Apple, 1 medium: Fructose 10.74 g

Honey: Fructose 17.19 grams per 2 tablespoons

Barbecue Sauce: HFCS number 1 ingredient

Ingredients: High Fructose Corn Syrup, Vinegar, Concentrated Tomato Juice (Water, Tomato Paste), Water, Modified Food Starch, Salt, Honey, Contains Less Than 2% of Molasses, Natural Flavor, Paprika, Spice, Mustard Flour, Guar Gum, Red 40.

A1 Steak Sauce: HFCS number 2 ingredient

Ingredients: Tomato puree (water, tomato paste), high fructose corn syrup, vinegar, salt, water dried onions, contains less than 2% of black pepper, modified food starch, citric acid, dried parsley, dried garlic, xanthan gum, caramel color, potassium sorbate and calcium disodium EDTA as preservatives, molasses, corn syrup, sugar, spices, tamarind, natural flavor

Another in a series of data extrapolations that attempt to predict long-term cancer risk from medical radiation exposure was published in the July 13, 2009 Archives of Internal Medicine, viewable here.

Over the years, I've fussed about the radiation dose used by some centers for CT heart scans. (Note: I'm talking about CT heart scans, not CT coronary angiograms, an entirely different test with different radiation exposure.) In the "old" days, when electron-beam devices (EBT) were the best on the block, the old single-slice CT scanners (the predecessor of the current 64-slice MDCT scanners) exposed patients to ungodly quantities of radiation, while the EBT devices required very small quantities (0.5 mSv or about the equivalent of 4 standard chest x-rays or one mammogram).

But CT technology has advanced considerably. While EBT has been phased out (although it was an exceptional technology, GE acquired the small California manufacturer, then promptly scrapped the operation; you can guess why), multi-detector CT (MDCT) technology has improved in speed, image quality, and radiation exposure.

While it has improved, radiation exposure still remains an issue. The authors of the study applied the scanning protocols used at three hospitals and those in several CT heart scan studies, then calculated radiation exposure. They found a more than ten-fold range of exposure, from 0.8 mSv to 10.5 mSv. (All scanners were MDCT, none EBT.)

That's precisely what I've been worrying about: In the rapid rush to develop new devices, radiation exposure has often been a neglected issue. While some scan centers do an excellent job and take steps to minimize exposure, others barely lift a finger and consequently expose their patients to unnecessary radiation.

However, it's not as bad as it sounds. For one, the study included 16-slice MDCT scanners, a scanner type that I warned people to not use because of radiation. On the current most popular 64-slice devices, much lower radiation exposure is possible, on the order of 0.8-1.2 mSv routinely--if the center takes the effort.

This study, while eye-opening, will achieve some good: CT heart scans are here to stay. But the day-to-day practice of heart scanning should be:

1) standardized
2) conducted with radiation exposure as low as possible, preferably <0.8 mSv

To read more about this issue, below I've reprinted a 2007 full Track Your Plaque Special Report, CT Heart Scans and Radiation: The Real Story.

CT heart scans and radiation: The real story

“My personal opinion is that many patients today who are receiving multiple CT scans may well be getting at least comparable doses to subjects that have now developed malignancies from x-ray radiation received in the 1930s and '40s. And, similar to those days when the doses were unknown, the dose that patients receive today over a course of years of multiple CT scans is also completely unknown . . .

“I recommend that all healthcare providers become familiar with the concept that 1 in 1000 CT studies of the chest, abdomen, or pelvis may result in cancer.”

Richard C. Semelka, MD

Professor and Vice Chairman, Department of Radiology

University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill

Is this just hype to generate headlines? Or is the truth buried in the enormous marketing clout of the medical device industry, among which the imaging device manufacturers reign supreme?

It’s been over 110 years since radiation was first used for medical imaging. Over those years, it has had its share of misadventures.

In the 1930s and 1940s, before the dangers of radiation were recognized, shoe shoppers had shoes fitted using an x-ray device of the foot to assess fit. High doses of radiation were used to shrink enlarged tonsils and extinguish overactive thyroid glands. Attitudes towards radiation were so lax that doctors commonly permitted themselves to be exposed without protection day after day, year after year, until an unexpected rise in blood cancers like leukemia was observed. As recently as the 1970s and 1980s, cancers like Hodgkins’ disease were treated with high doses of radiation, also leading to radiation-induced diseases decades later.

Not all radiation is bad. Radiation can also be used as a therapeutic tool and even today remains a useful and reasonably effective method to reduce the size, sometimes eliminate, certain types of cancer. Forty percent of people with cancer now receive some form of radiation as part of their treatment (Ron E 2003).

Just how much does medical radiation add to our exposure?

Estimates vary, but most experts estimate that medical imaging provides approximately 15% of total lifetime exposure. In other words, radiation exposure from medical imaging is simply a small portion of total exposure that develops over the years of life. Exposure can be much higher, however, in a specific individual who undergoes repeated radiation imaging or treatment of one sort or another.

For all of us, exposure to medical radiation is part of lifetime exposure from multiple sources, added to the radiation we receive from the world around us. Just by living on earth, we are exposed to radiation from space and naturally-occurring radioactive compounds, and receive somewhere around 3.0 mSv per year (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). (Doses for radiation exposure are commonly expressed in milliSieverts, mSv, a measure that reflects whole-body radiation exposure.) People living in high-altitude locales like Colorado get exposed to an additional 30–50% ambient radiation (1.0–1.5 mSv more per year).

Much of the information on radiation exposure comes from studies like the Life Span Study that, since 1961, has tracked 120,000 Japanese exposed to radiation from the atomic bombs dropped in 1945 (Preston DL et al 2003). Although regarded as a high-dose exposure study for obvious reasons, there are actually thousands of people in this study who were exposed to lesser quantities of radiation (because of distance from the bomb sites) who still display a “dose-response” increased risk for cancer many years later in life. Radiation exposures of as little as 5–20 mSv showed a slight increase in lifetime risk.

Occupational and excessive medical exposure to radiation also provides a “laboratory” to examine radiation risk. Miners exposed to radon gas; patients exposed to the imaging agent, Thorotrast, containing radioactive isotope thorium dioxide and used as an x-ray contrast agent in the 1930s and 1940s and possesses the curious property of lingering in the body for over 30 years after administration; radium injections administered between 1945 and 1955 to treat diseases like ankylosing spondylitis and tuberculosis, all provide researchers an opportunity to study the long-term effects of various types of radiation exposure over many years (Harrison JD et al 2003).

The excess exposure of workers and several hundred thousand nearby residents to the Mayak nuclear plant in Russia has also revealed a “dose-response” relationship, with increasing exposure leading to more cancers, including leukemia and solid cancers of the bone, liver, and lung (Shilnikova NS et al 2003). Nuclear waste released into the Techa river between 1948 and 1956 contaminated drinking water used by over 100,000 Russians. A plant explosion in 1957 also released an excess of radiation into the atmosphere, yielding exposure via inhalation. Some sources estimate that at least 272,000 people have been affected by radiation from the Mayak plant. This unfortunate situation has, however, yielded plenty of data on radiation exposure and its long-term effects.

It’s also been known for several decades that people who receive therapeutic radiation for treatment of cancer, even with the reduced doses now employed, are subject to increased risk of a second cancer consequent to the radiation treatment.

From experiences like this, radiation experts estimate that an exposure of 10 mSv increases a population’s risk for cancer by 1 in 1000 (Semelka RC et al 2007).

This question was recently thrust into the spotlight with publication of a study from Columbia University in New York suggesting that a 20-year old woman would be exposed to a lifetime risk of cancer as high as 1 in 143 consequent to the radiation received during a CT coronary angiogram. (Important note: This was estimated risk from a CT coronary angiogram, not a simple heart scan that we advocate for the Track Your Plaque program.) The risk at the low end of the spectrum would be in an 80-year old man (because of the shorter period of time to develop cancer), with a risk of 1 in 5017. If “gating” to the EKG is added (which many scan centers do indeed perform nowadays), risk for a 60-year old woman is estimated at 1 in 715; risk for a 60-year old male, 1 in 1911 (Einstein AJ et al 2007). This study generated some criticism, since it did not directly involve human subjects, but used “phantoms” or x-ray dummies to simulate x-ray exposure. Nonetheless, the point was made: CT coronary angiograms in current practice do indeed expose the patient to substantial quantities of radiation, sufficient to pose a lifetime risk of cancer.

The media frenzy

The NY Times ran an article called With Rise in Radiation Exposure, Experts Urge Caution on Tests in which they stated:

"According to a new study, the per-capita dose of ionizing radiation from clinical imaging exams in the United States increased almost 600 percent from 1980 to 2006. In the past, natural background radiation was the leading source of human exposure; that has been displaced by diagnostic imaging procedures, the authors said."

“This is an absolutely sentinel event, a wake-up call,” said Dr. Fred A. Mettler Jr., principal investigator for the study, by the National Council on Radiation Protection. “Medical exposure now dwarfs that of all other sources.”

Radiation is a widely used imaging tool in medicine. Although CT scans of the brain, bones, chest, abdomen, and pelvis account for only 5% of all medical radiation procedures, they are responsible for nearly 50% of medical radiation used. It’s been known for years that increasing radiation exposure increases cancer risk over many years, but the boom of newer, faster devices that provide more detailed images has opened the floodgates to expanded use of CT scanners.

But before we join in the hysteria, let's first take a look at exposure measured for different sorts of tests:

Typical effective radiation dose values for common tests

Computed Tomography

Head CT 1 – 2 mSv
Pelvis CT 3 – 4 mSv
Chest CT 5 – 7 mSv
Abdomen CT 5 – 7 mSv
Abdomen/pelvis CT 8 – 11 mSv
Coronary CT angiography 5 – 12 mSv

Non-CT

Hand radiograph Less than 0.1 mSv
Chest radiograph Less than 0.1 mSv
Mammogram 0.3 – 0.6 mSv
Barium enema exam 3 – 6 mSv
Coronary angiogram 5 – 10 mSv
Sestamibi myocardial perfusion (per injection) 6 – 9 mSv
Thallium myocardial perfusion (per injection) 26 – 35 mSv

Source: Cynthia H. McCullough, Ph.D., Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN

A plain, everyday chest x-ray, providing less than 0.1 mSv exposure, provides about the same quantity of radiation exposure as flying in an airplane for four hours, or the same amount of radiation from exposure to our surroundings for 11–12 days. Similar exposure arises from dental x-rays.

If you have a heart scan on an EBT device, then your exposure is 0.5-0.6 mSv, roughly the same as a mammogram or several standard chest x-rays.

With a heart scan on a 16- or 64-slice multidetector device, exposure is ideally around 1.0-2.0 mSv, about the same as 2-3 mammograms, though dose can vary with this technology depending on how it is performed (gated to the EKG, device settings, etc.)

CT coronary angiography presents a different story. This is where radiation really escalates and puts the radiation exposure issue in the spotlight. As Dr. Cynthia McCullough's chart shows above, the radiation exposure with CT coronary angiograms is 5-12 mSv, the equivalent of 100 or more chest x-rays or 20 mammograms. Now, that's a problem.

The exposure is about the same for a pelvic or abdominal CT. The problem is that some centers are using CT coronary angiograms as screening procedures and even advocating their use annually. This is where the alarm needs to be sounded. These tests, as wonderful as the information and image quality can be, are not screening tests. Just like a pelvic CT, they are diagnostic tests done for legitimate medical questions. They are not screening tests to be applied broadly and used year after year.

It’s also worth giving second thought to any full body scan you might be considering. These screening studies include scans of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. These scans, performed for screening, expose the recipient to approximately 10 mSv of radiation (Radiological Society of North American, 2007). Debate continues on whether the radiation exposure is justified, given the generally asymptomatic people who generally undergo these tests.

Always be mindful of your radiation exposure, as the NY Times article rightly advises. However, don't be so frightened that you are kept from obtaining truly useful information from, for instance, a CT heart scan (not angiography) at a modest radiation cost.

Heart scans, CT coronary angiograms and the future

Unfortunately, practicing physicians and those involved in providing CT scans are generally unconcerned with radiation exposure. The majority, in fact, are entirely unaware of the dose of radiation required for most CT scan studies and unaware of the cancer risk involved. It is therefore up to the individual to insist on a discussion of the type of scanner being used, the radiation dose delivered (at least in general terms), the necessity of the test, alternative methods to obtain the same diagnostic information, all in the context of lifetime radiation exposure.

Our concerns about radiation exposure all boil down to concern over lifetime risk for cancer, a disease that strikes approximately 20% of all Americans. Many factors contribute to cancer risk, including obesity, excessive saturated fat intake, low fiber intake, lack of vitamin D, repeated sunburns, excessive alcohol use, smoking, exposure to pesticides and other organochemicals, asbestos and other industrial exposures, electromagnetic wave exposure, and genetics. Radiation is just one source of risk, though to some degree a controllable one.

Some people, on hearing this somewhat disturbing discussion, refuse to ever have another medical test requiring radiation. That’s the wrong attitude. It makes no more sense than wearing lead shielding on your body 24 hours a day to reduce exposure from the atmosphere. Taken in the larger context of life, radiation exposure is just one item on a list of potentially harmful factors.

It is, however, worth some effort to minimize radiation exposure over your lifetime, particularly before age 60, and by submitting to high-dose testing only when truly necessary, or when the potential benefits outweigh the risks. Thus, with heart scans and CT coronary angiography, some thought to the potential benefits of knowing your score or the information gained from the CT angiogram need to be considered before undergoing the test. Often the practical difficulty, of course, is that your risk for heart disease simply cannot be known until after the test.

In our view, in the vast majority of instances a simple CT heart scan can serve the simple but crucial role of quantifying risk for heart attack and atherosclerotic plaque. CT heart scans yield this information with less than a tenth of the radiation exposure of a CT coronary angiogram. In people without symptoms and a normal stress test, there is rarely a need for CT coronary angiography with present day levels of radiation exposure. Perhaps as technology advances and the radiation required to generate images is reduced, then we should reconsider.

Early experiences are suggesting that the newest 256-slice scanners, now being developed but not yet available, will cut the dose exposure of 64-slice CT angiograms in half (from 27.8 mSv to 14.1 mSv in a recent Japanese study). The 256-slice scanners will allow scanning that is faster over a larger area in a given period of time.

Thankfully, the scanner manufacturers are increasingly sensitive to the radiation issue and have been working on methods to reduce radiation exposure. However, it still remains substantial.

References:
Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA 2007 Jul 18;298(3):317–323.

Harrison JD, Muirhead CR. Quantitative comparisons of cancer induction in humans by internally deposited radionuclides and external radiation. Int J Radiat Biol 2003 Jan;79(1):1–13.

Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hadamitzyky M et al. Radiation Dose Estimates From Cardiac Multislice Computed Tomography in Daily Practice: Impact of Different Scanning Protocols on Effective Dose Estimates. Circulation 2006;113:1305–1310.

Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, Hamberg LM, Blake MA, Shepard J, Saini S. Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 2004;230:619–628.

Mayo JR, Aldrich J, Müller NL. Radiation exposure at chest CT: A statement of the Fleischner Society. Radiology 2003; 228:15–21.

Mori S, Nishizawa K, Kondo C, Ohno M, Akahane K, Endo M. Effective doses in subjects undergoing computed tomography cardiac imaging with the 256-multislice CT scanner. Eur J Radiol 2007 Jul 10; [Epub ahead of print].

Preston DL, Pierce DA, Shimizu Y, Ron E, Mabuchi K. Dose response and temporal patterns of radiation-associated solid cancer risks. Health Phys 2003 Jul;85(1):43–46.

Ron E. Cancer risks from medical radiation. Health Phys 2003 Jul;85(1):47–59.

Shilnikova NS, Preston DL, Ron E et al. Cancer mortality risk among workers at the Mayak nuclear complex. Radiation Res 2003 Jun;159(6):787–798.

Semelka RC, Armao DM, Elias J Jr, Huda W. Imaging strategies to reduce the risk of radiation in CT studies, including selective substitution with MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007 May;25(5):900–9090.

Copyright 2007, Track Your Plaque.

A carefully-conducted study by a collaborative research group at University of California-Berkeley has finally closed the lid on the fuss over fructose vs. glucose and its purported adverse effects.

The study is published in its entirety here.

Compared to glucose, fructose induced:

1) Four-fold greater intra-abdominal fat accumulation--3% increased intra-abdominal fat with glucose; 14.4% with fructose. (Intraabdominal fat is the variety that blocks insulin responses and causes diabetes and inflammation.)

2) 13.9% increase in LDL cholesterol but double the increase for Apoprotein B (an index of the number of LDL particles, similar to NMR LDL particle number).

3) 44.9% increase in small LDL, compared to 13.3% with glucose.

4) While glucose (curiously) reduced the net postprandial (after-eating) triglyceride response (area under the curve, AUC), fructose increased postprandial triglycerides 99.2%.

The authors propose that fructose specifically increases liver VLDL production, the lipoprotein particle that yields abnormal after-eating particles, increased LDL, and provides building blocks to manufacture small LDL particles. The authors also persuasively propose that fructose metabolism, unlike glucose, is not inhibited (via feedback loop) by energy intake, i.e., it's as if you are always starving.

Add to this the data that show that fructose increases uric acid (that causes gout and may act as a coronary risk factor), induces leptin resistance, causes metabolic syndrome (pre-diabetes), and increases appetite, and it is clear that fructose is yet another common food additive that, along with wheat, is likely a big part of the reason Americans are fat and diabetic.

Fructose is concentrated, of course, in high-fructose corn syrup, comprising anywhere from 42-90% of total weight. Fructose also composes 50% of sucrose (table sugar). Fructose also figures prominently in many fruits; among the worst culprits are raisins (30% fructose) and honey (41% fructose).

Also, beware of low-fat or non-fat salad dressings (rich with high-fructose corn syrup), ketchup, beer, fruit drinks, fruit juices, all of which are rich sources of this exceptionally fattening, metabolism-bypassing, LDL cholesterol/small LDL/ApoB increasing compound. Ironically, this means that many low-fat foods meant to reduce cholesterol actually increase it when they contain fructose in any form.

When you hear or say "fructose," run the other way, regardless of what the Corn Refiners Association says.

Matt came to me because his doctor couldn't reduce his LDL cholesterol.

His doctor had prescribed Zocor (simvastatin), Lipitor, Crestor, even pravastatin, all of which resulted in incapacitating muscle aches and weakness within a week of starting. No surprise, Matt had a jaundiced view of statin drugs.

We started out by characterizing his lipoprotein patterns:

--LDL 155 mg/dl

--72% of LDL was small LDL, a moderately severe pattern. (This means that small LDL comprised 112 mg/dl of the total 155 mg/dl LDL; large LDL comprised 43 mg/dl--small LDL was the problem.)

--HDL 42 mg/dl --Triglycerides 133 mg/dl

--No lipoprotein(a)

Beyond lipoproteins, Matt proved severely deficient in vitamin D with a starting level of 18 ng/ml.

Matt's doctor had advised that he avoid salt, as his blood pressure had been borderline high. His thyroid assessment disclosed a TSH of 3.89 mIU/ml with thyroid hormones free T3 and free T4 in the lower half of the normal range.

I therefore asked Matt to:

--Eliminate wheat, cornstarch, and sugars to reduce small LDL
--Add iodine
--Supplement 6000 units of an oil-based vitamin D preparation
--Take fish oil to provide at least 1800 mg EPA + DHA per day
--Take Armour Thyroid 1 grain per day

Several months later on this program, Matt had a repeat basic lipid panel:

--LDL 82 mg/dl--a 47% reduction

--HDL 52 mg/dl a 24% increase

--Triglycerides 60 mg/dl--a 55% decrease

In addition, vitamin D was 66 ng/ml, TSH was <1.0 mIU/ml with free T3 and free T4 in the upper half of the "reference range." Matt also felt great.

While the numbers could be slightly better, Matt had made tremendous progress towards achieving perfect values.

There you have it: Marked correction of cholesterol values, no statin drugs involved.

Even if you’re not interested in building big muscles like a bodybuilder, there are health benefits to increasing muscle mass: increased bone density, better balance, and fewer injuries. Greater muscle mass means higher metabolic rate, improved insulin responsiveness, lower blood sugar. The inevitable loss of muscle mass of aging can lead to frailty, an increasingly common situation for the elderly. Muscle loss be reversed, health improved as a result.

Since its introduction in 1994, creatine has exploded in popularity, particularly among bodybuilders and athletes interested in gaining muscle mass and strength. But creatine is not just for young weight lifters. If you are just interested in increasing muscle mass for its health benefits, then creatine is something to consider.

A study of creatine supplementation in men, average age 70 years, demonstrated that, when creatine was combined with strength training, it increased muscle mass 250% better than placebo (7.26 lb muscle vs 2.86 lb muscle), along with improved leg strength and endurance. The same group also demonstrated 3.2% increased bone density (measured using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry) after 12 weeks in participants taking creatine with strength training, while the control (no strength training, no creatine) group decreased by 1.0%.

Benefits are not confined to men. Similar results were observed in another study that included women (age 65 and older), with outcomes in females comparable to males. This is especially important for females, given the common development of osteopenia and osteoporosis in postmenopausal females.

Other studies have shown that benefits are maintained after stopping creatine supplementation.

The most popular form of creatine is the monohydrate, generally taken as a “loading” phase of 15-20 grams per day (generally split into 3-4 doses of 5 grams) for 5-7 days, followed by weeks to months of 2-5 grams per day.

An alternative form, polyethylene glycosylated creatine (PEG-creatine) provides similar effects at one-fourth to one-half the dose of creatine, i.e., 1.25-2.5 grams per day.

Despite previous concerns about kidney toxicity with prolonged use, another study showed that athletes taking creatine for up to 21 months have shown no adverse effects on kidney function, lipid (cholesterol) values, or other basic health measures.

Having healthy muscle mass doesn't make you bulge like a bodybuilder. With modest efforts at strength training, augmented with creatine supplementation, you have a wonderful tool to feel better, reduce injury, increase bone density, and combat abnormal insulin resistance, not to mention accelerate weight loss, since lean muscle mass consumes energy.

There has been a lot of debate over whether or not “bio-identical” hormones, i.e., hormones identical to the human form, are superior to non-human forms dispensed by the drug industry.

The FDA is currently taking steps to clamp down on availability of bioidentical hormones and their claims of superiority, despite a groundswell of grassroot support for them. The argument has pitted anti-aging practitioners and the public, as well as the likes of Oprah and Suzanne Somers, against Big Pharma and the FDA, the two forces trying to squash the bioidentical hormone movement.

Regardless of what heavy-handed approach the FDA takes, we already have access to hormones identical to the original human form. It requires no prescription and yields downstream hormones that the human body recognizes as human.

That "bioidentical" hormone is pregnenolone.

Pregnenolone is the first biochemical step in the conversion of dietary cholesterol (yes-cholesterol!) to numerous other hormones. Pregnenolone is the source of the hormones that lie at the center of the bioidentical hormone controversy: estrogens, progesterone, and testosterone. We therefore already have our own over-the-counter, non-prescription form of bioidentical hormones.

Supplemental pregnenolone increases estrogens (mildly), progesterone, and testosterone. Prenenonlone supplementation simply provide more of the basic substrate for hormone production. The increase in hormones is usually modest, not as vigorous as direct hormone replacement like, say, testosterone or progesterone topical creams. But pregnenolone can be useful when small to moderate increases are desired, such as for reduction of Lp(a). A theoretical downside is that pregnenonlone can also convert to cortisol, the adrenal gland hormone that regulates fluid and blood pressure. However, I've not seen any measurable increase in cortisol with low doses of pregnenonlone and limited data suggest that it does not. Pregnenolone also converts to the other adrenal gland hormone, DHEA; I call DHEA "the hormone of assertiveness," since some people who take too much pregnenolone (or direct DHEA) acquire excessive assertiveness.

The key to pregnenolone supplementation is to proceed gradually and begin with a small dose, e.g., 5 mg every morning. Hormonal assessment is best conducted periodically to assess the effects and to determine whether a dose adjustment is in order.

Heart Scan Blog reader, Roger, described his near-miss experience with CT coronary angiograms.

Hoping to obtain just a simple CT heart scan, he was bullied to get a CT coronary angiogram instead. Roger held strong and just asked for the test that we all should be having, a CT heart scan.

I posted yesterday that I was about to have my first CT heart scan...well, it was an interesting experience for reasons I coudn't possibly have anticipated. Dr. Davis has commented in the past on the confusion in the media about the difference between a CT calcium score scan, and a CT angiography, the latter requiring a far higher dose of radiation. I assumed this was a source of confusion only among patients and lay folks, but, lo and behold, I discovered today that doctors--or at least their helpers--can be just as confused.

Here's my story:

After checking in, I asked the receptionist to see if she had any information on whether my medical insurance was covering the scan. She called someone, and I heard her say over the phone, "He's here for a CT angiogram." At that point my ears perked up. I explained I wasn't here for a CT angiogram, only a regular CT scan. "Well, do you want to call your doctor and talk about this?" she asked. No, I said, I would like to ask one of their folks to verify exactly what test my doctor had ordered. As luck would have it, the technician was walking by at that point. "Is this a CT angiogram?" the receptionist asked. "No, it's just a CT calcium score scan" was the reply. But apparently the technician had been unclear herself, and had called my doctor just to verify. In other words, the "default" procedure they were accustomed to doing at this august Houston vascular clinic was a CT angiogram.

In fact, my appointment was even listed on their calendar as a "CT angiogram." For all I know, my insurance will be billed for the same. Later, during the procedure, the technician acted surprised I wasn't doing the "full test." I explained I had minimal risk factors (actually only one, an HDL of 34 a couple of years ago, which has since been raised to 50 partly as a result of taking advice from this site), but that my doctor was progressive (he is an MD for the Houston Astros) and thought it was a good idea since there is heart disease in my immediate family. My doctor did indeed prescribe only a CT calcium score scan, but it seems to have been an order that this clinic, at least, wasn't all that used to seeing.

So, I guess the message is: we have a lot of educating to do. Had I not been a faithful reader of these pages, I certainly wouldn't have known what kind of test I was about to get, or what questions to ask!

As for the heart scan itself, a piece of cake. If you can hold your breath, you can take this test. Just be sure it is the right one!

Why the "push" towards CT coronary angiograms and not "just" a CT heart scan? Well, I know it's shocking but it's . . . money!

CT coronary angiograms yield around $1800-$4000 per test. CT heart scans yield somewhere around $200. Though the scan center support staff might not care too much about the money themselves, their administrators likely make the cost distinctions clear to them.

Another reason: Most scan center staff, ironically, don't understand what a heart scan means, nor do they understand how it might serve to launch a program of prevention. They do understand that severe blockage by CT angiogram "needs" to be stented or bypassed. So they push patients towards things they understand.

Nobody makes money from CT heart scans, just as nobody makes money from a mammogram. Heart scans also don't lead to heroic, "lifesaving" procedures. They just lead to this sleepy, unexciting, inexpensive thing called prevention.

The June 20-21, 2009 Wall Street Journal Weekend Journal featured a provocative front page article written by physician, Dr. Abraham Verghese:

The Myth of Prevention

While eloquently written, I took issue with a few crucial points. Here is the letter I sent to the Editor at Wall Street Journal:

Dear Wall Street Journal Editor,

Re: Dr. Abraham Verghese’s article, The Myth of Prevention in the June 20-21, 2009 Weekend Journal.

I believe a more suitable title for Dr. Verghese’s article would be: “The Myth of What Passes as Prevention.”

As a practicing cardiologist, I, too, have witnessed firsthand the systemic “corruption” described by Dr. Verghese, the doing things “to” people rather than “for” them. Heart care, in particular, is rife with this form of profit-driven health delivery.

There is a fundamental flaw in Dr. Verghese’s otherwise admirable analysis: He assumes that what is called “prevention” in mainstream medicine is truly preventive.

Dr. Verghese makes issue of the apparent minor differences between preventing a condition and just allowing a condition to run its course. Prostate cancer screening is one example: Men subjected to repeated screenings have little length-of-life advantage over men who just allow their prostate to suffer the expected course of disease.

What if, instead, “prevention” as practiced today is nothing more than a solution that has been adopted in mainstream practice to suit yet another doing “to” strategy than doing “for”? In the prostate cancer example, PSA and prostate exam screenings often serve as little more than a means of harvesting procedures for the local urologist.

That’s not prevention. It is a prototypical example of “prevention” being subverted into the cause of revenue-generating procedures.

I submit that Dr. Verghese has fallen victim to the very same system he criticizes. His views have unwittingly been corrupted by the corrupt profit-driven system he describes.

What if, instead, prevention were just that: prevention or elimination of the condition. What if “prevention” of prostate cancer eliminated prostate cancer? What if heart disease “prevention” prevented all heart disease? What if this all proceeded without regard for profit or revenue-generating procedures, but just on results?

Dr. Verghese specifically targets heart scans or coronary calcium scoring, a test he likens to “miracle glow-in-the-dark minnow lures,” calling them “moneymakers.” Yes, when subverted into a corrupt algorithm of stress test, heart catheterization, stent, or bypass, heart scans are indeed a test used wrongly to “prevent” heart disease.

But what if the risk insights provided by heart scans prompt the start of a benign yet effective “prevention” program that inexpensively, safely, and assuredly prevents--in the true sense of the word--or eliminates heart disease? Then I believe the differences in mortality, quality of life, and costs would be substantial. Such strategies exist, yet do not necessarily include prescription drugs and certainly do not include the aftermath of heart catheterization and bypass surgery. Yet such programs fail to seize the limelight of media attention with no new high-tech lifesaving headline nor a big marketing budget to broadcast its message.

The problem in medicine is not prevention and its failure to yield cost- and life-saving results. It is the pervasively profit-driven mindset that keeps true preventive strategies from entering mainstream conversation. It is a repeat of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis’ late 19th-century pleads for physicians to wash their hands before delivering babies to reduce puerperal sepsis, ignominious advice that earned him life and death in an asylum. We are essentially continuing to deliver children with unwashed hands because there is no revenue-generating procedure to clean them.

No, Dr. Verghese, the economic and medical failings of preventive strategies are not at fault. The failure of the medical system, in which everyone is bent on seizing a piece of the financial action for himself, has resulted in the failure to support the propagation of true preventive strategies that could genuinely save money and lives.

President Obama’s goal of cultivating preventive practices in medicine can work, but only if the profit-motive for “prevention” does not serve as the primary determinant of practice. Results-driven practices that are applied without regard to profit have the potential to yield the sorts of cost-saving and life-saving results that can reduce healthcare costs.

William Davis, MD
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Medical Director, The Track Your Plaque Program (www.cureality.com)
Blog: http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com

The efforts of Texas House of Representatives Rep. Rene Oliveira and the SHAPE Guidelines committee have paid off: The Texas legislature passed a bill that requires health insurers to cover CT heart scans.

(NOTE: Don't make the same mistake that the media often makes and confuse CT heart scans with CT coronary angiography: two different tests, two different results, two different levels of radiation exposure. The difference is discussed here.)

Track Your Plaque previously reported the release of the SHAPE Guidelines, an ambitious effort to open CT heart scanning to people who would benefit from a simple screening test for coronary disease. Rep. Rene Oliveira initially introduced the bill in 2006, after having a heart scan uncovered extensive coronary plaque that resulted in coronary bypass surgery.

The bill requires that health-benefit providers cover the cost of CT heart scans (and carotid ultrasound) in men between the ages of 45-76, women 55-76, as well as anyone with diabetes or at "intermediate-risk" or higher for coronary disease by Framingham risk score.

The usual panel of cardiology knuckleheads stepped to the media podium, expressing their incredulity that something as "unvalidated" as heart scans could gain the backing of legislative mandate. Heartwire carried this comment:

"Contacted by heartwire, Dr Amit Khera (University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas) confirmed there are still no comprehensive, adequately powered studies showing that these screening tests lead to better outcomes. In a phone interview, Khera said he has major concerns about how physicians will use these tests, particularly primary-care physicians. "I gave a talk last week to primary-care doctors, and there were probably 250 people in the room, and when I asked how many people had ordered a calcium scan, just one person raised a hand. . . . Most people don't even know what to do with the Framingham risk score, so they're going to follow an algorithm that they don't know how to follow to order a test result that they don't know what to do with."

It's the same criticisms hurled at heart scans over the years despite literally thousands of studies validating their application.

Studies have conclusively shown that:

--Coronary calcium scores generated by a CT heart scan outperform any other risk measure for coronary disease, including LDL cholesterol, c-reactive protein, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, blood pressure.
--Coronary calcium scores yield a graded, trackable index of coronary risk. Scores that increase correlate with increased risk of cardiovascular events; scores that remain unchanged correlate with much reduced risk.
--A coronary calcium score of zero--no detectable calcium--correlates with extremely low 5-year risk for cardiovascular events.
--Coronary calcium scores correlate with other measures of coronary disease. Heart scans correlate with coronary angiography, quantitative coronary angiography, carotid ultrasound (intimal-medial thickness and plaque severity), ankle-brachial index, and stress tests, including radionuclide (nuclear) perfusion imaging.

The reluctance of my colleagues to embrace heart scans stems from two issues, for the most part:

1) No study has yet been performed showing that knowing what the score is vs. not knowing what the score is changes prognosis. That's true. But it is also true of the great majority of practices in medicine. While many wrongs don't make a right, the miserable and widespread failure of other coronary risk measures, like LDL cholesterol or c-reactive protein, to readily and reliably detect hidden coronary disease creates a gaping void for improved efforts at early detection. If your LDL cholesterol is 140 mg/dl, do you or don't you have coronary disease? If your doctor's response is "Just take a statin drug anyway" you've been done a great disservice. (If and when this sort of study gets done, its huge cost--outcome studies have to be large and last many years--it will likely be a statin study. It is unlikely it will include such Track Your Plaque strategies that help reduce heart scan scores, like vitamin D and correction of small LDL particles.)

2) Fears over overuse of hospital procedures triggered by heart scans. This is a legitimate concern--if the information provided by a heart scan is misused. Heart scans should never--NEVER--lead directly to heart catheterization, stents, bypass surgery. Heart scans do not change the indications for performing revascularization (angioplasty, stents, bypass). Just because 20% of my cardiology colleagues are more concerned with profit rather than patient welfare does not invalidate the value of the test. Just because the mechanic at the local garage gouged you by replacing a carburetor for $800 when all you need was a new spark plug does not mean that we should outlaw all auto mechanics. Abuse is the fault of the abuser, not of the tool used to exercise the abuse.

All in all, while I am not a fan of legislating behavior in healthcare, the blatant and extreme ignorance of this simple tool for uncovering hidden heart disease makes the Texas action a huge success for heart disease prevention. I hope that this success will raise awareness, not just in Texas, but in other states and cities in which similar systemic neglect is the rule.

Remember: CT heart scans are tools for prevention, not to uncover "need" for procedures. They serve as a starting point to decide whether or not an intensive program of prevention is in order, and I don't mean statin vs. no statin.

Though not a multi-million dollar statin drug study, I have NEVER seen a heart attack or "need" for procedure in any person who has stopped progression or reduced their heart scan score. A small cohort from my practice was reported:

Effect of a Combined Therapeutic Approach of Intensive Lipid Management, Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation, and Increased Serum 25 (OH) Vitamin D on Coronary Calcium Scores in Asymptomatic Adults.

Davis W, Rockway S, Kwasny M.

The impact of intensive lipid management, omega-3 fatty acid, and vitamin D3 supplementation on atherosclerotic plaque was assessed through serial computed tomography coronary calcium scoring (CCS). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction with statin therapy has not been shown to reduce or slow progression of serial CCS in several recent studies, casting doubt on the usefulness of this approach for tracking atherosclerotic progression. In an open-label study, 45 male and female subjects with CCS of >/= 50 without symptoms of heart disease were treated with statin therapy, niacin, and omega-3 fatty acid supplementation to achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides /=60 mg/dL; and vitamin D3 supplementation to achieve serum levels of >/=50 ng/mL 25(OH) vitamin D, in addition to diet advice. Lipid profiles of subjects were significantly changed as follows: total cholesterol -24%, low-density lipoprotein -41%; triglycerides -42%, high-density lipoprotein +19%, and mean serum 25(OH) vitamin D levels +83%. After a mean of 18 months, 20 subjects experienced decrease in CCS with mean change of -14.5% (range 0% to -64%); 22 subjects experienced no change or slow annual rate of CCS increase of +12% (range 1%-29%). Only 3 subjects experienced annual CCS progression exceeding 29% (44%-71%). Despite wide variation in response, substantial reduction of CCS was achieved in 44% of subjects and slowed plaque growth in 49% of the subjects applying a broad treatment program.

Take a look at the results from the Heart Scan Blog's most recent reader poll (399 respondents):

How many hours do you sleep per night (on average)?

9 or more hours per night
15 (3.7%)

8-9 hours per night
72 (18%)

7-8 hours per night
152 (38.1%)

6-7 hours per night
111 (27.8%)

5-6 hours per night
38 (9.5%)

Less than 5 hours per night
11 (2.8%)

Like many issues in health, too much or too little of a good thing can present undesirable consequences.

Too much sleep: While psychologists and sleep researchers advise us that at least 9 hours are required to fully eliminate sleep "debt" and achieve optimal vigilance and mental performance, epidemiologic studies have shown increased mortality with this quantity of sleep.

Too little sleep: Getting less than 7 hours habituallly increases blood sugar, appetite, inflammatory measures, and encourages weight gain. Mortality is also increased, just as with sleeping too much. It is also associated with increased likelihood of a positive heart scan score.

7-8 hours per night from a health viewpoint is that Goldlilocks "just right" value: just enough to not erode mental performance substantially, but not so little that inflammatory, insulin-disrupting, and appetite-increasing effects develop.

Of our 399 respondents in the poll, 56.1% (38% + 18%) slept what appears to be an optimal amount for health. While only 3.7% slept too much (9 hours or more), the remaining 40.1% slept too little.

Our informal poll confirms what most of us observe in everyday life: The majority of people shortchange sleep in order to meet the demands of their high-pressure, squeeze-as-much-as-possible-into-every-day lives. But not paying off your sleep "debt" is like not paying the mortgage for a couple of months. You wouldn't expect your friendly neighborhood bank to say, "Oh, you forgot to pay your mortgage? Forget about it. Just pay next month's." Sure, fat chance. But if you don't pay off your sleep "debt," you will pay it back with health.

Like many scams, this one follows a predictable formula.

It is a formula widely practiced among food manufacturers, ever since food products began to jockey for position based on nutritional composition and purported health benefits.

First, identify a component of food, such as wheat fiber or oat bran, that confers a health benefit. Then, validate the healthy effect in clinical studies. Wheat fiber, for instance, promotes bowel regularity and reduces the likelihood of colon cancer. Oat bran reduces blood cholesterol levels.

Second, commercialize food products that contain the purported healthy ingredient. Wheat bran becomes Shredded Wheat, Fiber One, and Raisin Bran cereals and an endless choice of “healthy” breads. Oat bran becomes Honey Bunches of Oats, Quaker’s Instant Oatmeal, and granola bars. Even if many unhealthy components are added, as long as the original healthy product is included, the manufacturer continues to lay claim to healthy effects.

Third, as long as the original healthy ingredient remains, get an agency like the American Heart Association to provide an endorsement: “American Heart Association Tested and Approved.”

The last step is the easiest: just pay for it, provided the product meets a set of requirements, no matter how lax.

You will find the American Heart Association certification on Quaker Instant Oatmeal Crunch Apples and Cinnamon. Each serving contains 39 grams carbohydrate, 16 grams sugar (approximately 4 teaspoons), and 2.5 grams fat of which 0.5 grams are saturated. Ingredients include sugar, corn syrup, flaked corn, and partially hydrogenated cottonseed oil. Curiously, of the 4 grams of fiber per serving, only 1 gram is the soluble variety, the sort that reduces cholesterol blood levels. (This relatively trivial quantity of soluble fiber is unlikely to impact significantly on cholesterol levels, since a minimum 3 grams of soluble fiber is the quantity required, as demonstrated in a number of clinical studies.) Nonetheless, this sugar product proudly wears the AHA endorsement.

Thus, a simple component of food that provides genuine benefit mushrooms into a cornucopia of new products with added ingredients: sugar, high fructose corn syrup, corn starch, carageenan, raisins, wheat flour, preservatives, hydrogenated oils, etc. What may have begun as a health benefit can quickly deteriorate into something that is patently unhealthy.

There’s a clever variation on this formula. Rather than developing products that include a healthy component, create products that simply lack an unhealthy ingredient, such as saturated or trans fats or sodium.

Thus, a ¾-cup serving of Cocoa Puffs cereal contains 120 calories, no fiber, 14 grams (3 ½ teaspoons) of sugar—but is low in fat and contains no saturated fat. Proudly displayed on the box front is an American Heart Association stamp of approval. It earned this stamp of approval because Cocoa Puffs was low in saturated, trans, and total fat and sodium. Likewise, Cookie Crisp cereal, featuring Chip the Wolf, a cartoon wolf in a red sweater (“The great taste of chocolate chip cookies and milk!”), has 160 calories, 26 grams carbohydrate and 19 grams (4½ teaspoons) of sugar per cup, and 0 grams fiber—but only 1.0 gram fat, none saturated, thus the AHA check mark. (Promise margarine, made with hydrogenated vegetable oil and therefore containing significant quantities of trans fats, was originally on the list, as well, but removed when the trans fat threshold was added to the AHA criteria.)

It is this phenomenon, the sleight of hand of taking a healthy component and tacking on a list of ingredients manageable only by food scientists, or asserting that a product is healthy just because it lacks a specific undesirable ingredient, that is a major factor in the extraordinary and unprecedented boom in obesity in the U.S. Imagine the chemical industry were permitted such latitude: “Our pesticide is deemed safe by the USDA because it contains no PCBs.” Such is the ill-conceived logic of the AHA Heart-Check program the "Heart Healthy" claims.

It’s best we keep in mind the observations of New York University nutritionist and author of the book, Food Politics, Marion Nestle, that “food companies—just like companies that sell cigarettes, pharmaceuticals, or any other commodity—routinely place the needs of stock holders over considerations of public health. Food companies will make and market any product that sells, regardless of its nutritional value or its effect on health. In this regard, food companies hardly differ from cigarette companies. They lobby Congress to eliminate regulations perceived as unfavorable; they press federal regulatory agencies not to enforce such regulations; and when they don’t like regulatory decisions, they file lawsuits. Like cigarette companies, food companies co-opt food and nutrition experts by supporting professional organizations and research, and they expand sales by marketing directly to children, members of minority groups, and people in develop countries—whether or not the products are likely to improve people’s diets.”

Qualms over just how heart-healthy their products are? Doubtful.

Once upon a time, the tobacco industry was guilty of conducting a widespread, systematic, highly organized campaign to deliver their product to as much of the unsuspecting public as possible.

As clinical data mounted linking smoking and health problems like cancer and heart disease, tobacco producers labored fiercely to counter these claims despite darkening public sentiment. When individual company executives were questioned on why they continued to perpetuate the industry’s scandalous practices, the invariable justification offered was “Well, I had to pay my mortgage.” That tidy ends-justifies-the-means rationalization has a familiar ring when you examine the behavior of those in the heart "industry."

Things are not what they seem. The hospital, once an institution to serve the sick, a place for clergy, volunteers, and other altruists, has evolved into a business serving a thriving bottom line. You are the “product” they seek. The cardiologist, ostensibly in the service of alleviating heart disease, instead seeks to grow his checkbook by performing procedures that have nothing to do with lessening the burden of heart disease. He dives into the water to save drowning victim after drowning victim, but fails to simply toss in the life preserver that has been close at hand all along.

The woeful family practitioner, who is expected to bear undue responsibility for the broad spectrum of health, ignorantly permits heart disease to grow under his or her nose and, by default, allows heart disease to become the exclusive province of the proceduralist. Worse, the family practitioner or internist in the employ of the hospital (a situation that has quietly grown to encompass 80% of all primary care physicians) labors to fatten hospital business by directing patients into hospital services. The comparative lowly incomes of the primary care physician are substantially supplemented by participating in this huge revenue-generating machine called heart care.

The astounding grasp of the system has caused one of every 10 adults in the U.S. to have undergone a heart procedure. The lemming-like procession to the hospital creates a crowd mentality among some sectors of the frightened public. “My friends and neighbors have all had bypass operations. Sooner or later I guess it’s going to be my turn.”

Tragically, the system has grown through the exploitation of trust. The faith we have in doctors, hospitals, and the institutions and people associated with healthcare has been subverted into the service of profit. Many practitioners and institutions choose to operate under the guise of doing good, but instead capitalize on the public’s willingness to accept as fact the need for major heart procedures and all its associated costly trappings.

"When banks compete, you win.”

The TV ad opens with a 60-something man sitting in his living room, talking to a three-piece suit-clad, 30-something banker. The older man is explaining to the dismayed younger man why he’s going to use Lending Tree loan service for a home loan.

“But Dad, I’m you’re son!” the younger whines.

Many of Lending Tree’s clients have collaborated in filing a multi-million dollar class action suit against the company, claiming “bait and switch” tactics. They claim that home buyers are lured by low interest rates or low closing costs on a home loan. Once the buyer concludes the hassle of filling out numerous forms, the suit accuses Lending Tree of making a switch to a costlier loan.

Bait and switch is among the oldest con games around. If you’ve ever bought a car from a car dealer, chances are you’ve had your own little brush with this deception. The ad promises the SUV you’ve wanted for only $299 per month. Only, once you get there, the salesman informs you that only a limited number of special deals were available and they’ve run out. But he’s still got a really good deal right over here!

Most of us recognize that we’ve been hookwinked. Yet we still go along and buy a car from the dealer.

What if it’s not a sleazy salesman behind the pitch, but a physician. If it’s hard to resist the sales pitch at the car dealership, it can be near impossible to ignore the advice of your doctor. But the truth is often loud and clear: in many instances, it is a genuine, bona fide, and fully-certified scam.

Among the most common bait-and-switch heart scams: Your cholesterol is high. The sequence of subsequent testing is well-rehearsed. “Gee, Bob, I’m worried about your risk for heart disease. Let’s schedule you for a nuclear stress test.”

The stress test, like 20% or more of them, is “falsely positive,” meaning abnormal even though there’s nothing wrong with you. Another 30% are equivocal, not clearly abnormal but also not clearly normal. Now up to 50% of people tested “need” a heart catheterization in the hospital to clarify this frightening uncertainty. You might end up with a stent or two, even bypass surgery. Your simple $20 cholesterol panel has metamorphosed into $100,000 in hospital procedures.

That familiar sequence is followed thousands of times, seven days a week, 365 days a year.

Congestive heart failure is among the most common diagnoses in the hospital nowadays.

Congestive heart failure is the result of injury to the heart muscle such as that occurring during heart attack, viral infections of the heart (myocarditis), poorly controlled high blood pressure, and a smattering of other rare causes. Eight million Americans with congestive heart failure account for over one million hospital admissions annually (AHA Update, 2007). It has become so common, in fact, that it has ranked as number one cause for hospital admission for the last several years.

Heart failure is a frightening condition causing the sufferer to gasp for breath. Excess fluid accumulates in the lungs, amplifying the work of breathing and imparting a feeling of unease. Some heart failure sufferers struggle to the point of blacking out or requiring mechanical ventilation on a respirator.

There are a number of standard treatments for heart failure that usually rapidly rescue the patient from the brink of respiratory failure. These generally consist of intravenous diuretics that force the kidney to clear excess water rapidly, medications to increase heart muscle strength, and other treatments. It’s not uncommon for a heart failure patient to drop 10–20 lbs. in water weight with treatment. The treatments are quite effective for the majority of patients with rapid relief of the breathlessness generally obtained within hours.

However, the problem with congestive heart failure is not generally the rapidity or effectiveness of acutely providing relief, it is the chronic recurring nature of the disease. Someone can come to the hospital, obtain prompt treatment with relief of the breathlessness within 48–72 hours, only to return to the hospital in several weeks with a recurrence of the same process.

As common as congestive heart is in hospitals, it has also presented the perennial problem: how to convert this frequent reason for hospitalization into a profit opportunity. Some people who experience heart failure will undergo the usual sequence of heart procedures of heart catheterization, stents, bypass surgery, valve surgery, etc. But, because heart failure tends to be a repeatedly recurring event, even patients tire of the “need” for heart procedures. Then how can more heart failure occurrences be converted into profitable events?

A unique principle operates in the medical device market: If a disease lacks a procedure . . . create one.

Several problems are solved by such a principle. First, procedures are much more generously reimbursed by insurers than standard medical care without procedures. Two, the physician is provided an opportunity to also bill at a higher level. Third, patients often love the more dramatic, heroic nature of procedures, whether or not there is true benefit.

To the rescue of the poorly reimbursed area of congestive heart failure walks a Minnesota company called CHF Solutions, Inc., manufacturers of the Aquadex device.

Cost? $14,500 plus $900 per filter every time a patient gets one treatment. The Aquadex works by a decades-old process called ultrafiltration, used for many years but used principally for kidney failure not severe enough to require regular dialysis. New York cardiologist Howard Levin simply adapted the process, using smaller catheters inserted into the arm veins, in 2000. As in conventional ultrafiltration, blood is taken from the body from a catheter, passed through a filter that removes excess water, then returned to the body.

This is a serious effort. Dr. Levin raised $51 million in venture backing on top of $12 million seed capital. The device sailed through the Food & Drug Administration in June 2002, since it was labeled a newer form of ultrafiltration, thereby obtaining approval through the FDA’s 501k rule, a minor modification of existing technology. (Many truly technologically unique devices do come to market and therefore require the full process of FDA approval, a generally lengthy and costly process for devices. However, there’s another way: bill a device as “substantially equivalent” to an existing technology and the approval process is relatively quick and easy.)

In an industry publication, Cath Lab Digest, Dr. Levin was interviewed in February, 2003, and proclaimed, “We can treat many of the symptoms of heart failure, but we’re a long ways off from a cure. That’s why new technologies are so exciting, such as LVADs for the very sickest heart failure patients; biventricular pacing for the small subset of patients who seem to benefit from it; and simplified ultrafiltration such as the System 100 that can be applied to a broad range of congestive heart failure patients with fluid overload. “

What does this have to do with heart scans and heart disease reversal? Nothing-directly. I highlight this phenomenon because it caricatures how things work in medicine and health care in general, more so in cardiovascular diseases in which the profit motive is especially deeply ingrained. Focus on a need, then generate a profitable treatment for it. Profits are what drive growth, marketing, sales, and expansion into new revenue-generating niches.

Sadly, the reverse principle does not work: Replace profitable procedures with unprofitable strategies, regardless of their effectiveness. Replacing coronary angioplasty and coronary stent implantation, or bypass surgery, with intensive prevention efforts is no easy matter. Just witness the enormous resistance to the concept of early heart disease detection achieved with heart scans. A day doesn’t go by without a major media outlet bashing heart scans, or confusing them with CT coronary angiograms with claims of excessive radiation.

But the mounting volume of criticisms against heart scans also means that they are gaining some traction in mainstream thinking. But will there be a day when they replace the need for profitable procedures? I believe they will, when coupled with a powerful program of prevention, but don’t hold your breath.

A friend of mine is a Type I, or childhood onset, diabetic. He's had it for nearly 50 years, since age 6. He's also in the health industry and is a good observer of detail.

He made the following interesting comments to me recently when talking about the effects of various foods on blood sugar:

"When I eat normally, like some vegetables or salad and meat, I dose up to 10 units of insulin to control my blood sugar.

"If I eat a turkey sandwich on two slices of whole wheat, I usually dose 15 units. The bread makes my blood sugar go to 300 if I don't.

"If I eat a Cousins's Sub [a local submarine sandwich chain], I dose 15 units. The bread really makes my blood sugar go up.

"I can only eat a Quarter Pound from McDonald's once a year, because it make my blood sugar go nuts. I dose 15-20 units before having it, and I feel like crap for two days afterwards.

"If I eat Mexican food, I have to dose 15-20 units. For some reason, it's gotten worse over the years, and I need to dose higher and higher.

"Chinese food is the absolute worst. I dose 20-25 units before eating Chinese. I'll often have to dose more afterwards, because my blood sugar goes so berserk."

Nothing beats the real-world observations on the impact of various foods on blood sugar than the observations of people with Type I diabetes. All the insulin they get is in a syringe. Dosing needs to match intake.

Personally, though I love the taste of Americanized Chinese food, I've always been suspicious of what exactly goes into these dishes. But I was unaware of the blood sugar implications.

The impact of Mexican I believe can be attributed to the cornstarch used in the tacos and tortillas, though I also wonder if there are other starches being snuck in, as well.

Image courtesy of apc33.

Japan provides a useful "laboratory" for studying the effect of a culture that relies heavily on eating fish.

The JELIS Trial, the topic of a previous Heart Scan Blog post, showed that supplementation with the single omega-3 fatty acid, EPA, 1800 mg per day (the equivalent of 10 capsules of 'standard' fish oil that contains 180 mg per day of EPA, 120 mg of DHA) significantly reduced heart attack in a Japanese population. Interestingly, this benefit was additive to the already substantial intake of omega-3 fatty acids among the general Japanese population, a population with a fraction of the heart attacks found in western populations like the U.S. (approximately 3% over 5 years in Japanese compared to several-fold higher in a comparable American group).

While there may be genetic and other cultural and lifestyle reasons behind the dramatically reduced cardiovascular risk in Japanese, it is undeniably at least partially due to the increased intake of omega-3 fatty acids from fish. Incidentally, the purported benefits of omega-3 fatty acids provide a vigorous counter-argument to the idea that all humans should be vegetarians.

Anyway, if we were to take some lessons from the Japanese and their greater habitual intake of omega-3 fatty acids from fish, they might include:

--Rural and coastal Japanese are the sub-populations with the highest reliance on fish, about a quarter-pound a day. (Gives new meaning to the idea of a "Quarter Pounder," doesn't it?) This is at least five-times greater than the intake of an average American.

--Likewise, the blood level of omega-3s in the blood of Japanese is 5-fold higher than in Americans.

--The average intake of omega-3s (EPA + DHA) among a broadly-selected population of Japanese is 850 mg per day (320 mg EPA; 520 mg DHA). Intake ranges from 300 mg per day all the way up to 3100 mg per day.

--Greater omega-3 intake (EPA + DHA) is associated with lesser carotid intimal-medial thickness, an index of body-wide atherosclerosis.

--Japanese have far less heart attack and stroke despite greater prevalence of smoking (nearly half of Japanese) and drinking.

--Total fat intake (percent of calories) is nearly identical between Americans and Japanese. It's the proportion of fat calories from omega-3 that is greater, the proportion of omega-6 that is less in Japanese.

The Japanese eat their fish in ways that we do not: As sashimi (raw, as with sushi in its various forms like Nigiri and Chirashi); fried in tempura; shaved, dried fish sprinkled on about anything you can imagine (it's not as bad as it sounds); as a snack, as in dried cuttlefish (which you can purchase in packages as a portable, sweetened fish that you eat on-the-run--I know it sounds awful, but don't poke fun at it until you've tried it); in "soups" with soba noodles. Fish is commonly consumed with rice and soy sauce, as well as other soy-based foods, such as tofu, miso (soy bean paste), or natto.

I believe that there are some lessons to take from the Japanese and their fish-consuming habits:

1) An omega-3 fatty acid intake of at least 1000 mg per day yields measurable cardiovascular benefits.

2) Despite the fears over mercury and pesticide residues in fish, this seems to not have played out to be a real-life effect in the Japanese, who consume five-fold greater quantities of fish.

3) My mother was right after all when she encouraged us to eat more fish.

Drs. Iris Shai and colleagues released results of a new Israeli study, the Dietary Intervention Randomized Controlled Trial (DIRECT) Trial, that compared three different diet strategies. Of those tested, a low-carbohydrate diet was most successful at achieving weight loss.

You can find the full-text of the study on the New England Journal of Medicine website.

322 participants followed one of three diets over two year period. Compared head-to-head, the (mean) weight loss in each group was:

• 2.9 kg (6.4 lbs) for the low-fat group
• 4.4 kg (9.7 lbs) for the Mediterranean-diet group
• 4.7 kg (10.3 lbs) for the low-carbohydrate group

(Average age 52 years at start; average body-mass index, or BMI, 31.)

The conclusion was that the low-carb diet performed the best, with 60% greater weight loss, with the Mediterranean diet a close second.

The diets

The low-fat diet was based on the American Heart Association diet, with 30% of calories from fat (10% from saturated fat) and food choices weighted towards low-fat grains, vegetables, fruits, and legumes and limited additional fats, sweets, and high-fat snacks; calorie intake of 1500 kcal per day for women and 1800 kcal per day for men was encouraged.

The Mediterranean diet was a moderate-fat diet rich in vegetables, with reduced red meat, and poultry and fish replacing beef and lamb. Total calories from fat of 35% per day or less was the goal, with most fat calories from olive oil and a handful of nuts. Like the low-fat program, calories were limited to 1500 kcal per day for women, 1800 kcal per day for men.

The low-carbohydrate diet was patterned after the popular Atkins’ program, with 8% participants achieving the ketosis that Dr. Atkins’ advocated as evidence that a fat-burning metabolism was activated, rather than sugar-burning as fuel. For the 2-month “induction phase,” 20 grams of carbohydrates per day was set as the goal, followed by 120 grams per day once the weight goal was achieved. Unlike the other two diets, calories, protein and fat were unlimited.

Weight loss, lipids, inflammation

You can see from the weight loss graph that the low-carb approach exerted the most dramatic initial weight loss. Interestingly, much of the weight-loss benefit was lost as the carbohydrate intake increased, by study design, back to 120 mg per day. However, the other two diet approaches showed similar phenomena of “giving back” some of the initial weight loss.

The low-carbohydrate diet exerted the greatest change in cholesterol, or lipid, panels: increased HDL 8.4 mg/dl vs. 6.3 mg/dl on low-fat; the triglyceride response was the most dramatic, with a reduction of 23.7 mg/dl vs. 3.7 mg/dl on low-fat. Interestingly, the LDL cholesterol-reducing effect of all three diets was modest, with the most reduction achieved by the Mediteranean diet.

The inflammatory measure, C-reactive protein (CRP), was reduced most effectively by the low-carb and Mediterranean diets, least by the low-fat diet. HbA1c, a measure of long-term blood sugar, dropped significantly more on the low-carb diet.

When the final dietary composition was examined, interestingly, there really were only modest differences among the three diets, with 8% less calories from carbs, 8% greater calories from fat, comparing low-carb to low-fat, with Mediterranean intermediate.

Taken at face value, this useful exercise quite clearly shows that, from the perspective of weight loss and correction of metabolic parameters like triglycerides, HDL,CRP, and blood sugar, low-carbohydrate wins hands down, with Mediterranean diet a close second.

It also suggests that a return to a carbohydrate intake of 120 mg/day allows a partial return of initial weight lost, as well as deterioration of metabolic parameters after the initial positive changes.

Although the study has already received some criticism for such potential flaws as the modest number of Atkins’ followers achieving ketosis (8%), suggesting lax adherence, and the reintroduction of the 120 mg/day carbohydrate advice, I can suspect that these may have been compromises drawn to satisfy some Institutional Review Board. (Whenever a study is going to be conducted involving human subjects, a study needs to pass through the review of an Institutional Review Board, or IRB. IRB’s, while charged to protect human subjects from experimental abuses, also tend to be painfully conservative and will block a study or demand changes even if they are not dangerous, but just veer too far off the mainstream.)

However, several unanswered questions remain:

1) How would the diets have compared if the carbohydrate restriction were continued for a longer period, or even indefinitely? (The divergences would likely have been dramatic.)
2) Will low-carb exert the same cardiovascular event reduction that the Mediterranean approach has shown in the Lyon study and others?
3) Are there effects on health outside of the measures followed that differ among the three diets, such as cancer? (I doubt it, especially given the modest real differences over time. But this will be the objection raised by various "official" organizations.)

I would further propose that:

Low-fat diets are dead

The AHA will cling to their version of low-fat diet, based on difficulty in changing course for any large, consensus-driven organization, not to mention the substantial ($100’s of millions) revenues derived from endorsing low-fat manufactured products. The AHA will also point to the lack of difference in LDL cholesterol among the three, since they cannot get beyond the fact that there’s more to coronary risk—a lot more—than LDL.

Off-the-shelf diets achieve off-the-shelf results

If you just need a T-shirt, a medium might fit fine. But if you’d like a nicely fitting suit or dress, then tailoring to your individual proportions is needed. When aiming towards maximizing benefits on lipoproteins and coronary risk, none of these diets achieve the kinds of changes we often need for coronary plaque reversal, as in the Track Your Plaque program. That requires making dietary changes that exert maximal effects on lipoprotein patterns.

I came across a criticism of the Track Your Plaque program recently that suggested that it was nothing more than a program to sell CT heart scans.

Huh?

I suppose if you say that the Track Your Plaque program is nothing more than a way to sell heart disease prevention, omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil, vitamin D, better nutrition, and better identification of causes of heart disease . . . well, I believe that would be true.

But is the program a "front" to sell heart scans?

No, it is not, nor has it ever been.

I've heard about these peculiar suspicions about the program before. Though I've never taken them seriously, let me clear up any lingering uncertainty:

--I have no relationship with any heart scan center, scanning facility, or hospital other than to interpret heart scans.

I do not own a scanner, I have no financial interest in a scanner or scanning center, nor have I ever had any interest. I also have no plans to do so in the future. Let business people in the imaging business do that. I want no part of it. I have seen what these people go through and, frankly, I want no part of it, nor do I want the appearance that I am advocating scans to make money. I'm accused of trying to make money from scans even when I do not have any financial interest!

--I do not sell heart scans or imaging packages, nor have I ever done so.

You can't buy a scan through Track Your Plaque, The Heart Scan Blog, or through me. To me, heart scans are simply a measuring tool to identify the extent of coronary plaque, as well as a tracking tool to follow its course. Without it, there would be no Track Your Plaque. But there is also no alternative. The closest alternative would be carotid intimal-medial thickness, a technique, while useful, is a distant second choice to indirectly gauge coronary plaque by examining the thickness of the carotid lining (not carotid plaque). Perhaps in 10 years, a better measure to gauge and track coronary plaque will emerge that has superior aspects over CT heart scanning. If reasonable, safe, accessible, and quantitative, then Track Your Plaque may adopt that technology as its measuring tool.

Track Your Plaque is not about heart scanning; Track Your Plaque is about measuring and tracking plaque that, in 2008, is still best accomplished with CT heart scans.

--I make loads of money from heart scans and Track Your Plaque.

Yeah, right.

Track Your Plaque is a volunteer venture for my team; none of us get paid a penny for doing all we do, including me. We charge a membership fee on the website (somewhere around $6-7 a month) to pay our expenses, such as code writing for our proprietary software (much of it remains under development), printing costs, modest legal costs, the costs of doing business (e.g., accountant). Despite the fact that Track Your Plaque and the Heart Scan Blog occupies a substantial part of the day of the Track Your Plaque team, none of us are reimbursed for our time. I do believe, however, that this concept is so enormously powerful that it will, someday, pay us all enough to allow us to devote more time and effort to it.

Personally, I can't wait to devote more time and effort to this concept that is simple, logical, and effective. More research is needed, more development is needed, more discussion is needed. Right now, it is all accomplished outside of our busy schedules, including my full-time cardiology practice. I continue to have 7 am procedures, middle-of-the-night calls, weekend hospital rounds and emergencies (though virtually none of these are the patients involved in prevention, but the "other" people: atrial fibrillation, elderly heart failure patients, rhythm disorders, cardiomyopathies, pulmonary hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, the non-compliant).

--The book, Track Your Plaque, is a gimmick to sell you a heart scan.

No, it's a program that relies on this technology. But there's no special deal, no discounts, no steering to heart scan centers that I have a special arrangement with. No such thing exists, nor has there ever been such an arrangement.

I've heard it all. Early on, when I was helping my friend, Steve Burlingame and his wife, Nancy, set up Milwaukee Heart Scan, I helped by providing medical oversite, education of physicians and public, and interpreting heart scans. After all, in the "early days," nobody knew anything about heart scans. It was a long, hard climb against ignorance, habit, entrenched thinking, stubbornness, and stupidity. I've been paid next to nothing for all this. I told Steve long ago that, given the extraordinary expenses of maintaining an independent scanning center, that he should first pay his expenses, pay his technologists, receptionists, and nurse, pay himself, then pay me for reading scans if he had any money left over. Most of the time, Steve had nothing left over and I was paid nothing.

So, while some of my colleagues were assuming that I was rolling in money from "promoting" heart scans, the reality was that I was doing nearly everything for free. (It certainly wasn't the high life I was living; I don't drive a Mercedes, take fancy vacations, none of that. In fact, I work about 51 weeks a year.)

Why do I do this if it doesn't yield a big flow of money? Because I believe in it as a superior path to the conventional. If I were simply interested in making more money--I wouldn't do it. I would simply do what all my cardiology colleagues are doing: more heart catheterizations, more angioplasties and stents, learning how to do carotid stents, iliac stents, peripheral angioplasty, renal stents, acquiring the skills to put in defibrillators, new device insertion like umbrellas in the interatrial septum, etc. There's plenty more money in that. It's also not that hard. I know, because that is my background: high-risk cardiac interventions. That's what I was trained to do, that's what I did from a number years, until I started to see that this was nothing more than "putting out fires" in people who became increasingly ill and reliant on bail-out procedures. It makes lots of money, but it is also fundamentally wrong.

So, no, I do not sell heart scans, nor is the Track Your Plaque program or The Heart Scan Blog meant to promote heart scans except as a tool for tracking this disease.

That's it, pure and simple.

Which is more important: cholesterol or coronary plaque?

Ask what Dr. Michael Eades' calls "statinators," and you will likely receive a befuddled look. Or, you might receive comments like "Measuring plaque has never been shown to reduce mortality."

While risk factors for heart disease are important, no doubt (my office practice is about half lipid consultation and complex hyperlipidemia management), for many they have become an end in themselves. In other words, LDL cholesterol in particular dominates thinking so much that it has caused many to exclude the fact that plaque---coronary atherosclerotic plaque---is the disease itself.

Dozens of studies, from the St. Francis Heart Study to the 25,000-participant UCLA registry, to the recently-released MESA database (ethic differences, women, as well as superiority to carotid measures) have repeatedly shown that heart scan scores (coronary artery calcium scores) are superior to conventional risk factors (usually via the Framingham risk score) for predicting future heart attack and other events. And the differences are not minor incremental differences. The predictive power of plaque measurement via heart scanning is multiples better: 4 times, 10 times, 20 times or more in various subgroups.

Much of what we do in medicine is not based on long-term studies of outcome, pitting some diagnostic measure or treatment against placebo. It is already standard practice to measure plaque via heart catheterization, crudely via stress testing, and increasingly popular CT coronary angiography. None of these methods have been subjected to studies comparing testing vs. not testing in a large population, followed by some program of prevention to assess differences in mortality, heart attack, and other events.

Why should heart scan be held to such a standard?

Dr. Scott Grundy, lipid guru and one of the experts who sat on the Adult Treatment Panel-II for lipid management guidelines, recently stated [emphasis added]:

"Imaging has at least 3 virtues. It individualizes risk assessment beyond use of age, which is a less reliable surrogate for atherosclerosis burden; it provides an integrated assessment of the lifetime exposure to risk factors; and it identifies individuals who are susceptible to developing atherosclerosis beyond established risk factors. Also of importance, in the absence of detectable atherosclerosis, short-term risk appears to be very low."

Well said, and from a vocal statinator, to boot.

Sadly, Dr. Grundy goes on to say how plaque imaging can serve to better determine who will benefit from statin drug use.

Of course, you and I know that there is far more to reduction of cardiovascular risk applied to a framework of serial plaque quantification ("tracking plaque"!) than statin drugs. I doubt that a man as intelligent as Dr. Grundy truly believes this. I suspect that he is simply stating what he knows what will be published without resistance in the standard medical literature, trying to achieve a modest incremental success just by raising consciousness about heart scanning and plaque imaging: first things first.

Maybe next will be a plaque-tracking, or even a plaque-reducing, mainstream conversation, just like the one we've been conducting for the past four years.

Joe was a Track Your Plaque Success Story. With a starting heart scan score of 278, he dropped it 12 months later to 264, a 5% reduction. Though not a huge reduction, Joe's risk for a heart attack or other coronary event was virtually zero. I was very proud of Joe.

Among the culprit lipoprotein patterns that caused Joe's plaque was lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a). Niacin was therefore crucial to his program. It was among the principal reasons he dropped his heart scan score and reduced his risk for heart attack so dramatically.

Since he retired, Joe has been freewheeling around the country, traveling and having a great time. He consequently stopped thinking about his heart disease and Lp(a). He also tired of the occasional hot flushes he'd experienced with niacin. Though the flushes were promptly aborted by drinking two glasses of water, he simply didn't want to be bothered.

So when Joe saw this interesting and tantalizing "flush-free niacin" on the store shelf, he grabbed it.

Joe came back to the office. His blood pressure was 190/94, so high that he was having occasional chest pains from it (which can happen when something called "left ventricular diastolic dysfunction" develops from hypertension). His lipoprotein patterns were terrible, including a big upward jump in Lp(a) and drop in HDL. So I asked him to have another heart scan right away: Score 371, a 40% increase. In other words, his program went down the toilet.

Why?

Simple: Flush-free niacin. I've said it before (No flush = No effect and No flush niacin kills) and I'll say it again:

Flush-free or No-flush niacin is a complete, unadulterated, completely ineffective SCAM.

Flush-free or no-flush niacin is not a substitute for niacin. Joe is yet another example of how dangerous this scam can be. It turned one of our great success stories into a failure.

Please, please, please do not fall for this misleading and potentially dangerous scam product. While the product itself is not intrinsically dangerous, it denies you the benefits of the real thing: niacin.

Thankfully, the mistake in Joe's program was caught before a heart attack or other catastrophe. He did manage to pass a stress test, though with a flagrantly out-of-control blood pressure response. We'll get him back on track--but with niacin, the real thing.

Where do you find fructose?

Do heart scans cause cancer?

Goodbye, fructose

The statin-free life

Creatine: Not just for muscle heads

The ultimate “bioidentical” hormone

Roger's near-miss CT angiogram experience

The Myth of Prevention: Letter to the Wall Street Journal

A victory for SHAPE, CT heart scans, and doing what is RIGHT

Sleep: A to Zzzzzzzzzz

The “Heart Healthy” scam

Exploitation of trust

Bait and switch

If a disease lacks a procedure . . . create one

Blood sugar lessons from a Type I diabetic

Lessons about omega-3s from Japan

DIRECT Study result: Low-carb, Mediterranean diets win weight-loss battle

Do I sell heart scans?

Plaque is the new cholesterol

Track Your Plaque success story blows it