Journal of vascular surgery
-
The physician/surgeon's interactions with industry have come under scrutiny in recent years for several reasons. Although some think that the professional medical association or society may provide an avenue to allow such interactions with less risk, there are concerns and challenges for such organizations as it relates to ethical and professional norms of their members. This is one surgeon's review of some pertinent information regarding what the professional medical society provides to its members and what role industry plays in the society's ability to provide these benefits. There is an exploration of the risks involved and practical methods to control inherent conflicts of interest involved in this interaction.
-
This article assesses the current mandates on conflict of interest issues as they affect the practice of community-based vascular surgery and the pharmaceutical and medical technology industries and expresses the views of a private practice vascular surgeon. Scenarios where conflict of interest may occur are presented with assessments on how these scenarios will play out if such mandates are enforced.
-
Review Case Reports
Endovascular repair of blunt aortic injury in a patient with situs inversus and dextrocardia.
A 24-year-old male pedestrian with situs inversus and dextrocardia was struck by a car and sustained multiple injuries, including a pseudoaneurysm of the proximal descending thoracic aorta. A thoracic endograft was deployed to exclude the blunt aortic injury. We are not aware of any report of endovascular repair of blunt aortic injury in a patient with this congenital finding. A brief review of the literature is also included.
-
Relationships between physicians and their industry partners have ranged from spectacular collaborations that produce extraordinary advances in patient care, such as endovascular aneurysm repair, to humiliating scandals such as extravagant trips and bogus "consulting" agreements resulting in legal actions. It is the latter which have led many to call for the end of all physician-industry relationships, and the former which mandate their preservation. While these two examples are representative of extremes at each end of the spectrum of this issue, in reality the majority of physician-industry relationships are far more complex, and the line between appropriate and inappropriate, and ethical and unethical, is hard to draw. ⋯ While it is clear that free trips are not within the realm of proper interaction, what about unrestricted educational grants to institutions, or support of CME activities, professional society meetings, and new device training? As a result of the intense scrutiny of relationships between physicians and industry recently, multiple diverse entities (Association of American Medical Colleges, American Medical Association, Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education, professional medical associations, academic medical centers, industry, and government) have generated guidelines and policies with very different perspectives, reflective of their different missions. These policies range from vague and lenient, with only basic limitation of the physician-industry relationship, to extremely rigid and strict, with only minimal interaction and mission support permitted. Given the many changes in oversight and expectations for the relationship between physicians and industry, it is important for vascular surgeons to be aware of the background behind these modifications, the evidence that they are needed, and the positions of the diverse organizations and institutions that have already defined their policies on this issue.