Heartfelt with Dr Melissa Walton-Shirley

View all posts »

SOS: Does the FAA really know your pilot's risk of sudden cardiac death? Unequivocally "NO"

Jun 22, 2009 00:36 EDT


 

I grounded a medical helicopter pilot once …….at least I grounded him from flying from MY facility with MY patients………….. and I would do it again. 

 

Before the days of PCI without surgery on site, I walked with a critically ill patient to the helipad and headed for the office. As I drove from the parking lot, I spied a middle-aged man in an olive green jump -suit peering around the corner of the building. A plume of smoke was billowing from his head.  I promptly got on the phone with his supervisor and demanded that he not fly another patient from my facility, pointing out that he was a smoker with NO co-pilot. The company complied with my request but informed me that the FAA had no restriction with regard to tobacco use. Needless to say, I was shocked. The pilot died a couple of years later of pancreatic cancer but I never knew if he was allowed to fly for other facilities after that fateful day. 

 

With the untimely death of the Continental Airline pilot last week, retirement age will most certainly become the bone of contention, especially in light of the relaxation of the standard from age 60 to age 65 in 2007.  That would be a huge mistake and a missed opportunity.  "VASCULAR AGE", not numeric age should become the main focus of this discussion and additional risk factors for sudden cardiac death should also be considered including primary and second hand smoke exposure. (yes, second hand smoke really counts).

 

 HAS THE FAA ACTUALLY REVIEWED ITS MEDICAL REQUIREMENTS SINCE THE 1970’s????  

 

 Pilots do require a stress ECG, stress echo or stress nuclear assessment. They must achieve at least 85% of MPHR.  They are disqualified if they develop 1mm ST segment depression unless stress echo or stress nuclear is negative for ischemia.  An echo with an EF of < 40% or with a drop by 10% EF compared with a prior study are other grounds for disqualification. The blood pressure must be below an archaic but “acceptable level” of   150/90. It is unbelievable that there is no mention of a BMI cut-off or a calcium score. There is an outdated “substance abuse” clause which states that “Substance dependence means a condition in which a person is dependent on a substance OTHER THAN TOBACCO or ordinary xanthene-containing beverages. ARE YOU KIDDING?  TOBACCO USE DOESN’T COUNT as a risk? 

 

For Pilots with a diagnosis of “significant CAD, angina and a history  of myocardial infarction”, according to the FAA’s medical certification requirements a “six month recovery period must elapse” and a “six month post- event “ angiogram “ with a negative nuclear perfusion scan” must be performed. .The actual ECG strips must be included for review and the pilot must have discontinued their beta blockers for 48 hours prior to testing. For me and mine, I don’t mind flying with a pilot who is a cardiac patient as long as they have a co pilot.  Even Oprah figured that one out a few years ago when she refused to fly with a single operator.  I’m with her.      

   

 

 Personally, I think most cardiologists would rather fly with a pilot that’s completely sobered up after a weekend binge than fly with a guy who just stubbed out a cigarette before boarding. (Rightly so, the FAA is "all over" alcohol use, but severely lacking with regard to cigarette use).  I’d rather have a 70 year old pilot with a low calcium score and a normal BMI in my cockpit than a 50 year old pilot with a calcium score of 1500 or an abnormal 3 hour GTT.  I’d also feel better with a captain who has an annual “clean” holter to rule out intermittent atrial fibrillation that would address a middle aged pilot's  risk of  CVA.  Throw in a normal IMT and I'll really  relax and enjoy the flight,......kind of like that feeling we all get when the pilot turns off the seatbelt sign. Finally, someone at the controls with a normal hsCRP would bring me in for a really smooth landing. 

 

If the FAA seizes this opportunity to cruise into the 21st century for pilot health assessment, it will have finally earned its wings . A simple invitation to “Fly the friendly skies” just isn’t enough anymore.        

 

 

 

  

 

      

  






Your comments
SOS: Does the FAA really know your pilot's risk of sudden cardiac death? Unequivocally "NO"
# 1 of 13
June 26, 2009 12:52 (EDT)
W.E. Feeman, Jr, MD
I once had a patient who had a sky-high cholesterol.  I wanted him to do a treadmill test to ascertain his cardiovascular status and check his risk for an AMI.  He refused because a positive test would have resulted in the revocation of his pilot's by the FDA.  And you wonder why pilots die in mid-air?
# 2 of 13
June 26, 2009 03:45 (EDT)
Melissa

My first interface with the FAA came when I treated a pilot who flew private planes for hire and pleasure back in the early 1990's.  He came to the office very distraught over my stress/echo report.  He had evidence for multivessel disease and LV dysfunction.  I was amazed that his first response wasn't "thank you for finding out what is wrong with me", instead it was "hey, do you realize that what you've done is gound me?".

amazing

Melissa

# 3 of 13
June 27, 2009 12:59 (EDT)
W.E. Feeman,Jr, MD
The only solution that I can see is that the FAA should require all pilots to undergo risk factor analysis for atherothrombotic disease (ATD) and as a condition of receiving permission to fly commercial aircraft have any ATD risk factors discovered be treated to plaque stabilization/regeression levels.  What do you think?
# 4 of 13
June 27, 2009 11:45 (EDT)
Nissim Abecasis

 Any coments related to the use of coumadin in pilots in the context of valvular replacement (mecanical vs.biological)

thanks,Nissim

# 5 of 13
June 29, 2009 12:08 (EDT)
melissa

William,

I agree, however, I feel the restrictions can be relaxed in those who are able to fly with a co-pilot who does not require a sleep respite during flights , i.e. long hauls.  I would not mind flying with any cardiac patient, other than those with frequent syncope or significant risk for syncope as long as a co pilot is present (and awake!)

Nissim, I'm not certain about the valvular heart disease issue. I think it's a disqualifier, but I'll need to check that. 

Would anyone care to comment who actually performs the FAA flight exams? My source no longer participates.

Melissa 

# 6 of 13
July 3, 2009 04:02 (EDT)
Blake
I have to agree. If a pilot has any problem with his or her heart or and other organs for that matter. They should be grounded. Look at the old man pilot that just died in mid-air. That was a potential disaster.<a href="http://www.ecommunity.com/cardiovascular/">Angioplasty</a>
# 7 of 13
July 4, 2009 10:31 (EDT)
Melissa

Blake,

I believe you could be more respectful about your comments.  Hopefully, you aren't a physician who would describe a deceased gentleman who performed admirably and responsibly for his entire career as a pilot as "an old man pilot".

I suggest you remember that in a few short years, you will be categorized as the same by other disrespectful individuals. 

Grow up.

Melissa

# 8 of 13
July 8, 2009 07:19 (EDT)
Michael Blinston Jones

I am not by any means an apologist for smokers but, at least to me, your response to a smoking helicopter pilot seems draconian. What is inportant here is a total assessment of the man's CVD & CHD risks. Remenber that this is just a statistical exercise and can never completely predict whether someone will have an AMI or not, only his risk of having one. 

Is it not more reasonable for the FAA to set a risk level above which flying would not be allowed? If the risk level is not exceeded despite smoking then he should be allowed to fly ( although obviously advised to stop smoking ).

If you advocate banning smoking completely then that is a political issue. I feel that my role as a physician is to educate & advise. 

Finally, why on earth are you surprised when an man who feels perfectly well and is then suddenly deprived of his well-paid employment is annoyed rather than grateful? 

# 9 of 13
July 9, 2009 11:38 (EDT)
vern chichak
i couln't agree more superficalobservatiions and biasis are alway ones undoing!!!!
# 10 of 13
July 9, 2009 11:40 (EDT)
Dr. Bruce

Dr. Walton-Shirley,

 I suggest you check your facts before making a bigger fool out of yourself than you already have.  As you know there is NO literature that can predict with a high level of confidence, that an adult will not have a coronary event in the next six months. We're still working on reliability of algorithms for discharge from the ER after a ACS presentation.

You don't have the medical requirements corretly, either.

Public policy is made on the basis of a risk-benefit curve. Currently, if we went to dual crews on medevac flights, the nurse would have to stay down. OR, if we went to the larger Sikorsky equipment, Air evac would be so costly so as to completely unavailable.

 Public policy is always a risk-benefit resolution which requires consideration fo the cost and availability versus the rate at which pilot incapications occur. In the whole world of light general aviation, there were only about ten Pilot incapacitations that resulted in a fatality in the past ten years (~80% are private aviation, eg. not revenue air taxi, which is what medevac is).  Small comfort, but the policy makers think that the availability of air ambulance service outweights that. And, if one looks at the medicare reimbursement rate for a medevac flight, it already is in the negative for an operator.

 Sign me, Senior Aviation Medical Examiner

 

 

# 11 of 13
July 19, 2009 09:25 (EDT)
Melissa

Dr. Bruce,

Firstly, I was addressing commercial airline issues as the main topic with added commentary about my experience with single pilots.

Secondly, I made great efforts to contact the FAA, several  aviation examiners with no reply, therefore, my comments reflect a general perception of the current status. I'll bet that since it's my perception, others have it as well.  That is why this is in  a "forum" type setting which allows for dialogue such as the one we are having now.  It's for information sharing as well as opinion.

 Though I appreciate your commentary, (other than the fool part of course)  there are certainly predictors of sudden death which can be addressed:  smoking/obesity/sedentary life style, etc. ( and by the way, in the ER world, a detectable troponin CERTAINLY DOES indicate an  increase in  the six month mortality and event rate. 

 I deal with medevac on very frequent basis  here at our facility.  I have enormous respect for the service you provide, but I will NEVER allow one of my patients to knowingly fly with a single pilot middle aged overweight smoker. Call it bias, I call it common sense.

Signed "a fool"  but a fool that likes to  err on the side of safety. It's folks like you who balance us out with practicality. 

Melissa

# 12 of 13
July 19, 2009 02:37 (EDT)
Melissa

Additionally, Bruce, I "foolishly" visited the FAA sponsored website that listed the cardiovascular standards for first-class airman medical certification.  It was entitled "Electronic code of Federal regulations" for airman medical certification. 

In the interest of information sharing, perhaps you would like to make corrections and give us a more accurate update of the current standards.

Melissa

# 13 of 13
August 20, 2010 07:36 (EDT)
martha

I have not thought of this thing as a possible threat to mylife as well.  I used to travel but I don't really care about the pilot's health as long as he is capable of flying the plane.  I should really include them to my prayer before taking off.

Well does FAA already make a move to include tobacco use medical screeningrequirements for pilots?  If not yet its time they should.  Please don't put the lives of hundreds of passengers on the hands of a smoker pilot

With regards to smoking, basically we are talking of tobacco smoking as one of the potential cardiac arrest factor.  I may want to include in the discussion, the growing use of electronic cigarette such as <a href="http://blu-cigs-review.com/">blu cigs</a> nowadays.  This type of cigarette claims that it does not have bad affects on the body.  Will this be allowed to be used by our beloved pilots who cannot give up smoking.  Here is a sample review on one brand of e-cig that might help understand the risk of e-cigarettes.

 
<a href="http://blu-cigs-review.com/">blu cigs review</a>


You must be a member (with full membership) to post a comment.
Already a member?
Enter your login information below:
 Remember me on this computer
Enjoy all the benefits of theheart.org

With full membership, you can check out our educational and editorial content, search the site, receive our newsletters, join discussions, download slides and much more.

Membership is free!

About Dr Melissa Walton-Shirley
Dr Walton-Shirley performs invasive cardiology, nuclear cardiology, and stress echocardiography in a private practice in Glasgow, KY.

Her chief medical interests are CHF/hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy and the promotion of primary PCI for acute MI. Recently she played a significant role in helping to launch an ambitious pilot study of primary PCI in Kentucky, the Kentucky Primary Angioplasty Pilot Project. She has also participated in the TIMI 19, Duke-HF, NRMI, and CRUSADE trials and is proud to have been an advocate of the first smoke-free initiative in Kentucky (2011). She champions a smoke-free America.

Dr Walton-Shirley received her undergraduate degree at the University of Kentucky and went to medical school and did her residency and fellowship at the University of Louisville. She is married with two daughters. Her interests include singing, writing poetry and songs, fitness, and, of course, theheart.org.