high school doing CPR training. How many athletes are at his high school? There are many, and that’s a pretty small high school. Big communities, big universities, and the professional sports can afford it. Should we be doing this at the community level?

Patel: There have been some data. The Italians have done standard screening for some time, and it’s shown us that if you did echocardiograms in many individuals, you do find some cases that are hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in pathology. The issue is just how much you have to do and the resource utilization. I think as we get to a world where screening studies can happen with smaller technology and AI, that can be democratizing in how we get to athletes.

Harrington: Give an example of that. We were talking outside, you and I, about some of the new stethoscope technology.

Patel: Yes, stethoscopes are going to be one of the examples. We have stethoscopes that have the ability to get sounds and ECG signals, or at least some lead signals.

Harrington: Yes.

Patel: Potentially you can imagine that sound and ECG tracing in an AI environment, at least getting you from “everyone gets a listen with one stethoscope in their gym from their coach,” and it goes to the cloud. When there are enough questions, these are the ones that have to go further. Now, that’s a big study that has to be carried out; I’m not in any way saying we should do that.

Harrington: The technology is coming.

Patel: We start to see that our ability to rapidly do something to meet our athletes or our patients where they are will happen soon. Remember that the performance curve can vary, but once you have a sound where you can start to say that this is a regular flow murmur vs. “I’m worried about this,” especially as you mark it with ECG – that’s one example.

Smaller imaging is another example. For many years, ECGs have been talked about. There are entire courses that we run looking at ECGs in athletes. Remembering that Aaron Baggish and others are publishing that these individuals are large. When we look at their hearts, we see that they’re large, but when you adjust for size, often you can identify that many of them are within what we think are normal. Structurally, there are still many cases where you look at hearts and you’re asking, “Is this a thick heart? Is this noncompaction? Is this some pathology?”

That’s where you need imaging expertise. I think you have to have those individuals. I’m not advocating screening. I’m advocating studying it and that we should be thinking about the population. I don’t see a world where we don’t eventually start to really look to prevent those.

Harrington: Right. Whether it’s understanding that there are certain risk factors associated with this and we have to dedicate screening resources to those individuals, or if we want to do it more broadly on the population level to understand this with deeper dives into certain individuals, we’ve got to study it.

Patel: Some of the experts in sports medicine and sports cardiology have been collecting these data for a while. It’s time that we are there, because with these events we have the opportunity to share more of these data and maybe raise awareness – not in the teachable moment only – to get others to contribute.

I do believe that long term there’s an opportunity. We’ve seen that. We see that the rates, unfortunately, for marathon runners, where people unfortunately have events, seem to be higher. And we’ve seen the studies on troponin leaks in these individuals or evidence that there’s some effect on the heart from these events. We want people to be able to be long-term healthy.
 

Early defibrillation

Harrington: A large amount of work needs to be done. We talked with regard to screening, we’ve talked about CPR. We really need to have a nation of people who can do hands-only CPR. Let’s talk about AEDs, another key part of the chain of survival.

Patel: We have another important study going on, but an important message first: AEDs are critical to survival. We know that CPR is critical, but so is getting people to a defibrillator.

Harrington: Early defibrillation.

Patel: Early defibrillation. Early CPR is one of the biggest markers of making sure we perfuse people to get to early defibrillation, but then you have to get early defibrillation. There’s been a huge push in many communities, again, along with AHA and others, to make sure that AEDs are available not only in the U.S. but around the world. We’re at ESC and we see the push around the world to get AEDs available. They’ve come down in size and come down in cost, and that’s made it much more accessible. That’s really good. They’re still not always there.

We’ve seen really interesting randomized studies with people in some European countries where they have certain areas, just because of the locations, where bystanders will help get an AED  vs. randomizing to the EMS truck. They seem better in some of those variations. Chris Granger, at our institution, with Monique Starks, Dan Mark, and others, is doing a study in North Carolina where we’re testing different ways to potentially get AEDs in communities. We’re randomizing counties to one or two ways of getting AEDs to those individuals.

Harrington: Can you have an app where you just click “Find me an AED”?

Patel: Is there a world where the AED is found or is something bringing you the AED? Are there drones? Are there people driving? Are there ways that an AED is brought to the scene? All of those are going to be critical. It starts with continuing to figure out ways to support the costs of getting AEDs in places. The technology is continuing to evolve.

Harrington: It really is the premedical system stuff that makes the difference. Once EMS arrives with trained individuals who can defibrillate, they can transport you to a medical facility where trained physicians are at. It’s that pre-EMS thing that is so critical.

Patel: We talk often about athletes, but cardiac arrest care in general, and the chain of survival with CPR and AEDs, is critical. I still see patients in the CICU at Duke where, unfortunately, the biggest driver, as you just highlighted in that chain of survival, is how rapid we were in that golden hour. In the first 15 minutes, are you getting CPR, are you getting AED? Are you getting to a system?

Harrington: Are you getting a rapid transport?

Patel: Are you getting a neurologic assessment? Are you getting cooled or not? Those are important things.

Harrington: All right. Let’s try to wrap this up. Teachable moments, we talked about. One of the things about cases in prominent athletes is that it makes it to the newspaper and then it raises awareness. There is a drawing inference from a small group of cases to the broader societal issues. That’s an important topic.

We’ve talked about possible screening options, identifying at-risk individuals and high-risk individuals. A large amount of data has already been accumulated, but there is more work to be done. We focused on how to use those teachable moments to really influence the chain of survival, not just for athletes but for society at large.

I love your point about the Bethesda Conference on shared decision-making. Like with everything else, we have to have that two-way conversation: What are the athlete’s goals, hopes, and aspirations?

Patel: That group of experts, in addition to shared decision-making, gave us a whole list of conditions that we should be aware of and the cutpoints of where we think normal and not normal live for athletes. I think that’s used by many.

Can we build our systems to make research happen faster for the individuals? These athletes are at colleges that are obviously doing so much to make sure they’re okay. The people who are helping with this registry, and others, are going to continue to work to ask whether we can engage them as citizen participants and scientists. I think athletes are going to become some of our best advocates for why you’d want to know about yourself and how to perform CPR.

Harrington: I love the concept of citizen scientists, that we all have an obligation to contribute to the evidence base because we all want to use that evidence.

This has been a terrific conversation. I’ve been joined by my good friend, Dr. Manesh Patel from Duke University. I hope you’ve enjoyed our discussion here at the ESC. We have been taking a little break from the science going on around us to talk about sudden cardiac death in athletes. It really does have implications for broader societal concepts.

Dr. Harrington is the Stephen and Suzanne Weiss Dean of Weill Cornell Medicine and provost for medical affairs of Cornell University, New York, as well as a former president of the American Heart Association. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Research relationships with Baim Institute (DSMB); CSL (RCT executive committee); Janssen (RCT chair); National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (RCT executive committee, DSMB chair); Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (RCT co-chair); Duke Clinical Research Institute. Consulting relationships with Atropos Health; Bitterroot Bio; Bristol Myers Squibb; BridgeBio; Element Science; Edwards Lifesciences; Foresite Labs; Medscape/WebMD Board of Directors for: American Heart Association; College of the Holy Cross; Cytokinetics. Dr. Patel is professor of medicine, Duke University; chief, division of cardiology; director, Duke Heart Center, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Bayer; Janssen; Novartis (consultant). Received research grant from Bayer; Janssen.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.