Archive for the ‘cardiology wisdom’ Category

Conquering  left main disease is considered as crowning glory for the Interventional cardiologists. For over three decades , CABG has remained the undisputed modality which is being challenged  today. Fortunately, the Incidence of true isolated  left main disease is  low .(If Medina bifurcation subset is excluded)


left main

With growing expertise , advanced hardware and Imaging ( like a 360 degree OCT fly through view ) one can virtually sit inside the left main and complete a PCI .

Still , coronary care is much . . . much  . . . more than a technology in transit !

Most importantly, these complex PCIs require rigorous maintenance protocol  with meticulous platelet knockout drugs , patient compliance and the genetic fate of drug efficacy . (Clopidogrel has since entered the final laps of inefficiency while Ticagrelor has some more time I guess !)

What is the current thinking  about  unprotected left main PCI ? Let us know it from real life experts !

For those answered , yes to  the above question please leave this page , as the following question might  trouble you much !

While competent surgeons are waiting to tackle left main by surgical means ,there are many centers which are Inclined towards  PCI though we lack long-term outcome (At least 10 years like CABG )

Why do you think this is happening ? Are you ready for another crooked poll ?!  

What exactly is left main disease ?

Some of  us also suffer from a knowledge gap and tend to think  Bifurcation lesions  and left main disease are two distinct entities .The fact of the matter is , significant subset of bifurcation lesions are Indeed either left main equivalents or true left mains ( Medina 1,1,1 would constitute > 50 % all  bifurc lesions )  If you include Invisible left main lesions in Medina ( 0,1,1 or 0,0,1 ) detected by IVUS/OCT  it might reach easily cross 90% (Scientific guess !)  Does that mean we have to think CABG even for all complex bifurcation lesions ? and reserve left main disease for isolated discrete mid shaft or ostial left main ?

Final message 

My observation (Sincere to my limited conscience !) at least in this part of the world is : Left main Interventions are  “perceived as pride” and its more related to “show of expertise” and is little to do with patient outcome.Unfortunately , cardiologists should not be blamed for it in isolation as the studies they follow are conflicted.

Forget SYNTAX/PRECOMBAT trials, the two famous studies EXCEL (Favor PCI) and NOBLE were published in 2016 made our life tough .One suggested PCI is acceptable /on par with CABG, while the  other one put CABG superior , ensuring clarity  replaced with confusion ! When we have a dispute , logic would suggest we should fall back on the status quo ie “CABG is superior” unless proved convincingly. Many sections of cardiology society failed to appreciate this.

Post PCI thoughts

*It may not be that hard to do a complex PCI . But, it’s never easier to understand current cardiology literature that is supposed to raise our intellect , which has a direct relevance to patient welfare. Note, many crucial , high stake studies  tend to play academic deceit games  with  linguistic and statistical hyperboles like Non Inferior , likely superiority , Never inferior , near equipoise , regression of hazards, virtual follow-up in  real vs trial world etc , etc !

I can only hope for a better scientific world !


  1. Which is the best option for left main disease PCI or CABG ?  Journal of Individual wisdom and evidence based conscience : Volume 1 Chapter 1- Coronary Intellect : Pages 0 to ∞ Jan 2018.

Read Full Post »

Cardiologists at confused cross roads !

Perils of  limited Intellect & Infinite greed  

When not so appropriately trained cardiologists  do Inappropriate things “use becomes misuse” . . . then, it won’t take much time for science to become total abuse. That’s what happened with the murky world of coronary stents .No surprise, it’s time to firefight the healers instead of the disease !

Now ,Comes the ORBITA study . Yes , it looks like a God sent path breaking trial that spits some harsh truths not only in cardiology, but also in behavioral ethics .Let us not work over time and hunt for any non-existing loop holes in ORBITA. Even if it has few, it can be condoned for sure as we have essentially lived out of flawed science  for too long  Injuring many Innocent hearts !

ORBITA pci vs medical mangement drsvenkatesan courage bari2d ethics in stenting auc criteria inappropriate coronary stenting placebo effect of stenting acc aha esc guidelines chronic st

Yes , its enforced premature funeral  times for a wonderful technology !

GIF Image courtesy http://www.tenor.com

Meanwhile, let us pray for a selective resurrection of  stenting in chronic coronary syndromes  and stop behaving like lesser professionals !


Extremely  sorry . . . to  all those discerning academic folks , who are looking for a true scientific review of ORBITA , please look elsewhere !

Read Full Post »

Professional competence is defined as doing things, always in the Interest of patients. It’s generally believed small hospitals are not competent enough to treat cardiac emergencies . . .Do you agree with that ? No, Its largely a myth . Do you know there is a absolute  lack of proficiency  threatening to plague our country’s coronary care system. ? It’s the professional  Incompetence by the space age, star hospitals (mis)managed by masters of the noble business. None (am I right ?) of this hospitals either monitor or publish the outcome of their treatment.

Backed by pseudo scientific data , amplified by unrealistic expectations of ill Informed patients , some  hospitals are avoiding Initial emergency treatment of acute MI  , instead they waste time ( load DAPT ofcourse !) in securing the finance  for the costly Invasive procedures or refer them out of their premises if they can’t afford for it.In the ensuing emotional and financial melee many of the ill-fated patients lose vital  time window of thrombolysis as well ! and carry risk of fatality or damaged myocardium.

Every stake holder in the current  coronary care system simply assume the enforced modality  must be far superior because they administer the most modern and costly treatment suggested by few high intensity cared clinical trials originating from west. The wisemen who run the corporate hospitals  never realise medical competence and outcome is not entirely defined by science. Their primitive cognition wouldn’t allow to think beyond business equations either.

Please believe me, time and again, I have witnessed patients reaching Government hospitals  after being shunned away by  big (Some times even medium sized )  hospitals who boast themself only as PCI enabled care. Even if they want to lyse they stock only the Tenekteplace .

I think tragedy  is a lesser word to describe the scenario , where a distressed family is trying to arrange  for a Rs30,000 shot of Tenekteplace when thirty times cheaper still equally efficacious (Rs 1000 Streptokinase)  is concealed from their visibility .The Govt should urgently look into instances of large private hospitals avoiding Govt insurance scheme patients  even in  cardiac emergencies ! To label our poor patients as unaffordable ones is a outright misnomer, rather its the rich hospitals that are “not affordable” to lose profit and treat our countrymen , in a cost effective manner is the reality !

Who is Poor ? You decide.

Two forbidden things in coronary care

 1.Cajoling  and manoeuvring a distressed  family for a primary PCI as a routine treatment  hyping its beneficial effect and underplaying the true advantages of thrombolysis in largely technical jargons is the current norm in most coronary care units.

2.Another issue is , after confused confabulations with the duty medical officer,  if a rare patient family  choose the option of thrombolysis , comes the next googly*.  Many noble minded hospitals do not stock the low-cost and equally efficacious thrombolytic agent and offering  only the costly option to the anxious families when the myocardium is on fire.

Hospitals that  practice these two coronary protocols  need to be shamed and labeled as  “Coronary Incompetent  ” In spite of having 24/7 cath labs.  (Realise , they are just like  any remote rural hospitals , at least  the later can’t be faulted  as they don’t  withhold  a  reperfusion strategy  !)

Final message

I think , mindless proliferation of cath lab based cardiac care , which follow this theme , ie  “Thrombolysis incapable but PCI capable “ are  biggest threat to coronary care in our country ! For the best coronary care for any country ,what we need is efficient prehospital thrombolysis team .We have conveniently forgotten the great study of CAPTIM wherein the ambulance drivers replicated the same effect of primary PCI performed by highly trained cardiologists in modern labs.

In India,  primary health centers which is within  few km reach of entire population  can be designated as static ambulance equivalents  with basic resuscitation facility . If a multipurpose health worker can be trained to lyse, with remote supervision that will accomplish  90 % of what the cathlab guys can achieve ! Selective shifting is suffice.

Postample :  Ofcourse, not doing  pPCI for high risk or complicated STEMI is unscientific and we need to have proper consenting and referring frame-work for such patients.

Counter point : One of my colleagues asked me ? Why do I enjoy attacking the established scientific practices ?  May be I have a problem , yes, but  I think in a  true medical democracy we have right to debate anything , absolute truth is a ongoing journey !



*Googly:  An unplayable ball delivered to a batsman in the game of  cricket.

Read Full Post »