"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
Let's soak 'em with fish oil

Let's soak 'em with fish oil

If you don't think that charging drug prices for fish oil is wrong, take a look at a letter from an angry Heart Scan Blog reader:


Hello Dr. Davis,

My 44 year old brother had an MI [myocardial infarction, or heart attack] in June. He got pushed around due to "bad government insurance," a state-run program for the "uninsured": government pays 1/3, job pays 1/3, and individual pays 1/3.

What they didn't tell him is that there is no major medical coverage and little to no prescription coverage. We fought for 4 months to get him open heart surgery that the insurance was not going to pay for.

Now, with no assistance, terrible insurance, and no disability he has little to no income. He is a heavy equipment mechanic and is trying to be the "good American"-- take care of his bills, not file bankruptcy, etc.

Anyway, the doctors never seem to pay attention to what they prescribe. Lipitor was not working for him, due to side effects. Now they want to give him Zetia and Lovaza....Zetia at $114, and Lovoza is $169.85! Wow! For dead fish???? I think this is a little fishy! I looked up Lovaza, gee how nice, they will give you a $20 coupon....

Forget it, he can't afford this stuff. So I am enrolling in the Zetia program for him. And trying to get him OTC [over-the-counter] fish oil. The most prevalent fish oil around here (that I take myself is) Omega 3 Fish Oil that has EPA 410mg, DHA 274.

Thanks for your blog. It made me feel better that I wasn't the only one outraged by this stuff. I 've been a nurse for 20 years and it just never seems to get better. Thank you for your wisdom.

Sincerely JP, Tennessee



Had this reader not been aware that her brother could take fish oil as a nutritional supplement, he likely would have been denied the benefit of omega-3 fatty acids in slashing the risk for recurrent cardiovascular events. You and I can buy wonderfully safe and effective fish oil as a nutritional supplement, but there won't be a sexy drug representative to sell it, nor an expensive dinner and payment for a trip to Orlando to hear about it.

Comments (12) -

  • Richard A.

    2/8/2010 5:47:27 PM |

    Why expensive Zetia. Niacin appears to outperform Zetia.

    http://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-management/news/20091116/niacin-tops-zetia-in-cutting-artery-plaque

    While in this study the expensive Niaspan was used, you can by Slo-Niacin dirt cheap.

    http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11118583

  • Ateronon

    2/8/2010 7:24:40 PM |

    Why do insurance companies pay for Lovaza? They are usually very picky and Lovaza would seem an obvious "soak" job?

    How did it get on approved drug lists?

  • Jenny

    2/9/2010 12:05:32 AM |

    Dr. Davis,

    Your correspondent should tell his brother to ditch the Zetia too. The research makes it clear it does not prevent heart attack and may worsen health. Statins appear to be helpful because of their impact on inflammation, not because they lower LDL cholesterol. Zetia lowers cholesterol in a mechanical way that has no impact on inflammation.

  • zach

    2/9/2010 1:16:17 AM |

    Why is a 44 year old being subjected to open heart surgery? Quacks.

  • Rick Loftus, M.D.

    2/9/2010 2:05:01 AM |

    As an internist not categorically opposed to statins (although I agree with starting with nutrition first, which is why I read this blog), there are generic alternatives for this person's brother. If my patients need Western drugs, I start with cheap generics whenever possible. Zetia has dubious benefits of ANY kind, and costs a fortune. And of course Dr. D is right that there are many cheaper sources of fish oil; I usually point my patients in that direction.

    I often feel "standard" American-style medical practice is intended to waste as much money as possible. People need to be able to trust their docs to execute plans that are not only based on the research evidence, but are cost effective. There is no culture of cost-effective medicine in this country, because health care was defined by the Americans as a for-profit arena.

    "Prescribe unto others as you would have them prescribe unto you."

  • Anonymous

    2/9/2010 4:39:50 AM |

    Lovaza fills a void created by bad government and insurance policy. According to IRS rules, over the counter supplements cannot be covered by many insurance handlers. My work's HSA is like this. Fish oil / omega-3 is technically considered an over the counter supplement. The folk making Lovaza more than understand the benefits of omega-3 and want to sell it to the folks who want their insurance to pay for it. So they made it into a "drug" and sell it as such. It's a brilliant marketing plan and it seems to be working for them. The sad part is that it is working! It shouldn't! Same thing goes with Lovastatin. Why not take a good red yeast rice? Oh well... you pay for what you don't know.

    -- Boris

  • Anne

    2/9/2010 8:04:37 AM |

    Your post, Dr Davis, seems more a call for better health care, the kind we here in the United Kingdom get under our National Health Service, than a call for different fish oils or different meds.

    The NHS does have it's problems, sure, but they're nothing like the problems this person you describe has.

  • tom

    2/9/2010 1:09:59 PM |

    It's ironic that her brother is trying to be a "good" American by paying his bills and not filing bankruptcy.
    If only his doctors, insurance companies, and drug mNUFcturers had a similar ethic.  It seems that for them, being a good American is maximizing their income regardless of who they take it from.
    Ordinary Americans have been sold this "good" American concept from birth.  It's propaganda.  Far too many special interests have used it to enrich only themselves.

  • Alfredo E.

    2/15/2010 9:09:26 PM |

    Your brother should not be paying anything for drugs to lower cholesterol.

    Cholesterol is not the enemy, nor is saturated fat.

    The real enemy is chronic inflammation that comes from several sources but mainly from a high grain diet (too much omega 6).

    Please, read http://www.omega-3-fish-oil-wonders.com/good-fats.html

    Best wishes,
    Alfredoe

  • beverly

    3/3/2010 3:19:19 PM |

    I have read with interest the comments concerning Lovaza. I was put on it in 2008. I have tried numerous times to ask GSK through emails & ph calls the calorie make up in the gelcap. No one seems to know! Not the Doctor who put me on it, the pharmacist, or anyone from GSK!!! As a diabetic who has lost 140 lbs, following my diet plan is very important to me. Any suggestions on who can make them give up the big calorie secret?
    Thanks,
    Beverly

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 10:20:24 PM |

    Had this reader not been aware that her brother could take fish oil as a nutritional supplement, he likely would have been denied the benefit of omega-3 fatty acids in slashing the risk for recurrent cardiovascular events. You and I can buy wonderfully safe and effective fish oil as a nutritional supplement, but there won't be a sexy drug representative to sell it, nor an expensive dinner and payment for a trip to Orlando to hear about it.

  • Dave

    5/31/2011 4:43:42 AM |

    Beverly,
    A rough estimate for the caloric content of each Lovaza capsule would be approximately 8-10 calories.  Since each capsule contains roughly 1 gram of total fat.

Loading