- Joined
- Jan 21, 2008
- Messages
- 1,897
- Reaction score
- 409
Good post, not disagreeing with you. I know the data and I know that CABG is superior to stenting, but the public doesn't know that. Plus the cardiologists don't necessarily disclose that information. When you have one doctor telling you he's gonna run a wire through your groin (or even your arm) and you'll get to go home that same day or next day, and you have a surgeon on the other side telling you he's gonna crack your chest and throw some stiches in your heart, which do you think most people are gonna go with? I don't see that changing, even if the data supports it. Stenting is a much easier sell than CABG.
When the government starts cracking down on healthcare utilization and looks at cost effectiveness, we'll see a change in referral patterns. The fee for service model doesn't seem to be sustainable in the current healthcare climate. Whether that means it'll be capitated, pay-for-performance, or something different is unclear to me. At places where there is less incentive to place stents (i.e. outside of private practice), the cardiac surgeons are getting plenty of cath lab consults for 3V and Left Main disease for two reasons: 1) it's the right thing to do and 2) in the long run, the Cost/QALY will likely favor CABG (Magnuson et al. Cost-effectiveness of PCI/DES vs. CABG from the FREEDOM trial, Circulation 2013).
I agree with you about all the other stuff. CT guys absolutely need wire skills, and finding a program that integrates all that is definitely the way to go. Not disagreeing with you at all.
The problem is, as of today, the job market sucks and a lot of the CT guys are hustling and trying to find jobs. I've met a couple of vascular fellows who were previously CT trained who are doing fellowship because they couldn't find jobs. Go look at the job listings in NY, LA, SF or any other big city on a coast. The job market is horrible for CT, and most guys who get jobs in these areas are junior partners for a couple years, then get tossed aside when it's time to make partner. Plus the pay is about the same as a general surgeon, sometimes less. Will it be better in the future? I hope so. Even with all this, CT is still on my list for possible future fellowship, but location is more important to me than pay, so it's falling farther down the list.
This is partly true. The job market has suffered on account of PCI. You have to be sure to get really good training, and you have to be lucky enough to know the right people. I don't know what the job market is like in other fields, so I can't really comment on that. The best jobs also aren't always on the coasts, and you may have to be a little more flexible with your location requirements than say... an internist or a general surgeon. Location is not always what defines a good job, though. You need support from your senior partners, the opportunity to find your niche, ability to build your practice, etc.
Regarding reimbursement... again, that's true. However, I would rather be doing a root/ascending/total arch than a Whipple; prefer the Type A dissection to the appy or ex-lap for free-air; etc. To each his own. At the end of the day, it's nice to like what you do. Heck, I liked doing gallbladders and hernias, but I just happen to like doing coronaries more.