The radiologist as a palliative care subspecialist: providing symptom relief when cure is not possible.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the percentage of patients referred to an interventional radiology (IR) practice who need palliative care and to examine the training required for a diplomate of the American Board of Radiology (ABR) to qualify for the hospice and palliative medicine certifying examination. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study reviewed all patient referrals to an academic vascular and IR practice during the month of August 2009. The demographics, underlying diagnosis, and the type of procedures performed were ascertained from the electronic medical record. The requirements for a diplomate of the ABR to obtain certification as a hospice and palliative medicine subspecialist were evaluated and summarized. RESULTS: Two-hundred eighty-two patients were referred to the IR service and underwent a total of 332 interventional procedures. Most of the patients (229 [81.2%]) had underlying diagnoses that would warrant consultation with a hospice and palliative medicine subspecialist; these patients were significantly older (58.5 vs 44.7 years; p < 0.01) and underwent more procedures (1.21 vs 1.02; p < 0.01). To obtain a subspecialty certification in hospice and palliative medicine, a radiologist needs certification by the ABR, an unrestricted medical license, 2 years of subspecialty training in hospice and palliative medicine, 100 hours of interdisciplinary hospice and palliative medicine team participation, active care of 50 terminally ill adult patients, and successful performance on the certification examination. CONCLUSION: Procedures related to palliative care currently compose the majority of our IR cases. Certification in hospice and palliative medicine can be achieved with a modest investment of time and clinical training.

Ocular findings as predictors of carotid artery occlusive disease: is carotid imaging justified?

OBJECTIVES: Hemispheric neurologic symptoms, amaurosis fugax, and Hollenhorst plaques at eye examination are standard indications for carotid imaging to identify carotid artery occlusive disease (CAOD). Previous reports have suggested that other ocular findings, such as retinal artery occlusion and anterior ischemic optic neuropathy, are associated with CAOD. However, the predictive value of ocular findings for the presence of CAOD is controversial. The purpose of this study was to define the predictive value of ocular symptoms and ophthalmologic examination in identifying significant CAOD. METHODS: Over 3 years 145 patients were referred for carotid imaging on the basis of ocular indications in 160 eyes. Forty patients were excluded because of concurrent non-ocular indications for carotid imaging, leaving 105 patients referred exclusively for ocular indications to evaluate. Ophthalmologic history and eye examination were correlated with carotid duplex ultrasound findings. RESULTS: Amaurosis fugax was associated with a positive scan in 20.0% of carotid arteries (P =.022). Hollenhorst plaques at fundoscopic examination were associated with a positive scan in 18.2% of carotid arteries (P =.02). Ocular findings exclusive of Hollenhorst plaques were particularly poor predictors of CAOD, inasmuch as only 1 of 64 arteries (1.6%) had significant ipsilateral internal carotid artery stenosis (P =.022). Venous stasis retinopathy was the only ocular finding other than Hollenhorst plaques with any predictive value (1 of 5 scans positive; positive predictive value, 20.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Ocular symptoms and findings are poor predictors of CAOD. Amaurosis fugax, Hollenhorst plaques, and venous stasis retinopathy demonstrated moderate predictive value, whereas all other ocular findings demonstrated no predictive value in identifying CAOD.