Posted on 11/16/2019 12:19:27 PM PST by Olog-hai
People with severe but stable heart disease from clogged arteries may have less chest pain if they get a procedure to improve blood flow rather than just giving medicines a chance to help, but it won’t cut their risk of having a heart attack or dying over the following few years, a big federally funded study found.
The results challenge medical dogma and call into question some of the most common practices in heart care. They are the strongest evidence yet that tens of thousands of costly stent procedures and bypass operations each year are unnecessary or premature for people with stable disease.
That’s a different situation than a heart attack, when a procedure is needed right away to restore blood flow.
For non-emergency cases, the study shows “there’s no need to rush” into invasive tests and procedures, said New York University’s Dr. Judith Hochman.
There might even be harm: To doctors’ surprise, study participants who had a procedure were more likely to suffer a heart problem or die over the next year than those treated with medicines alone.
Hochman co-led the study and gave results Saturday at an American Heart Association conference in Philadelphia. …
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
Sounds like liberal socialism doesn’t want medical procedures.
...Sounds like liberal socialism doesn’t want medical procedures.
heart caths and angioplasties are NOT benign procedures
What the study said was
short term risks balanced long term gains,
in non-acute settings
Liberals redefine “acute” so that nothing is critical. As Obama told you, if you’re dying and need a procedure but you are tool old, go take a pain pill and die in a corner.
There is a growing pressure to reduce the amount of recommended treatment. When you don’t have enough doctors to serve everyone you pretend that a lot of patients don’t really need service.
There’s that but this particular study is different than what the headline/article says it is. Stents for an actual heart attack/blockage are still good for opening the artery - but pre-emptive stents might not be (eg medical science may be barking up the wrong tree for heart disease)
“They are the strongest evidence yet that tens of thousands of costly stent procedures and bypass operations each year are unnecessary”
BS. I had 5 stents put in after a heart attack 13 years ago. I feel very good, quite active and no chest pains.
I’m very grateful to the inventors of the procedure and the doctors that put them in.
Knew someone who had a pre-emptive stent put in a few years ago.
This year, he dropped dead from a heart attack during a bike race, at the age of 50. I suspect the stents gave him a false sense of security.
This is what will happen under “Medicare for all” hey you dont need that procedure, because you’re old and pretty much useless, just take this pill, go home and drop dead
“... a big federally funded study found.”
A big red flag went up when I read that.
No need to rush folks. Remember this is Obamacare. Just take a pill -don’t fix it. Just be sure your wills and papers are in order.
Same here. I had one put in 6 years ago. I was lucky. Had a 100% blockage of one artery.
Sounds more like remedial birth control
Paging Bernie Sanders.....Marilynn Marchione calling.
“because you’re old and pretty much useless”
My guess is that the medical industry makes most of its money off of old people.
This is actually a vey important study. The truth is that physicians have become very skeptical of the use of hugely expensive procedures and medications. The studies that are published in medical journals are themselves often sponsored by the companies that make medications or the equipment used in the procedures. The medical journals themselves are full of advertisements from those same companies.
When it comes to heart attack, nothing but nothing has more effect diminishing the incidence and severity of heart attacks than preventing and discontinuing cigarette smoking. No mammal evolved with the capacity to deal with chronic elevated blood levels of carbon monoxide. After that its the use of aspirin , beta blockers and blood pressure control. Perhaps, just perhaps the use of statins has been beneficial in some.
Its good to be a bit skeptical and reflect why the herd advocates and uses all these expensive drugs and procedures.
People with severe but stable heart disease from clogged arteries
___________________________________________________
“Stable heart disease”
How disgusting! Since when is it fine to normalize heart disease?
How about stop eating animals and switch to whole food, plant based diet that is proven as the ONLY diet not only to stop, but reverse clogged arteries.
The majority of medical studies are federally funded, including all studies I have been involved with in one capacity or another. There is actually very little private funding of medical research, and when there is, questions arise about whether the research is really objective, given that the funding corporation might have a financial interest in a certain outcome.
As long as the science is sound and reproducible, and experts review the studies to ensure scientific validity, the source of funding should not be an issue. That said, an observational study such as the one described here has a lot of flaws due to the type of study. These flaws may be unavoidable, since we are limited with what we can do with human subjects. I would wait to see if others can replicate this finding before getting all excited about the prospect of discontinuing what is currently the standard of care.
I had a heart attack almost 3 years ago. I had catheterization procedure which showed some clogging. The worst artery was at 50%. Doctors didn’t do stent. They said they don’t consider it unless blockage is 70% or more. Even then they check how well blood is flowing through tight area.
I was put on cholesterol lowering drug, aspirin and calcium channel blockers to lower blood pressure and to prevent spasms. I was given exercise instruction and diet changes. My recent stress test indicates my heart is working great. Better than most men my age who have not had heart attack.I exercise regularly needing to increase difficulty constantly. Currently set elliptical to get 10 mets or 180 watts to get heart rate high enough.
The one psychological affect is that if I had a stent I think I would have been less anxious after my heart attack because I would have felt something was fixed.
I was told that not having a stent means I need more frequent stress test checkups .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.