Cureality | Real People Seeking Real Cures

When niacin doesn't work

20. September 2007 William Davis (7)

Dan had the usual collection of metabolic syndrome lipoprotein abnormalities:

low HDL of 28 mg/dl, triglycerides 280 mg/dl, 90% of his LDL particles were small.

Along with elimination of wheat and junk foods, exercise, and fish oil, I asked Dan to add niacin. I usually ask people to buy SloNiacin and begin at 500 mg per day with dinner, increased to 1000 mg per day at dinner after 4 weeks.

Dan came back several months later. His lab results:

HDL 40 mg/dl, triglycerides 76 mg/dl.

(We didn't repeat the full lipoprotein analysis, so no small LDL value was available.) Better, though still some room for improvement. I urged Dan to stick to his program, lose some more weight off his 260 lb frame, exercise, be strict about the wheat products.

Dan returned another few months later. Lab results:

HDL 29 mg/dl, triglycerides 130 mg/dl.

Dan had lost another 8 lbs and was reasonably compliant with his diet.

What's going on here? Why would he backtrack on HDL and triglycerides despite sticking to his program?

I asked Dan where he purchased his niacin. "I got it from Sam's Club. The pharmacist said to try this 'no-flush' kind so the hot flush wouldn't bother me."

Aha! It's no wonder. "No-flush" niacin, or inositol hexaniacinate, is an outright scam. It has virtually no effect on lipids or lipoproteins in humans. It's therefore no surprise that, by replacing real niacin with the no-flush variety, Dan's blood patterns began to revert back to their original state.

Let me be straight on this: No-flush niacin is a scam. It does not work: it does not raise HDL, reduce triglycerides, nor reduce small LDL. It's expensive, too, far more expensive than the real thing. It has no business being sold by stores like Sam's Club or your health food store.

SloNiacin (Upsher Smith) has become our preferred preparation. (I obtain no compensation of any sort for saying so.) We buy it at Walgreen's.

Niacin and blood sugar

19. September 2007 William Davis (14)

We've been engaging in a conversation on the Track Your Plaque Forum on whether niacin raises blood sugar.

Yes, it does. In the vast majority of instances, however, the rise is trivial and without consequence. Typically, someone will start with a borderline elevated blood sugar of, say, 108 mg/dl. Niacin, 1000 mg per day, then raises blood sugar to 112 mg/dl. This small increase does not oblige any specific action, nor does it pose any excess risk.

Blood sugars in the normal range of <100 mg/dl tend not to show this effect. Higher blood sugars, e.g., 130 mg/dl, may show a more exagerrated effect but it is also rarely of great consequence. People who take medications for adult type II diabetes, or people with childhood-onset, type I diabetes will also experience rises in blood sugar. This is a somewhat larger issue in these people.

Niacin is best undertaken with a change in diet, specifically a reduction in processed carbohydrate foods, particularly evil and ubiquitous wheat products.This will often compensate for the blood sugar effect.

Niacin also shares many of the benefits of weight loss: rise in HDL, drop in triglycerides and small LDL.

Keep it all in perspective: If HDL is low, e.g., 30 mg/dl, or there is a significant small LDL pattern, or you have Lp(a), using niacin--vitamin B3--is quite safe and the most effective treatment we have. It's also a vitamin. Also recall the famous HATS Trial of simvastatin and niacin: simvastatin (Zocor) reduced heart attack risk 30%; adding niacin reduced heart attack risk an astounding 90%.

Very few strategies can yield the enormous benefits, both as a stand-alone treatment or in combination with others, that niacin can, whether or not blood sugar creeps up a few milligrams.

Statin drugs and Coenzyme Q10

17. September 2007 William Davis (10)

I am continually impressed at how few of my colleagues take advantage of a wonderful nutritional supplement, Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10).

Despite some of the recent backlash against statin agents, I do believe that they serve a role. I take issue with the pharmaceutical industry's endless advertising and force-feeding of drugs to the public and to physicians. Nonetheless, statin agents do serve a purpose.

If you go to your doctor with a fever of 103 degrees, coughing up thick yellow sputum, and you are struggling to breathe, would you refuse an antibiotic for pneumonia? Probably not. But an antibiotic for a sore throat may be a different matter.

So it goes with the statin drugs, too. An otherwise healthy 50-year-old woman with an LDL cholesterol of 140 mg/dl probably does not need a statin drug. A 35-year-old man with heterozygous hypercholesterolemia with an LDL cholesterol of 280 mg/dl, who will develop his first heart attack within the next 2 or 3 years, does need these drugs. The rub, of course, is deciding who in between also needs them.

Let's just accept that some people do indeed need a statin drug for one reason or another. How common are the muscle aches?

In my experience, muscle aches are inevitable. The longer you take a statin drug, the more likely you will develop them. The higher the dose, the more likely.

Thankfully, for most people muscle aches are more of a nuisance than a real danger. Usually, a reduced dose of the drug, periodic breaks from the drug (we often advise one or two weeks off every three months), or a change to another agent helps.

However, in my view, coenzyme Q10 provides a virtual antidote to most of the muscle aches and weakness. A recent review was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiologist that concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the use of CoQ10 for this purpose. Obviously, the authors do not use CoQ10 in everyday practice. If they did, they would have no doubt whatsoever that CoQ10 provides the majority of people with complete relief of the muscle complaints.

Time and time again, I have witnessed complete relief from muscle aches and muscle weakness from statin drugs using CoQ10. However, in our experience, a dose of at least 100 mg per day needs to be maintained. Occasionally, a higher dose will be necessary, e.g., 300 mg per day. The preparation also must--MUST--be an oil-based gelcap to work (just like vitamin D). The capsules that contain powder are so poorly absorbed that they usually fail to yield the needed effects.

Pictured is the Sam's Club (Members' Mark brand) that has served us well, providing reliable effects at a reasonable price. (CoQ10 is expensive, no matter where you buy it. That's the only drawback I'm aware of.) GNC has a great preparation, as does Life Extension. Just be sure it is a gelcap, not a capsule filled with powder.

There's more to CoQ10 than relief of statin muscle aches. More about that in future.

More Andy Kessler

15. September 2007 William Davis (2)

I can't help but quote a few more passages from Andy Kessler's irreverent but nonetheless insightful book, The End of Medicine. I find his quotes irresistible because I believe that he is (unintentionally) describing precisely what we are doing in the Track Your Plaque program:

"Maybe the jig is up on the cholesterol conspiracy. Any real scientist running studies on cholesterol drugs would not just check to see if participants in the study had a heart attack. You would scan, check for plaque, provide drugs, scan again, see if the plaque increased or decreased, repeat. Instead, we have a multibillion-dollar statin business based on vagaries and deception."

Kessler cuts to the chase on that one. Except we do it with a lot of things beyond drugs.

"256-slice scanners, faster than your heartbeat, just might be the magic pill of diagnosis. It's as if doctors will be saying I was blind before i could see. . . Six blind doctors feeling around an elephant and describing a wall, spear, snake, tree, fan and a rope. Looking for clues in all the wrong places. Measuring cholesterol and blood pressure is like reading the outside temperature and humidity from inside your house and guessing if it's raining. Open the window, stick your goddamn hand outside and know for sure.

How much do these scans have to cost to become widespread? $500? $100? $20? It almost doesn't matter. The savings come over time. Spread the R&D over millions and you get scale. It works.

. . . what if the spending was on detection instead of intervention? With some breakthrough, the economic consequences can be staggering. if medicine as we know it is replaced by health monitoring, hmmmm . . ."

Get beyond his humor and you see that Kessler shares our appreciation of the futility of cholesterol testing for predicting your heart's future. He advocates early detection, no surprise.

And lastly:

"I go to conferences about wikis and Wi-Fis, podcasts and blogs, and I always leave with an empty feeling, bored to tears. It's all great stuff, but technology somehow seems gripped with incrementalism. It's all really neat and cool and wow, but somehow predictable. Gee, in five years we'll have cheap terabyte drives so that we can, what, watch Simpsons reruns and shop more efficiently?

Forget that. It's all about taking control. One by one, industries are being democratized. Power is shifting from producers and service providers to users. . . Power to the people--everywhere except medicine . . . With the right tools, we'll all take control."

Amen. He's right. Taking control of health care out of the hands of the doctors and putting it in your own hands. But you are going to need better tools, more information, and guidance.

I couldn't have said it any better.

The End of Medicine

14. September 2007 William Davis (0)

"It's not about staying young--it's about staying healthy. They say 60 is the new 50. If you stay healthy, got a good ticker lay off tobacco, are lucky enough to avoid some weird cancer, you can kick up your heels, keep running your company, or better yet, travel the world, hike a mountain, ski Zermatt--heck, Tony Randall even started a new family.

But that's a big if. We pump ourselves with cholesterol-lowering drugs as if that was the magic elixir. Not so simple.

Instead, our skin is getting peeled back for a quick look inside. This is the end of medicine as we know it. Don't guess that I might have hardening of the arteries. Open me up and take a look. Don't guess that I don't have cancer because I'm not spitting up blood or growing a tumor the size of a grapefruit out my side."

If you can get beyond some of the frat-boy joking in the book, you will see that the author, Andy Kessler, actually acquires some pretty canny insights into the future of medicine in his book, The End of Medicine.

It's a book not about the end of medicine, but about the end of medicine as we know it today: the doctor by the bedside, the treating-when-symptoms-appear approach that characterizes current practice.

Instead, Kessler predicts that new technology will supplant the role of doctor-as-gatekeeper and decision-maker. Early detection is key. He picked up on that right away, as his quote above shows.

Despite the sophomoric humor, I was impressed that much of the Track Your Plaque approach--online, self-empowered, based on the concept of early detection followed by practical and effective tools for correction, involving your doctor only peripherally--is what Kessler is trying to articulate.

In actuality, I would not necessarily recommend his book, unless you need a light moment and some fodder for thinking about our health future. But he does have some startling insights for a guy who just invests money and has no real health background.

Another excerpt:

CT Anxiety

I always feel a certain anxiety when I walk into the Hyatt Regency at the bottom of California Avenue in San Francisco. The cutsie Trolley car outside, the Embarcadero tile pattern on the sidewalk — they are all part of the package. But as I've done every time I've been there, I head straight into the lobby, tilt my head back and scan the Escher-like floors, starting at the top and then down and outwards to the bottom until I start feeling dizzy. I thank Mel Brooks for this.

This guy was zooming through someone's brain like it was a Sunday drive. More like a Sunday afternoon video game.

With my head spinning from this "High Anxiety" flashback, I stroll into the conference, half expecting to be given a barium enema by a cross between Nurse Diesel from Mel Brooks' flick and Nurse Ratched from One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. I really gotta switch to decaf on days like this.

The 7th International Multi-Detector Row Computed Tomography Symposium sounded innocuous enough. I assumed it would be a bunch of technical papers on the future of scanning, where I would read the paper in the darkened hall until lunchtime and then head off for some hot Hunan and home.

Instead, the place was like a carnival for cardiologists.

Kessler has, in Silicon Valley style, left a wide wake of electronic content to get a better view of his ideas. There is a podcast located on the InstaPundit site that you can listen to at: http://podcasts.instapundit.com/AndyKeer the next 10 years occurred in those men who passed the stress test. Falk E, Shah PK, Fuster V Circulation 1995;92:657-671 demonstrated that 86% of heart attacks occur in vessels with less than 70% as the maximum obstruction. A vast majority of
patients with less than 70% vessel obstruction will pass their stress test.

Regarding [the] question of owning or referring for EBT imaging, I would be amused if it were not insulting. The mistake that is often made is that EBT imaging is a wildly profitable technology. It is not nearly as profitable as nuclear stress imaging. Indeed there are few EBT centers in the country that are as profitable as any random cardiologist's stress lab.

How can we justify not screening asymptomatic patients? Most heart attacks occur in patients with no prior symptoms and according to Steve Nissen, 150,000 Americans die each year from their first symptom of heart disease. My daughter is at this moment visiting with a friend who lost her father a few years ago to his first symptom of heart disease when she was 8 years old. That is not OK! We screen asymptomatic women for breast cancer risk. Women are 8 times more likely to die from heart disease than breast cancer. We do mass screening for colon cancer and we are over 10 times more likely to die from heart attacks than colon cancer. An EBT heart scan costs 1/8th the cost of a colonoscopy.

So what say we drop the sarcasm and look at this technology objectively. Read the literature, not just the editorial comments. This really does provide incredibly valuable information that saves lives.

Yes, a 90% reduction in heart attacks in my patients compared to the care I could provide 5 years ago when I was doing a lot of stress testing and referring for revascularization. Much better statistics than expected national or regional norms. I welcome your scrutiny.

That's probably the best, most concise summary of why heart scanning makes sense that I've ever heard. And it comes from a primary care physician in the trenches. With just a few paragraphs, Dr. Blanchet, in my view, handily trumps the arguments of my colleagues arguing to maintain the status quo of cholesterol testing, stress tests, and hospital procedures.

Note:
Dr. Blanchett talks openly about his affiliation with an imaging center in Boulder, Colorado, Front Range Preventive Imaging. I'm no stranger to the accusations Dr. Blanchet receives about trying to profit from the heart scan phenomenon. Ironically, heart scanning loses money. It is a preventive test, not a therapeutic, hospital-based procedure. Free-standing heart scan centers that do little else (perhaps virtual colonoscopies) usually manage to pay their bills but make little profit. Hospitals that offer heart scans usually do so as a "loss-leader," i.e., an inexpensive test that brings you in the door in the hopes that you will require more testing.

Accusations of profiteering off heart scans are, to those in the know, ridiculous and baseless. On the contrary, heart scans are both cost-saving and life-saving.

Vitamin D2 rip-offs

23. November 2007 William Davis (21)

Here's a sampling of prescription vitamin D2/ergocalciferol products available:

Prescription ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) (Drisdol brand), 50 caps for $130.84.

Alfcip brand of erogocalciferol (vitamin D), 30 capsules for $28.20.

Ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) as Drisdol oral solution, 1 bottle $146.26.

How about vitamin D3/cholecalciferol?

Carlson's brand cholecalciferol (vitamin D3), 120 capsules $5.09.

Cholecalciferol, vitamin D3, is far less expensive than ergocalciferol, vitamin D2. Cholecalciferol is available as a supplement without prescription. Ergocalciferol is available only by prescription.

The price difference must mean that the plant-based form, ergocalciferol, must be far superior to the naturally-occurring human form, vitamin D3.

Of course, that's not true. Dr. Robert Heaney's study is just one of several documenting the inferiority of D2/ergocalciferol, Vitamin D2 Is Much Less Effective than Vitamin D3 in Humans. D2 exerted less than a third of the effect of D3.

In my experience, D2/ergocalciferol often exerts no effect whatsoever. One woman I consulted on came into the office having been prescribed Drisdol capsules, 50,000 units every day for the past 18 months (by mistake by her physician). Blood level of active 25-OH-vitamin D3: Zero.

But the pharmacy and drug manufacturer collected $1413 for her 18-month course. Cost for a 4000 unit per day dose of D3/cholecalciferol: $45--and it would have actually worked.

In my view, prescription vitamin D2 is yet another example of drug manufacturer scams, a product that provides no advantages, costs more, but yields bigger profits.

Yet this wonderful supplement called cholecalciferol, among which Carlson's is an excellent choice, is available to you inexpensively, without prescription, and actually provides the benefits you desire.

Stenosis detection vs. plaque detection

22. November 2007 William Davis (5)

One of the most common misunderstandings encountered by both physicians and the public is that, to create an effective heart disease prevention program, we need tools for atherosclerotic plaque detection. What we do not need is a tool for stenosis detection. (Stenosis means percent blockage. A 50% stenosis means 50% of the diameter of an artery is reduced by atherosclerosis.)

This issue came to mind recently with the ongoing conversation at Heart.org forum, in which the conversation predictably degenerated into a "what good are heart scans when there are better tests to detect blockage" sort of mentality.
They are right: There are better tests to detect stenoses or blockages, such as stress tests, heart catheterization, and CT coronary angiography. If someone is having chest pain or breathlessness, these tests are useful to help understand why. These tests are preludes to stents, bypass surgery, and the like. They are the popular tools in hospitals, the ones that provide entry into the revenue-yielding world of heart disease procedures.

Plaque detection, on the other hand, is principally a tool for the person without symptoms. In this regard, it is more like cholesterol testing. I doubt my colleagues would bash cholesterol because it doesn't reveal blockages. Plaque detection identifies the person who has already started developing atherosclerosis.

Dr. William Blanchett of Colorado articulates this idea well:

EBT calcium imaging not only identifies the vast majority of individuals at risk, it also identifies individuals with minimal risk. In other words, it distinguishes those who are likely to benefit from treatment . . .and it identifies those unlikely to benefit from treatment. Furthermore, the greatest value of EBT calcium imaging is that with serial imaging you can determine who is and who is not responding to treatment.

Those patients not responding to the initial treatment are identified by progression of their calcified plaque on a subsequent scan are then placed on additional therapies. The net result is a remarkable reduction in heart attack rates.

Ahh, the voice of reason. Plaque detection empowers you in your prevention program. If you know how much plaque your begin with, you can track that value to know whether you have having a full effect or not. Stenosis detection, on the other hand, empowers your doctor and provides the irresistible impulse to stent.

Another common objection raised to plaque detection is "why bother if you're going to give everybody a statin anyway?" We know the origins of that argument, don't we? If the only strategy known to your doctor is cholesterol reduction with statin drugs, then perhaps that's right. But, with awareness of all the things that go beyond statin drugs, often make them unnecessary, then knowledge of who should engage in an intensive program of prevention or not is enabled by plaque detection.

Is an increase in heart scan score GOOD?

20. November 2007 William Davis (30)

In response to an earlier Heart Scan Blog post, I don't care about hard plaque!, reader Dave responded:

Hello Dr Davis,

Interesting post about hard and soft plaque. I recently had a discussion with my GP regarding my serious increase in scan score (Jan 2006 = 235, Nov 2007 = 419).

After the first scan we started aggressively going after my LDL, HDL and Trig...196,59,221

And have them down to 103, 65, 92 - we still have a way to go to 60/60/60 [The Track Your Plaque target values]-

So the increase is a surprise, but my doctor said that the increase could in part be cause some of the soft plaque had been converted to hard plaque and the scan would show that conversion.

Dave's doctor then responded to him with this comment:

"Remember that although your coronary calcium score has gone up, this does not mean that you are at greater risk than you were a year ago. Remember that the most dangerous plaque is the not-yet calcified soft plaque, which will not show up on an EBT [i.e., calcium score]. It is only the safe, calcified plaque that can be measured with the EBT. [Emphasis mine.] For your score to go up like it did, while your lipids came down so much, what had to happen was that lots of dangerous unstable plaque was converted to stable, calcified plaque. There are no accepted guidelines for interpreting changes in calcium scores over time, because the scores tend to go up as treatment converts dangerous plaque to safer plaque. We do know that aggressively lowering LDL reduces both unstable and stable plaque, and we know that risk can be further lowered by adjuvant therapy such as I listed above."

Huh?

This bit of conventional "wisdom" is something I've heard repeated many times. Is it true?

It is absolutely NOT true. In fact, the opposite is true: Dave's substantial increase in heart scan score from 235 to 419 over 22 months, representing a 78% increase, or an annualized rate of increase of 37%. This suggests a large increase in his risk for heart attack, not a decrease. Big difference!

Dr. Paulo Raggi's 2004 study, Progression of coronary artery calcium and risk of first myocardial infarction in patients receiving cholesterol-lowering therapy in 495 participants addresses this question especially well. Two heart scans were performed three years apart, with a statin drug initiated after the first scan, regardless of score.

During the period of study, heart attacks occurred in 41 participants. When these participants were analyzed, it was found that the average annual increase in score over the three year period was 42%. The average annual rate of increase in those free of heart attack was 17%. The group with the 42% annual rate of increase--all on statin drugs--the risk of heart attack was 17.2-fold greater, or 1720%.

The report made several other important observations:

--20% of the heart attack-free participants showed reduction of heart scan scores, i.e., reversal. None of the participants experiencing heart attack had a score reduction.
--Only 2 of the 41 heart attacks occurred in participants with <15% per year annual growth, while the rest (39) showed larger increases.
--The intensity of LDL reduction made no difference in whether heart attacks occurred or not. Those with LDL<100 mg/dl fared no better than those with LDL>100 mg/dl.

Dr. Raggi et al concluded:

"The risk of hard events [heart attack] was significantly higher in the presence of CVS [calcium volume score] progression despite low LDL serum levels, although the interaction of CVS change and LDL level on treatment was highly significant. The latter observation strongly suggests that a combination of serum markers and vascular markers [emphasis mine] may constitute a better way to gauge therapeutic effectiveness than isolated measurement of lipid levels."

This study demonstrates an important principle: Rising heart scan scores signal potential danger, regardless of LDL cholesterol treatment. Yes, LDL reduction does achieve a modest reduction in heart attack, but it does not eliminate them--not even close.

These are among the reasons that, in the Track Your Plaque program, we aim to correct more than LDL cholesterol. We aim to correct ALL causes of coronary plaque, factors that can be responsible for continuing increase in heart scan score despite favorable LDL cholesterol values.

So, Dave, please forgive your doctor his misunderstanding of the increase in your heart scan score. He is not alone in his ignorance of the data and parroting of the mainstream mis-information popular among the statin-is-the-answer-to-everything set.

Just don't let your doctor's ignorance permit the heart attack that is clearly in the stars. Take preventive action now.

The Heart.org online debate

20. November 2007 William Davis (9)

There's a fascinating and vigorous debate going on at the Heart.org website among Dr. Melissa Shirley-Walton, the recently publicized proponent of "a cath lab on every corner": Dr. William Blanchet, a physician in northern Colorado; and a Track Your Plaque Member who calls himself John Q. Public.

John Q. has been trying to educate the docs about the Track Your Plaque program. Unfortunately, Dr. Shirley-Walton essentially pooh-poohs his comments, preferring to lament her heavy work load. In her last post, when she discovered that John Q. was not a physician, she threatened to block his posts and delete all prior posts.

However, Dr. Blanchet has emerged as a champion of heart scanning, intensive lipid management, and lipoproteins, much similar to our program. In fact, many of Dr. Blanchet's comments were so similar to mine that John Q. asked me if it was really me! (It is definitely not.)

Here's a sampling of some of the discussion going on now:

Dr. Blanchett started out the discussion by saying:

Stent Insanity
I have no trouble agreeing with the argument that we have initiated the widespread use of DES without adequate study regarding outcomes. Shame on us.

That said, we are ingoring the DATA that shows that most heart attacks occur as a result of non-obstructing plaque and all the talk about which stent to use ignors the majority of individuals at risk. In addition, for a decade we have known that stenting does not improve net outcomes anyway.

What ever happened to effective primary prevention? We discarded EBT calcium imaging like moldy cabbage without even looking at the outcomes DATA. With direction provided by EBT calcium imaging and effective primary prevention, I have been able to reduce myocardial infarction by 90% in my very large Internal Medicine practice. Through effectively identifying patients at risk and measuring success or failure of treatment with serial EBT, I have made the argument as to which stent to use moot. No symptomatic angina and rare infracts equals little need for any stent.

Is anybody listening? Certainly not the cardiologists whose wealth and fortunes are based on nuclaer imaging, angiography and stenting.

Dr. Shirley-Walton, skeptical of Dr. Blanchet's claim of >90% reduction of heart attacks using a prevention program starting with a heart scan:

To rely soley upon a calcium score will deprive you of a lot of information that could be otherwise helpful in the management of your patients.

Without seeming sarcastic, I must refute : "of 6,000 patients I've seen 4 heart attacks in 3 years". Although I certainly hope your statistics are accurate, I will suggest the following:

You've not seen all of the heart attacks since up to 30% of all heart attacks are clinically silent. So unless you are echo'ing or nuclear testing all of these patients in close followup, you aren't certain of your stats.

Secondly, in order to attribute this success to your therapy, you would have to have nearly 100% compliance. In the general population, compliance is often less than 50% with any regimen in any given year of treatment. If you can tell us how you've achieved this level of compliance, we could all take a lesson.

Dr. Blanchett, commenting on his use of heart scanning as a primary care physician:

CAC [coronary artery calcium] is an inexpensive and low radiation exam to identify who is at increased risk for heart attacks.

A study of 222 non-diabetic patients admitted with their first MI found 75% of them did not qualify for cholesterol modifying therapy prior to their initial MI (JACC 2003:41 1475-9). In another study of 87,000 men with heart attacks, 62% had 0 or 1 major risk factors (Khot, et al. JAMA. 2003). Almost all individuals with 0 or 1 risk factor are Framingham "Low risk" and therefore will not qualify for cholesterol lowering therapies. (JAMA. 2001;285:2486-2497)

Risk factors alone are not sufficient. In my practice, of the last 4 patients who have died from heart attacks, none qualified for preventive therapies by NCEP guidelines.

Studies have shown that CAC by EBT provides an independent and incremental predictor of heart attack risk. (1. Kondos et al, Circulation 2003;107:2571-2176, 2. Am Heart J 141. 378-382, 2001, 3. St Francis Heart Study Journal of the American College of Cardiology July, 2005) The old saw that CAC simply reflects risk factors and age is just wrong.

Although CT angiography shows great promise to reduce unnecessary conventional angiography and is helpful in emergency room chest pain evaluation, I do not see CT angiography as a screening study in asymptomatic individuals. 10 times more radiation than EBT calcium imaging plus the risk of IV dye exposure makes CT angiography inconsistent with the principles of a screening test. Taken in the context of a primary care physician's evaluation of heart attack risk, EBT calcium imaging has great value.

Coronary calcium changes management by: 1. Identifying those at risk who do not show up with standard risk stratification (St Francis Heart Study: Journal of the American College of Cardiology July, 2005). 2. Motivating patients to be compliant with therapies (Atherosclerosis 2006; 185:394-399). 3. By measuring serial calcium, we can see who is and who is not responding to our initial treatment so that we can further refine our therapeutic goals (Atherosclerosis, 2004;24:1272).

When used in the primary care preventive setting, CAC imaging is indeed of great incremental value. In my practice, in improves my outcomes so greatly that it compels Melissa Walton-Shirley to question my veracity.

Dr. Melissa Walton-Shirley:

Ahhhhhh.......the aroma of profit making, I thought I smelled it. [Accusing Dr. Blanchett of referring patients for heart scans for personal profit.]

I will tell you that I was a little hurt when I was called "a typical cardiologist with a butcher block mentality" after my primary pci piece for med-gen Med was reviewed by the track your placque [sic] folks.

Though, it's clear that they misunderstood and thought I was cathing for dollars, instead my intention was to "push" for primary PCI for AMI, it left me seething until the blessing of a busy schedule and a forgetful post menopausal brain took its toll.
None the less, an honest open discussion is always welcome here but I would appreciate it if everyone would just divulge their affiliations up front so that the context of their opinions could be better understood.

I also insist that the compliance described by you William B. is rather astounding and a bit unbelieveable, however if it's accurate, you are to be congratulated.

Dr. Blanchett, in response to Dr. Shirley-Walton's statement that she relies on stress testing:

I think that the threshold of comfort you get from stress test stratification is different than what I consider acceptable. It is hard for me to tell a bereaved spouse that the departed did everything I suggested and still died from a MI. Coronary calcium imaging provides me the tool that I need.

Are you aware that there are a number of studies that show a dramatic increase in risk of MI in individuals with an annualized increase in calcified plaque burden of >14%? I consider this to be a valuable measure of inadequacy of medical management. A stress test does not become positive until we have catastrophically failed in medical management. Consequently, even in the patient with “high risk” stratification, one can justify a calcium score to establish a baseline to measure adequacy of primary prevention. Calcium scores by EBT cost about 1/5th the cost of a nuclear stress test and subject the patient to 1/10th the radiation of nuclear imaging and provides more precise information.

Regarding John Q, I do not think that non-medical prospective should be excluded from this blog. I think we as physicians benefit from hearing how the non-physician public views medicine. I have become much better at what I do by listening to my patients and learning from them.

Dr. Blanchett continues:

Yes, I have seen a dramatic reduction in coronary events. Of 6,000 active patients, 48% being Medicare age and over, I have seen 4 heart attacks over the last 3+ years. 2 in 85 year old diabetics undergoing cancer surgery, one in a 90 year old with known disease and one in a 69 year old with no risk factors, who was healthy, and had never benefited from a heart scan.

The problem with coronary disease is that we rely on risk factors. Khot et al in JAMA 2003 showed that of 87,000 men with heart attacks, 62% had 0 or 1 major risk factor prior to their MI. According to ATP-III, almost everyone with 0-1 risk facto is low risk and most are do not qualify for preventive treatment. EBT calcium imaging could have identify 98% of these individuals as being at risk before their heart attack and treatment could be initiated to prevent their MI.

Treating to NCEP cholesterol goals prevents 30-40% of heart attacks. Treating to a goal of coronary calcium stability prevents 90% of heart attacks. Where I went to school a 40% was an F. Why are we defending this result instead of striving to improve upon it? I am not making this up, look at Raggi's study in Ateriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology 2004;24:1272, or Budoff Am J Card

Melissa, I strongly disagree with the assertion that the stress test is a great risk stratifier. Laukkanen et al JACC 2001 studied 1,769 asymptomatic men with stress tests. Although failing the stress test resulted in an increased risk of future heart attack, 83% of the total heart attacks over the next 10 years occurred in those men who passed the stress test.
Falk E, Shah PK, Fuster V Circulation 1995;92:657-671 demonstrated that 86% of heart attacks occur in vessels with less than 70% as the maximum obstruction. A vast majority of patients with less than 70% vessel obstruction will pass thier stress test.

William, regarding your question of owning or referring for EBT imaging, I would be amused if it were not insulting. The mistake that is often made is that EBT imaging is a wildly profitable technology. It is not nearly as profitable as nuclear stress imaging. Indeed there are few EBT centers in the country that are as profitable as any random cardiologists stress lab.

How can we justify not screening asymptomatic patients? Most heart attacks occur in patients with no prior symptoms and according to Steve Nissen, 150,000 Americans die each year from their first symptom of heart disease. My daughter is at this moment visiting with a friend who lost her father a few years ago to his first symptom of heart disease when she was 8 years old. That is not OK! We screen asymptomatic women for breast cancer risk. Women are 8 times more likely to die from heart disease than breast cancer. We do mass screening for colon cancer and we are over 10 times more likely to die from heart attacks than colon cancer. An EBT heart scan costs 1/8th the cost of a colonoscopy.

So what say we drop the sarcasm and look at this technology objectively. Read the literature, not just the editorial comments. This really does provide incredibly valuabl