I dare you: Ask your doctor whether coronary heart disease can be reversed.

My prediction is that the answer will be a flat "NO." Or, something like "rarely, in extraordinary cases," kind of like spontaneous cure of cancer.

There are indeed discussions that have developed over the years in the conventional scientific and medical literature about reversal of heart disease, like Dean Ornish's Lifestyle Heart Trial, the REVERSAL Trial of atorvastatin (Lipitor) and the ASTEROID Trial of rosuvastatin (Crestor). Reversal of atherosclerotic plaque in these trials tends to be small in scale and sporadic.

Of course, the medical literature is swamped with studies that have nothing to do with reversal, like what stent is best, what platelet-inhibiting intravenous drug is best, when should angioplasty or stents be used and when, do implantable defibrillators save lives, improvements in coronary bypass techniques, etc. There are tens of thousands of these studies for every study that focuses on the question of atherosclerotic plaque reversal.

The concept of reversal of heart disease has simply not gained a foothold in the lexicon nor in the thinking of practicing physicians. Heart disease is a relentlessly, unavoidably, and helplessly progressive disease in their way of thinking. Perhaps we can reduce the likelihood of cardiovascular events like heart attack and death with statin drugs and beta blockers. But reverse heart disease ? In your dreams!

We need to change this mentality. Heart disease is a reversible phenomenon. Atherosclerosis in other territories like the carotid arteries is also a reversible pheneomenon. Rather than throwing medicines and (ineffective) diets at you (like the ridiculous American Heart Association program), what if your doctor set out from the start not just to reduce events, but to purposefully reduce your heart's plaque? While it might not succeed in everyone, it would certainly change the focus dramatically.

After all, isn't this the theme followed in cancer treatment? If you had a tumor, isn't cure the goal? Would we accept an oncologist's advice to simply reduce the likelihood of death from cancer but ignore the idea of ridding yourself completely of the disease? I don't think so.

Then why accept "event reduction" as a goal in heart disease? We shouldn't have to. Heart disease reversal--elimination--should be the goal.

Once upon a time, remember how medical information was mysterious, hospitals were places where frightening, inscrutable things happened, diseases were strange maladies that struck without reason, and obtaining information about health was like hunting for buried treasure? The full extent of many peoples' understanding of health came through relatively anemic sources like Readers' Digest. (Remember "I am Joe's Colon"?)

Compare this to what we have now. If I wanted to obtain information about ankylosing spondylitis (a rare genetic disease of the spine), a Google search yields 1.46 million citations. Not all the information, of course, is helpful or relevant, but there's certain to be a bounty of information that far exceeds what you could have uncovered 40 years ago.

Suppose you enter the search phrase "antithrombin III" into your Google search. Citations: over 900,000. (The number of search citations, in fact, exceeds the number of Americans with a deficiency of this blood clotting protein!)

The same is true with heart disease. There was a time, not more than 30-40 years ago, when information about the heart and heart disease was hard to come by. The most you would find were superficial discussions about heart attacks, what chest pain means, descriptions of bypass surgery. Ask your doctor, you'd likely receive a brief, cursory response about how you probably shouldn't worry it.

Even during medical school in the 1980s, I remember struggling to get answers to my questions from faculty during medical school and medical training. It was as if providing too much information would eliminate the advantage superiors wielded over trainees.

The same selfish sentiment, the "I know something you don't know" mentality reminiscent of a schoolboy's "naa na na naa naa!" unfortunately persists. But it is rapidly disintegrating. Soon it will join the junk heap of medical mis-information accumulated over the years (a big pile, to be sure). The internet and, I'll admit (grudgingly), the media, have been responsible for demystifying the formerly mysterious and indecipherable world of health.

You now have, at a moment's disposal, access to an extraordinary array and breadth of health information that was inconceivable just a few years ago.

Times are changing. Doctors no longer hold the monopoly over health information. The public--YOU--are rapidly becoming the arbiters of health, the informed consumers of a soon-to-be retail product called health care, and the increasingly savvy judges of what should join the mainstream path of health. It is all part of this wave of change that I've been advocating: the emerging concept of self-empowerment in healthcare.

Added to the junk heap of health-mistakes-of-years-past will be medical protectionism over health information, heart procedures, drug industry excesses, nutritional mis-information, among others. The demystification of health information will open the floodgates of individual insight into health. It delivers control over your own health destiny straight into your own lap.

Walking the supermarket aisles, you may have lately noticed that numerous new products are appearing sporting "omega-3s" on the label.

Some products simply contain alpha-linolenic acid, a tiny amount of which is converted to the biologically active omega-3s, EPA and DHA. Natural Ovens' Brainy Bagel, for instance, carries a claim of "620 omega-3."

I find this confusing and misleading, since people will often interpret such a claim to mean that it contains 620 of EPA and DHA, similar to two capsules of standard fish oil (1000 mg capsules). Of course, it does NOT. I find this especially troublesome when people will actually stop or reduce their fish oil, since they've been misled into thinking that products like this bread contain active omega-3 fatty acids that yield all the benefits of the "real stuff."

Other products actually contain the omega-3, DHA, though usually in small quantities. Breyer's Smart with DHA is an example, with 32 mg DHA per container.

I find products with actual DHA (from algae) a more credible claim. However, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has looked at the actual contents of DHA in some of these products and found some discrepancies, including amounts of DHA less than the labeled amount and claims of omega-3 wihtout specifying DHA vs. linolenic acid. (It's probably linolenic acid, if it's not specified.)

All in all, the addition of DHA to food products is a nice way to boost your intake of this healthy omega-3. However, keep in mind that these are processed, often highly processed, foods and you will likely pay a premium for the little boost. For now, stick to fish oil, the real thing.

For a brief summary of the CSPI report and a link to the Nutrition Action Newsletter, see Omega-3 Madness: Fish Oil or Snake Oil.

I'm sitting at dinner with two colleagues. One is a cardiology colleague, another an internist who, in addition to practicing general internal medicine, also takes heart disease prevention very seriously. He has, in fact, participated in the Track Your Plaque program and dropped his heart scan score substantially.

"Why don't we see you in the cath lab much?" my cardiology colleague asked me. He was puzzled, since he knew my background in cath lab work from years before, spending day and night doing procedure after procedure. He spends virtually all his days there.

"Well, my patients simply don't have events any more. Heart attacks and angina among people in my program are just about non-existent. They don't have symptoms and they don't have to go to the hospital. I can't remember the last time that I was woken up in the middle of the night for an urgent procedure for one of my patients."

The internist across the table smiled and expressed his agreement. "That's the same thing I'm seeing: No heart attacks, very few if any referrals to cardiologists for procedures. I remember when it was a several times a week thing. Now, almost never. "

Looking at my cardiology colleague, I saw the usual cardiologist reaction: Eyes searching left and right and behind us for something more interesting. Certainly, talking about a virtual cure for coronary heart disease was just too damn dull.

Such is the attitude of 98% of my colleagues: If it doesn't generate a revenue-producing procedure, why bother? Prevention is for general practitioners, the line of thinking goes. "And anyway, I'm too busy doing procedures! I don't ahve time to talk about prevention and health!" Of course, the poor general practitioner is already overloaded with caring for arthritis, flu, diabetes and all the new drugs for diabetes, headaches, vaccinations, diarrhea, and . . .oh, yes, heart disease prevention.

Are cardiologists the enemy? No, of course they are are not. But they often act like they are. Talking to cardiologists is like going to the car dealer with your checkbook out, pen in hand. The salesman gets to write the check himself and you just sign it. Talk to a cardiologist and more often than not you will end up with a heart procedure--whether or not you need it.

Unfortunately--tragically--they often forget what they are supposed to be doing: Taking care of a disease by preventing it. Putting in a defibrillator is not preventing a disease. Putting in three stents, laser angioplasty, and thrombectomy are not ways of preventing a disease.

I'm thankful for my internist friend who sees the light. Coronary heart disease is a an easily measurable, quantifiable, preventable, and REVERSIBLE process for many, if not most, people when provided the right tools. But don't ask your neighborhood cardiologists to give you those tools.

Was torcetrapib’s crash and burn fatal for this class of drug?

At the 2007 American Heart Association meetings in Orlando, Florida, Dr. Philip Barter of Sydney, Australia, presented an update of the ILLUMINATE drug trial for the once-promising drug, torcetrapib, the billion-dollar bet that Pfizer made on its first entry into the new drug class.

You may recall that the crash and burn of Pfizer’s torcetrapib in December 2006 made headlines and prompted enormous disappointment for many patients and doctors who had hoped for a new drug choice to raise HDL cholesterol. Pfizer executives (heads flew!) and investors were also disappointed, anticipating release of a drug that might have become the number one biggest selling drug in the world—ever, surpassing even Lipitor's® $13 billion annual sales.

Torcetrapib is the first among the “cholesteryl-ester transfer protein inhibitors,” or CETP-inhibitors, drugs that block the exchange of cholesterol and triglycerides between HDL and VLDL particles and prevent formation of the unwanted small LDL particles. Preliminary efforts suggested that effects were positively enormous.

However, the 15,000-participant trial was abruptly terminated after 550 days when an excess of deaths were identified among the group taking the experimental drug: 59 deaths in control group; 93 deaths in the torcetrapib group.

In addition, cardiovascular events were 24% greater in the torcetrapib group, numbering 373 compared to 464 in the no-torcetrapib group, including a substantially greater number of heart attacks and hospitalizations. Another surprise came in the way of cause of death among some of the torcetrapib patients, with an excess of deaths due to cancers (twice as many in the torcetrapib group), strokes, and infections.

Why the divergence: enormous improvements in cholesterol values, yet increase in adverse effects including more heart attack? Deeper digging by the principal investigators uncovered unexpected distortions of electrolytes like sodium and potassium. They then re-analyzed blood samples from participants on both sides of the trial and discovered that participants taking torcetrapib experienced significant rise in the blood pressure hormone, aldosterone. This, they surmised, also likely accounted for the 4 mmHg average rise in blood pressure among those taking the experimental drug. (This is the same pathway blocked by blood pressure drugs like ACE inhibitors lisinopril and enalapril, ARBs like losartan.)

Simultaneously (what a coincidence!) with the torcetrapib data, investigators at competing drug manufacturer, Merck, reported encouraging data with their version of CETP inhibitor, anacetrapib. In a phase II FDA trial of 589 patients, anacetrapib reduced LDL-C levels by up to 40% and increased HDL-C up to 139%.

Spokesman Daniel Bloomfield, M.D., of Merck Research Laboratories reported that "The favorable lipid effects seen in this study with multiple doses of anacetrapib were significant, and confirm the continued evaluation of the clinical benefits of CETP inhibitors in the treatment of dyslipidemia." Quick to distinguish this drug from torcetrapib’s track record of dangerous effects on blood pressure, he added that "the decreased LDL-C concentrations, increased HDL-C concentrations and no demonstrable increase in blood pressure seen with anacetrapib are particularly encouraging results of this study."

However, the data reported only an 8 week expereince. Given the experience with torcetrapib, longer term data will obviously be required to assess safety. After Pfizer spent over $1 billion and sacrificed lives to obtain this experience, Merck will need to tread carefully.

It will clearly be many years before we have a confident answer on whether the CETP-inhibitor class of drugs will be a safe choice for correction of cholesterol abnormalities, especially low HDL. Are we helpless until then?

Though CETP inhibitors offer the potential for a one-stop opportunity to raise HDL substantially, there are still many strategies available to raise HDL.

Strategies that raise HDL and are available today include:
• Weight loss—to your ideal weight. A very effective strategy.
• Reduction in processed carbohydrates—like breads, pasta, cookies, pretzels, etc. Note that very low-fat diets reduce HDL. Often a huge effect.
• Fish oil—A small effect, more dramatic when triglycerides are high.
• Niacin—Vitamin B3, the best we have at present. Doses of 500-1500 mg per day raise HDL 20–50%; work with your doctor if you are contemplating niacin. We use this agent everyday and have had great success; good hydration is key to minimize the annoying “hot-flush” effect.
• Dark chocolate—40 grams, or about 2 inches square, a delicious way to squeeze out a little rise in HDL.
• Alcoholic beverages—Red wines are almost certainly the preferred route, rich in flavonoids.
• Exercise—HDL-raising effects vary, but can sometimes be as much as 10–20 mg.
• Other drugs—Though not commonly used for this effect, drugs like pioglitazone (for diabetes and pre-diabetes); fibrates (Tricor® or fenofibrate; Lopid® or gemfibrozil); and Pletal® or cilostazol are occasionally prescribed.
• Vitamin D—You won’t find validation of this effect in any scientific study, but our emerging experience in our heart disease reversal program is suggesting that this neglected nutrient can exert powerful HDL-raising effects. In fact, supplementing vitamin D has made my life much easier.

And, last I checked, none of these HDL-raising strategies are ever fatal.

Joe, a machinist, was frightened and frustrated.

With a heart scan score of 1644 at age 61, his eyes bulged when I advised him that, if preventive efforts weren't instituted right away, his risk for heart attack was a high as 25% per year. Joe had "passed" a stress test, thus suggesting that, while coronary plaque was present--oodles of it, in fact--coronary blood flow was normal. Thus, there would be no benefit to inserting three stents, say, or a bypass operation.

(Illustration courtesy Wikipedia)

"I don't get it, doc. Why can't you just take it out? You know, like Roto-Rooter it out? Or give me something to dissolve it!"

Of course, if there were such a thing, I'd give it to him. But, of course, there is not. It doesn't mean that there haven't been efforts in this direction over the years. Among the various attempts made to "Roto-Rooter" atherosclerotic plaque have included:

Coronary endarterectomy
This is a drastic procedure rarely performed anymore but enjoyed some popularity in the 1980s and 1990s. Coronary endarterectomy was performed during coronary bypass surgery, but few thoracic surgeons performed it. Milwaukee's Dr. Dudley Johnson was the foremost practitioner of this procedure (retired a few years ago after his own bypass operation) with a mortality in excess of 25%. A very dangerous procedure, indeed. The technical hurdle, beyond the tedium and length of time required to remove plaque that had a tendency to fragment, was blood clot formation after tissue was exposed upon plaque removal. I saw many lengthy hospital stays and deaths following this procedure.

Coronary atherectomy
This is an angioplasty-type procedure that has gone through several variations over the years.

In the early 1990s, transluminal extraction atherectomy (TEC) was a technique involving low-rpm drill bits with a suction apparatus that was used to clear soft debris, usually from large coronary arteries or, more commonly, bypass grafts. Then came direction atherectomy, in which a steel housing contained a sharp drill bit that captured atherosclerotic plaque in an aperture along the housing length and stuffed it into a nosecone, retrieved once the device was removed.

Then came high-speed rotational atherectomy in which a diamond-tipped drill bit rotated up to 200,000 rpm and essentially pulverized plaque to flow downstream and, presumably, eventually captured by the liver for disposal. Rotational atherectomy is still in use on occasion. Laser angioplasty, usually using the excimer wavelength, vaporizes plaque. I did plenty of all of these back in the early and mid-1990s.

While all atherectomy procedures sound clever, they are all plagued by the same problem: vigorous return of plaque. Remove plaque, it grows back. There are few instances today in which atherectomy is still performed.

Chelation
This involves a metal-binding, or "chelating," agent like EDTA normally used in conventional practice for lead poisoning. Usually administered IV, some have also advocated oral use. People who use chelation also tend to believe in faith healing and other practices based on faith, not science. There is an international trial that is nearing completion that should provide the final word on whether there is any role to intravenous chelation.

There are numerous other oral treatments that claim a Roto-Rooter-like effect. Nattokinase, for example--an outright, unadulterated, and unqualified scam.

Unfortunately, the helpless, ignorant, and gullible are many. When frightened by the specter of heart disease, there are plenty of people who will willingly pay for the hope provided by clever ads, fast-talking salespeople, and unscrupulous practitioners.

So, Joe, there is no Roto-Rooter for coronary atherosclerotic plaque, at least one that is safe, doesn't involve a life-threatening effort, provides results that endure beyond a few months, and truly works.

The Track Your Plaque program may not be easy. There are obvious common hurdles to adhering to these concepts: obtaining lipoprotein testing, getting intelligent interepretation of the results, persuading your doctor to measure vitamin D blood levels, battling the onslaught of prevailing food propaganda that confuses and misleads. The Track Your Plaque program also requires time, at least a year.

But it's the best program there is. Do you know of anything better?

In our effort to expand the reach for the nationwide conversation on heart disease reversal, I'd like to welcome the newest contributor to the Track Your Plaque family, a new Member blogger, Heart Cipher.

We first came to appreciate the insights of Heart Cipher on our Member Forum. His curiousity and ability to cut through the bull--- have won over our hearts and minds. I think you will appreciate his unique perspective as someone who has experienced first hand the inadequacies of the present procedure-focused, drug-obsessed standard of medical care that dominates, yet has the intelligence and worldliness to recognize that there are better ways.

Read his post about meeting a new cardiologist for the first time and the reaction he receives when he describes the Track Your Plaque program here.

http://www.heartcipher.com/

For the last few years, most practicing physicians have followed a rough blueprint for cholesterol management provided by the Adult Treatment Panel-III “consensus” guidelines, or ATP-III, a lengthy document last released in 2001, updated in 2004.

For instance, ATP-III suggests reducing LDL cholesterol to 100 mg/dl or less for those deemed to be at high risk for future heart disease, arbitrarily defined as a risk of 20% over a 10-year period. It also suggests that a desirable triglyceride level is no more than 150 mg/dl. The ATP-III guidelines have been the topic of discussion in thousands of medical meetings, editorials, and reports. They have served as the basis for many dinners at nice restaurants, weeks in Vegas or Honolulu, many, many lunches catered by pharmaceutical representatives. For most internists, family doctors, cardiologists, and lipid clinics, ATP-III is the Bible for cholesterol management.

AT-III has also become the de facto standard that could conceivably held up as the prevailing "standard of care" in a court of law in cases of presumed negligence to treat cholesterol values. “Doctor, would you agree that the consensus guidelines issued by the National Institutes of Health and endorsed by the American Heart Association state that LDL cholesterol should be reduced to 100? You do? Then why was Mr. Jones’ LDL not addressed according to these guidelines?”

Who was on the ATP-III panel and on what scientific evidence were the guidelines based? Several problems:

1) Of the 9 physician members of the panel, 8 had ties to industry, some of them quite intimate.

2) The studies upon which the guidelines were based and figure prominently, such as the Heart Protection Study, PROVE IT, and 4S, were all funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Of course, it would be unreasonable to expect anyone other than the pharmaceutical industry to fund drug studies. But prominently neglected or understated in the guidelines are all the other insights and treatments for coronary atherosclerotic risk available that were NOT funded by industry.

Of course, there’s money to be made in reducing LDL cholesterol. Lots of it--$23 billion last year alone, in fact. Just keeping that fact in mind makes the ATP-III guidelines make far better sense.

ATP-III is really not a blueprint for heart disease prevention. It is a blueprint--by industry, for industry--on how and when to treat LDL cholesterol.

But what if ATP-III had been a map for navigating coronary plaque reversal instead? What if it were not obsessed with just reducing LDL cholesterol, but was focused on providing the corner internist, family doctor, or cardiologist a roadmap for navigating the highways and byways of reversal?

That would be interesting. Mainstream reversal. Imagine that.

Among the difficulties is that the path to reversal is not lined with deep pockets. Treat LDL and who gains? That's easy. Reverse heart disease and who gains? Beyond LDL reduction, very few (beyond you and me, of course).

That’s why the call for a new Age of Self-Empowerment in healthcare is necessary now more than ever. In my view, in the foreseeable future, we will not have an ATP-III-like blueprint for heart disease control or reversal, nor will we witness a boom of nationwide appreciation that coronary atherosclerosis is a reversible process.

It’s time to take the control back and put it in our own hands. Don't expect the American Heart Association to do it. Don't expect the pharmaceutical industry to do it. If there's anyone who's going to do it, it's YOU.

Greg slumped back in his chair.

"I'm sorry, doc. I feel like the world's biggest schlump!"

He was referring to the fact that he had gone wheat-free for two months--eliminated all breads, bagels, donuts, pasta, breakfast cereals, crackers, pretzels--and promptly lost 30 lbs. He felt great, discovered new levels of energy he thought he'd lost long ago.

Then some friends convinced him to have some cheeseburgers at a fast food restaurant.

"After that, it was downhill. I couldn't get enough. My wife made chile and I had to have four slices of bread with it. Then I'd have two more. I just couldn't stop."

Now, having regained the 30 lbs in the space of another two months, Greg was expressing his disgust.

And it's not the first time. Greg has struggled with his wheat-alholism for as long as I've known him. I've tried motivating him by showing him the flagrant lipoprotein patterns that his wheat habit and excess weight caused: markedly elevated LDL particle number, severe small LDL, low HDL, high triglycerides, high C-reactive protein, high blood sugar, high blood pressure. Greg has received a total of 7 stents over the past 5 years. His next stop is the operating room for a bypass if he can't bring his patterns and impulses under control.

But for some reason, Greg seems to always return to the wheat trough, gorging on breads, pretzels, cake, often in great quantities.

I'm not entirely sure what to do with someone with Greg's severe degree of wheat-aholism. I view wheat-aholism as similar to alcoholism. For some, it can be as addictive.

The only strategy that I know can work is to make a clean break and drop wheat products altogether. Just as an alcoholic cannot just satisfy him/herself with a drink or two a day, so a wheataholic can't be satified with just a couple of wheat crackers. It inevitably leads to the avalanche of wheat indulgences.

Perhaps we should form a new group: Wheataholics Anonymous. "Hi. My name is Greg and I'm a wheataholic."

The heart disease revenue pie is shrinking. So is the "serving size" being shared by competing hospitals.

In other words, as more hospitals open heart programs, there is more competition for the same heart patient. Throw into the mix the drop in "acute" presentations of disease, probably due to the now widespread prescribing of statin drugs. When I first started cardiology practice 15 years ago, for instance, days and nights spent taking care of heart attacks coming through the emergency room was a common event. It still happens, but far less frequently. (I don't mean to suggest that the actual prevalence of coronary heart disease has decreased, just the acute, catastrophic version of it.)

Throw into this mix the results of the COURAGE Trial that has put a damper on the value of stents and angioplasty vs. "optimal" medical therapy in people with stable anginal symptoms, since there was little advantage of procedures. Though it has not stopped the practice, it has reduced the enthusiasm for procedures. Though data are hard to come by, I've heard talk of 10% or greater drops in total procedural volume over the past year.

It's not uncommon for hospitals to have overbuilt heart facilities in anticipation of continued growth of this--until recently--growth industry called heart disease. However, factors are converging that may provide a new profit opportunity for hospitals.

One such opportunity is CT coronary angiography. The usual scenario: Man or woman without symptoms is persuaded somehow--an ad, primary care physician, next door neighbor with a scary event, Dr. Mehmet Oz gushing about this sexy new technology on yet another Oprah episode--to undergo a CT coronary angiogram. A "severe" blockage is found, despite the lack of symptoms, and voila! A stent patient or bypass patient is created out of nothing! Do this repeatedly and systematically, and a hospital can regain its former high-procedural volume glory.

Heart scans, though I believe deeply in them and they are the basis for the Track Your Plaque prevention and reversal program, can also be used and abused this way. Asymptomatic person has a score 150. Concerned, they go to their physician who orders a nuclear stress test. An "inferior perfusion defect" is seen, presumably representing poor flow through the right coronary artery (but often just means that the diaphragm overlaps the heart muscle and yields this apparition, a "false positive" or misleading result). "But--wink--we've got to find out if there's a severe blockage, don't we? You don't want to end up in an early grave!"

Thus, the battle for new patients with asymptomatic disease is getting underway in earnest. The scramble for cardiologists to learn how to use CT coronary angiograms is proceeding at breakneck speed, with new training courses being offered nationwide several times and places every month. CT coronary angiography is a useful test, but it is also subject to enormous abuse. It also provides the ticket for the unscrupulous physician and the revenue-hungry hospital eager to expand its patient volume.

Many people believe that this cannot happen commonly in 2007, given scrutiny of practices, litigiousness, and the expectation of a moral sense in medicine. However, I've witnessed such incidents several times this month alone. If you need graphic proof of just how far this can go before action is taken, read Coronary, Stephen Klaidman's chilling tale of a cardiologist and cardiothoracic surgeon in small-town northern California who built an enormous heart center based on fabricated heart disease diagnoses. You'll also find their story in Shannon Brownlee's recently released Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine Is Making Us Sicker and Poorer.

Of course, the Track Your Plaque program is meant principally for people without symptoms, also. But we are advocating that asymptomatic disease is a reason for prevention, not procedures. There's a difference.

By the way, the two practitioners who engineered the escapade detailed in these books, cardiologist Chae Hyun Moon and cardiac surgeon Fidel Realyvasquez, walked away with a monetary fine and suspension of their California medical licenses. It is likely that many people died because of their abusive practices, but the state struggled to make a sufficiently persuasive case for reasons that I still don't understand.

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.

If you haven't done so already, you should subscribe to Dr. John Cannell's free newsletter on vitamin D issues. His newest issue is available at:

http://www.vitamindcouncil.com/newsletter/2006-aug.shtml

A sign-up to subscribe is available on the same page.

I continue to be shocked and amazed at the prevalence and magnitude of vitamin D deficiency in the people I see every day. It's been a beautiful summer with very little rain. Most days have been in the 70-80 degree range--very comfortable to be outdoors in the sun and getting skin expoxure to activate vitamin D in the skin.

Yet, in the vast majority of people I see, summer blood levels of vitamin D are virtually indistinguishable from winter levels. Both hover around the 30 ng/ml range. Summer levels in Wisconsin people seem to be no more than 10 ng/ml higher than winter levels. This remains true even in people who spend a lot of their day outdoors gardening, walking, etc. wearing shorts and a short-sleeved shirt, i.e. with plenty of skin surface area exposed.

I'm at a loss to explain precisely why. Yes, it is Wisconsin. But a direct sun overhead, 75 degree day should be providing plenty of sun. My suspicious is that a combination of factors are at work: people are not spending as much time outdoors as they claim; they often seek shade; use sunscreen; and they're overweight. (Excess weight decreases vitamin D blood levels dramatically, yet another reason not to get fat!)

Read more about vitamin D by checking out Dr. Cannell's insightful comments on the unfolding vitamin D story. He holds nothing back.

Heart disease reversal a big "No No"

Demystification

Everything has omega-3

Are cardiologists the enemy?

Are CETP inhibitors kaput?

Roto Rooter for plaque

"Beware nutritional supplements"

The rules of reversal

Incurable wheataholics

The battle for asymptomatic disease

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

More on Vitamin D

Add comment

Related posts

Add comment