"Average amount of heart disease for age"

A 72-year old woman came to my office after a complicated hospital stay (unrelated to heart disease). She'd undergone a CT coronary angiogram and heart scan as part of a pre-operative evaluation prior to a surgery for a non-heart related condition.

The heart scan portion of the test (I was impressed they even did this) yielded a heart scan score of 212. The CT coronary angiogram portion of the test revealed a 50% blockage in one artery, a lesser blockage in one other artery.

The cardiologist consulting on the case advised her that the amount of coronary disease detected was insufficient to pose risk during her surgical procedure. He also advised her that she had "an average amount of disease for age." He thought that nothing further was necessary since she was "average."

Say what?  

What if I told you that you have an average amount of cancer for your age? After all, cancers become more common the older we get. Who would find that acceptable?

Then why should ANY amount of coronary atherosclerotic plaque be "acceptable for age"? Coronary plaque is a degenerative disease that poses risk for rupture. While it is indeed common, by no means should it be acceptable.

I would bet that this same cardiologist would be from the same school of thought that would be eager to advise heart catheterization, stent, and other procedures--revenue-generating procedures--should she have a heart attack appropriate for age.

I wish that I could tell you that this silly comment was provided by some peculiar, "everyone-knows-he's-crazy" doctor. But it was not. It was a solidly mainstream physician. He pooh-poohs nutrition, laughs when asked about nutritional supplements, thinks anyone complaining about symptoms less than a full-blown heart attack is a baby. He is respected by the primary care physicians, lectures on the advantages of prescription medications. In short, he is your typical conventional cardiologist.

This is the way they think. I know, because I was one of them. Thankfully, something banged me upside my head one day (my Mother's sudden cardiac death) and tipped me off to the painful irony of the conventional approach to heart disease.

There is NO amount of coronary disease appropriate for age. This notion is a remnant of the paternalistic, "I-know-better-than-you" attitude of the last century of medicine.

The 21st century promises a new age.

Comments (4) -

  • Anonymous

    7/2/2008 11:58:00 AM |

    Thank you for writing about this. Thank you for thinking and acting like you do.

    Best regards

  • ethyl d

    7/2/2008 4:51:00 PM |

    Dr. Davis: this sentence that ended your blog--"This notion is a remnant of the paternalistic, 'I-know-better-than-you' attitude of the last century of medicine"--brought to mind something I read recently in Angie's List, which apparently in a previous issue had asked readers to rate the care received by their doctors, and reported the ratings in an article. In the next issue Angie's List published the letters of several doctors who wrote in to express their outrage that patients would have the audacity to critique the care they received, since they believe said patients are incapable of accurately evaluating whether they received competent care or not. The attitude conveyed in their letters dripped with contempt for people who in their estimation are too stupid to assess the care they receive. I fear a lot of doctors really do believe they are an elite breed apart, towering over the ignorant rabble. All I can say is that, thanks to you and to Dr. Eades, I am a lot better prepared to assess the care of my own doctor, and counter her assimilated commonplaces about nutrition and heart disease. I wish I had known when my parents were still alive what I know now. I couldn't save them from their doctors, but maybe I can save my husband and myself.

  • Anonymous

    7/2/2008 10:23:00 PM |

    "The 21st century promises a new age."
    Taking into mind what ethyl d said: what are the med schools teaching nowadays? Last time I worked in a hospital it was same old, same old. That was eight years ago. The med schools' resistance to change (or not) will make the difference, I think.
    And thank you for this blog. It is an invaluable service.

  • Anonymous

    7/4/2008 6:10:00 AM |

    an old joke:

    Q: What do you call the guy at the bottom of his medical school class?

    A: Doctor.

Loading
What's better than fish oil?

What's better than fish oil?

One of the recent questions on our Track Your Plaque Forum related to what to do about a triglyceride level of 101 mg/dl while on fish oil.

Recall that, contary to conventional thinking like that articulated in the ATP-III cholesterol treatment guidelines, we aim to reduce triglycerides to 60 mg/dl or less. This is important to suppress the formation of abnormal triglyceride-containing lipoprotein particles, especially small LDL, reduced HDL, lack of healthy large HDL, VLDL. ATP-III advises a level of 150 mg/dl or less. Unfortunately, triglyceride levels this high guarantee appearance of all these undesirable particles and an increasing heart scan score.

What's better than 4000 mg of fish oil for its 1200 mg of EPA and DHA (omega-3 fatty acids)? More fish oil. In other words, the 4000 mg fish oil providing 1200 mg EPA + DHA is our minimum. A simple increase to 6000 mg to provide 1800 mg EPA + DHA is usually all that is necessary to reduce triglycerides and put a halt to the cascade of abnormal lipoprotein particles that trigger plaque growth. Occasionally, a somewhat higher dose may be required. Doses are best divided into two, with meals (e.g., three capsules twice a day).

Another important issue: An over-reliance on wheat products can also increase triglycerides. This includes any flour product like breads (regardless of whether it's white, whole wheat, or whole grain--they all raise triglycerides), pretzels, bagels, breakfast cereals, and pasta. A dramatic reduction in wheat-containing products will reduce triglycerides substantially, help you reduce your abdominal fat, reduce blood pressure, raise HDL and reduce small LDL, clear your mind, provide more energy, avoid afternoon "fogginess" . . . Huge benefits.

Comments (1) -

  • Anonymous

    5/22/2007 12:00:00 AM |

    I am taking a yield of 1,000 mg of EPA from fish oil and my numbers still look bleak, so thanks for the encouragement to bump things up. I am also completely off sugar and wheat (not easy) for a year and still have these numbers.

    Total cholesterol - 272
    LDL-177
    HDL -34
    triglycerides- 300
    VLDL- 60

Loading