Subclinical involvement of common carotid arteries in patients with fibromuscular dysplasia - a case-control study.

Background: Fibromuscular dysplasia (FMD) primarily involves medium-sized arteries, though the entire spectrum of vascular involvement is not fully understood. We hypothesized that larger arteries may also be affected, albeit sub-clinically. Patients and methods: We measured the cross-sectional diameter of the thoracic aorta, abdominal aorta, common iliac arteries (CIA) and common carotid arteries (CCA) in FMD subjects and compared them to matched controls. We retrospectively analyzed records of FMD subjects (n = 74) and of age- and sex- matched controls (n = 74) that underwent computed tomography of the neck, chest or abdomen. Cross-sectional diameters of the thoracic and abdominal aorta, CIA and CCA were measured in a standardized manner by two trained physicians. Results: The FMD group had a significantly greater diameter of the CIA and CCA bilaterally. The measurements (mm) in FMD and control groups were as follows: Right CIA: 10.85 + 1.75 vs. 10.23 + 1.36, p = 0.04, left CIA: 11.01 + 1.93 vs. 10.15 + 1.38, p = 0.007, right CCA: 7.70 + 0.81 vs. 6.80 + 1.10, p < 0.001 and left CCA: 7.70 + 1.10 vs. 6.80 + 1.0, p < 0.001). There was no difference in the diameter between the two groups in the ascending aorta, descending and the abdominal aorta. After adjusting for baseline differences, common carotid arteries (but not common iliac) were significantly larger in FMD group compared with controls. Conclusions: There is sub-clinical involvement of the common carotid arteries in patients with FMD and this manifests as a greater diameter of these arteries compared to age and sex matched controls.

Physician Advocacy: Identifying Motivations for Work Beyond Clinical Practice.

Introduction: Advocacy is a perceived social and professional obligation of physicians. However, many feel their training and practice environment do not support increased engagement in advocacy. The aim of this qualitative project was to delineate the role that advocacy plays in physicians' careers and the factors driving physician engagement in advocacy. Methods: Physicians engaged in health advocacy in Kansas were identified by personal contacts and referrals through snowball sampling. They received a standardized email invitation to participate in a short interview. These interviews were recorded and transcribed using Apple Voice Memos and Google Dictation. Two team members independently identified themes from interview transcripts, while a third member served as a moderator if themes identified were dyssynchronous. Results: Of the 19 physicians invited to participate, 13 were interviewed. The most common reasons for engaging in advocacy included the desire to change policy, obligation to go beyond regular clinic duties, giving patients a voice, and avoiding burnout. Physicians reported passion for patients and past experiences with disparities as the most common inspiration. Most physicians did not receive formal advocacy training, but identified professional societies and peers as informal guides. Common supports for advocacy were professional organizations, community partners, and employers. Time was the most common barrier to conducting advocacy work. Conclusions: Physicians have a broad number of reasons for the importance of doing advocacy work, but identify key professional barriers to further engagement. Providing accessible opportunities through professional organizations and community partnerships may increase advocacy participation.