I hear this comment from patients all the time:

"They told me that I had only mild blockages and so I had nothing to worry about."

That's one big lie.

I guess I shouldn't call it a lie. Is it a lie when it comes from ignorance, arrogance, laziness, or greed?

"Mild coronary disease" is usually a label applied to coronary atherosclerotic plaque that is insufficient to block flow. Thus, having a few 20%, 30%, or 40% blockages would be labeled "mild." No stents are (usually) implanted, no bypass surgery performed, and symptoms should not be attributable to the blockages. Thus, "mild."

The problem is that "mild" blockages are no less likely to rupture, the eruptive process that resembles a little volcano spewing lava. Except it's not lava, but the internal contents of atherosclerotic plaque. When these internal contents of plaque gain contact with blood, the coagulation process is set in motion and the artery both clots and constricts. Chest pains and heart attack result.

So, the essential point is not necessarily the amount of blood flow through the artery, but the presence of coronary atherosclerotic plaque. Just having plaque--any amount of plaque--sets the stage to permit plaque rupture.

One thing is clear: The more plaque you have, the greater the risk for rupture. But the quantity of plaque cannot be measured by the "percent blockage." It is measured by the lengthwise extent of plaque, as well as the depth of plaque within the wall. Neither of these risk features for plaque rupture can be gauged by percent blockage.

Coronary atherosclerosis is a diffuse process that involves much of the length of the artery. It is therefore folly to believe that a 15 mm long stent has addressed the disease. This is no more a solution than to replace the faucet in your kitchen in a house with rotting pipes from the basement up.

The message: ANY amount of coronary plaque is reason to engage in a program of prevention--prevention of plaque rupture, prevention of further plaque growth, perhaps even regression (reversal). It is NOT a reason to be complacent and buy into the myth of "mild" coronary disease, the misguided notion that arises from ill-conceived procedural heart disease solutions.

Image courtesy Wikipedia.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Lipoprotein(a), Lp(a), is an important cause for heart disease, heart attack, and coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

How do you know you have it?

Of course, it could be as simple as checking a blood level. But there are also a number of red flags for the presence of Lp(a), tell-tale signs that suggest it is present and contributing to the growth of coronary plaque.

I've seen so much of this pattern over the years that it's gotten so that I can pretty much pick out most of the people with Lp(a) just by either looking at them or by hearing their story. I do this simply by knowing what hints to look for.

Some of the red flags for Lp(a) include:

--High blood pressure in a slender person. Overweight is the overwhelmingly common reason for high blood pressure. However, inappropriate high blood pressure in a slender person can serve to tip you off that Lp(a) is present.

--HIgh LDL cholesterol poorly responsive to statin drugs. For instance, someone's LDL cholesterol of 190 mg/dl will be treated with Lipitor 40 mg, but drops to only 165 mg/dl, a very poor response. This can sometimes point towards Lp(a).

--Family clustering of heart disease in people before age 60. For instance, father with heart attack age 53, uncle with heart attack at age 55, aunt with heart attack age 59, etc. This clustering of risk, more often than not, signals Lp(a).

--Coronary disease or high heart scan score in the presence of relatively bland appearing lipids. For instance, LDL cholesterol 130 mg/dl, HDL 55 mg/dl, triglycerides 70 mg/dl on no medications or other efforts--figures ordinarily not associated with high likelihood of heart disease--yet heart disease is indeed present. This can mean that Lp(a) is the concealed culprit behind coronary atherosclerosis.

These red flags are not perfect. If you lack any of them, it doesn't necessarily rule out the possbility of having Lp(a). They simply serve as signs to suggest that Lp(a) may be lurking.

Once Lp(a) is identified, then the battle begins to gain control over this somewhat troublesome genetic pattern. Resourcesfulness and some ingenuity may be required. However, knowing that you have it shows you where to concentrate your efforts.

The makers of Vytorin, Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals, issued a press release about the the Enhance Study yesterday. The news has triggered a media frenzy.

The NY Times reporting of the story:

Drug Has No Benefit in Trial, Makers Say

The 700 participants in the trial all had a condition called "heterozygous hypercholesterolemia," a genetic disorder that permits very high LDL cholesterols. The average LDL at the start was 318 mg/dl.

The Times reported that, while Vytorin cut "LDL levels by 58 percent, compared to a 41 percent reduction with simvastatin alone," but "the average thickness of the carotid artery plaque increased by 0.0111 of a millimeter in patients taking Vytorin, compared to an increase of 0.0058 of a millimeter in those taking only simvastatin." There was no difference in heart attacks or other "events" between the two groups.

(Vytorin is the combination of simvastatin and Zetia.)

In other words, the participants taking Vytorin had 53 ten-thousands of a millimeter more plaque growth than the group taking just simvastatin.

I am always uncomfortable when put in the position of defending a drug or drug company. However, it is patently absurd that this study has generated such attention. I suspect the public and media are waiting for another Vioxx-like debacle, with memories of concealed or suppressed data that suggested heightened heart attack risk that was dismisssed by the drug manufacturer. (That's not to say that the company hasn't been trying to delay or modify the outcome of the study, which they apparently have, much to the objections of the FDA.)

However, at this point, there is no reason to believe that this question possesses any parallels to the Vioxx fiasco.

If we accept the data as reported, however, we might say it calls the entire "Lipid Hypothesis" into question: If LDL cholesterol is significantly reduced but is not correlated with reduction in plaque, is LDL the means by which atherosclerotic plaque progresses? This trial does not answer that question, but does serve to raise some doubt.

Another issue: Heterozygous hypercholesterolemia, and thereby LDL cholesterol, may not be the overwhelming driver of plaque growth in this population. It is probably the number of small LDL particles, a factor which is not revealed by LDL cholesterol. For this reason, heterozygous hypercholesterolemia by itself is insufficient to cause heart disease. Some other factor(s) needs to be present. I would propose that it is the size of the LDL particle: When small, heart disease develops; when large, heart disease is less likely to develop. This issue was not addressed by this study. Readers of The Heart Scan Blog know that conventional LDL cholesterol, the number used in this study, is a virtually worthless number for truly gauging plaque behavior because of its flagrant inaccuracy.

So, there are substantial uncertainties, contrary to the absolute certainty expressed by people like Dr. Steve Nissen (who, by the way, has no expertise in lipoprotein disorders). It is premature to reach any firm conclusions from this study. The only conclusions that I personally come to are 1) Is this yet another reason to question the entire Lipid Hypothesis as it stands? and 2) What would the results have been had LDL particle number and LDL particle size been examined, not just LDL?

I would not automatically conclude that Zetia causes carotid plaque. This is absurd. And I am definitely not one to come to the rescue of a drug or drug manufacturer. I am simply after understanding and truth.

As an interesting aside, Dr. Howard Hodis of the University of Southern California and an expert in carotid scanning for heart disease prevention research, made a comment relevant to us in the Track Your Plaque program:

"Clearly, progression of atherosclerosis is the only way you get events,” Dr. Hodis said. “If you don’t treat progression, then you get events."

The Miami Herald has a new report on Dr. Arthur Agagtston (of South Beach Diet fame) to announce his new book, The South Beach Heart Health Revolution:
The South Beach Diet doctor takes on cardio care

Agatston, the granddaddy of CT heart scanning, is always at least worth listening to. Although his diet may not be perfect, it clearly has jumped light years ahead of conventional diets like the inane American Heart Association diet. The South Beach Diet focuses on healthy oils, nuts, lean meats, vegetables, and fruits, while slashing grains (except in the often disastrous phase III).

The article lists Dr. Agatston's advice to achieve a "heart healthy" lifestyle:

• Maintain a healthy weight through diet.

• Undergo CT heart scans to check for arterial plaque.

• Do aerobic exercise, along with stretching and strengthening workouts.

• Ask your doctor about taking statins and other cholesterol-lowering drugs.

We wouldn't have CT heart scan scoring (at least in its present form) without Dr. Agatston, who developed the algorithm for scoring years ago in the early days of heart scanning. We also need to credit him with putting together a rational diet despite the counter-information emanating from the Heart Association, the USDA (a la Food Pyramid, the one that makes Americans fat and diabetic), and the American Diabetes Association, among others.

But "Ask your doctor about taking statins and other cholesterol-lowering drugs"? This is where Dr. Agatston begins to falter. While he is putting his enormous notoriety to use, his message is bland and ineffective. "Do aerobic exercise"? We don't need Dr. Agatston to tell us this.

As much as Art Agatston has added to the national conversation on heart disease and diet, he has failed to deliver the message of true heart disease prevention. His approach lacks just a few crucial ingredients like lipoprotein testing, diagnosis of hidden causes of heart disease (like Lp(a)), and vitamin D. (Two years ago I had a patient I saw for an opinion after he'd showed Dr. Agatston his lipoprotein panel. The patient said Dr. Agatston looked at the report and didn't know what to do with it and handed it back to him without comment. He then asked if he wanted his autograph.)

Anyway, the rising tide raises all boats. Agatston's repeated public endorsements of heart scans will help deliver the message that heart disease is detectable in its early stages and should trigger action to follow a heart disease prevention program.

That alone is an accomplishment in a world hell-bent on dragging us into the hospital for procedures.

In a previous post I entitled Heart disease reversal a big "No No", I posed a challenge--a dare--to readers to ask their doctors if coronary heart could be reversed.

Here's what I said:

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.

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.

I know of one person who actually followed through on this challenge and asked his cardiologist whether his heart disease could be reduced or reversed. As predicted, the answer was no. No explanation followed.

But allow me to reiterate: Heart disease is 1) detectable, 2) quantifiable, 3) controllable, and, in many cases 4) reversible.

What if there was a big payoff to your doctor if heart disease was reversed, say $100,000? That's enough to dwarf the payoff from procedures. Guess what? You'd have doctors fighting for your business, a chance to reverse your disease, ads to that effect, champions of reversal emerging. No new tools would be necessary. They could use the tools already available. Then why hasn't this happened? Is the technology unavailable? Are the treatments ineffective?

No, heart disease is a controllable and reversible process with tools that are available today. But there is, of course, no big payoff for doing it. So the financial incentive remains to do procedures, not to reverse the disease.

But I'd like to re-pose this challenge. Ask your doctor if heart disease can be reversed, or at least reduced. I've even posted a Survey at the top left for anyone who tries.

Again, my prediction: Nobody will try it and nobody will post survey results. Why? Despite my rantings (and those of a few others) about the concept of heart disease being a reversible process, in the public's consciousness it remains a death sentence and the only solution is hospital procedures. My colleagues continue to cultivate this attitude and it serves them well financially.

I'll be disappointed if I prove to be right. I hope that I am wrong. But I don't think that I am.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

The wonderfully articulate Michael Pollan has written another book. Although he presents little new to anyone who read his previous book, The Omnivore's Dilemma: A natural history of four meals, he is such a wonderful writer, with such clever ways of seeing the world, that I couldn't resist this new, less ambitious book.

The new book is In Defense of Food: An eater's manifesto.

As in Omnivore's Dilemma, Pollan reminds us that we've lost contact with real food, foods that our great grandmother would recognize, not the just-add-water, dried, pulverized, sweetened, high-fructose, hydrogenated, shrink-wrapped, artificially-colored products that pass as foods in the grocery store.

In particular, Pollan attacks what he calls the ideology of Nutritionism. "The widely shared but unexamined assumption is that the key to understanding food is indeed the nutrient. Put another way: Foods are essentially the sum of their nutrient parts." He calls this "Nutritionism."

In the section called "Nutritionism comes to market," he uses margarine as the prototypical product of this philosophy:

"No idea could be more sympathetic to manufacturers of processed foods, which surely explains why they have been so happy to jump on the nutritionism bandwagon. Indeed, nutritionism supplies the ultimate justification for processing food by implying that with a judicious application of food science, fake foods can be made even more nutritious than the real thing. This of course is the story of margarine, the first important synthetic food to slip into our diet. Margarine started out in the nineteenth century as a cheap and inferior sustitute for butter, but with the emergence of the lipid hypothesis in the 1950s, manufacturers quickly figured out that their product, with some tinkering, could be marketed as better--smarter!--than butter: butter with the bad nutrients removed (cholesterol and saturated fats) and replaced with good nutrients (polyunsaturated fats and then vitamins). Every time margarine was found wanting, the wanted nutrient could simply be added (Vitamin D? Got it now. Vitamin A? Sure, no problem. But of course margarine, being the product not of nature but of human ingenuity, could never be any smarter than the nutritionists dictating its recipe, and the nutritionists turned out to be not nearly as smart as they thought. The food scientists' ingenious method for making healthy vegetable oil solid at room temperature--by blasting it with hydrogen--turned out to produce unhealthy trans fats, fats that we now know are more dangerous than the saturated fats they were designed to replace. Yet the beauty of a processed food like margarine is that it can be endlessly reengineererd to overcome even the most embarrassing about-face in nutritional thinking--including the real wincer that its main ingredient might cause heart attacks and cancer. So now the trans fats are gone, and margarine marches on, unfazed and apparently unkillable. Too bad the same cannot be said of an unknown number of margarine eaters."

Anyone who reads and thinks a lot about nutrition will find little new here. But nobody says it better than Pollan. While Gary Taubes (Good Calories, Bad Calories) is the real thinker of our age about nutrition, Michael Pollan is the true writer about it.

With books like these making the bestsellers list, I believe that we are gradually seeing rationality return to eating. It makes people skeptical of the glitzy ads that run on TV around the clock. I hope that Pollan's new book will make more and more people leery of the latest health claim that adorn some product. "More omega-3!" "A low-fat snack." "Heart Healthy!" "High in healthy fiber!"

Rudy is a 59-year old man. He's had three heart catheterizations, two of which resulted in stent implantations. Obviously, Rudy should be the beneciary of a prevention program.

His basic cholesterol values:

Total cholesterol 164 mg/dl--pretty good, it seems.

LDL cholesterol 111 mg/dl--Wow! Not too bad.

HDL cholesterol 23 mg/dl--Uh oh, that's not too good.

Triglycerides 148 mg/dl--By national (NCEP ATP-III) guidelines, triglycerides of 150 mg/dl and below fall within the desirable range.

So we're left with an apparently isolated low HDL cholesterol, nothing more. On the surface, it doesn't seem all that bad.

Of course, we need to keep in mind that this pattern landed Rudy in the hospital on several occasions and prompted several procedures.

Should we rely on these results? How about Rudy's lipoproteins?

Here they are (NMR; Liposcience):

LDL particle number 2139 nmol/l--Representing an effective LDL of 213--over 100 mg higher than the standard value (above) suggests.

Small LDL particles 2139 nmol/l--In other words, 100% of all Rudy's LDL particles are small. (Thus, weight-based measures of LDL cholesterol fail to tell us that he has too many small particles.)

Large HDL 0 (zero) mg/dl--Rudy has virtually no functional HDL particles.

If we had relied only on Rudy's standard cholesterol values, we would have focused on raising HDL. However, lipoprotein analysis uncovered a smorgasbord of additional severe patterns. The high LDL particle number comprised 100% of small particles is especially concerning.

Truly, conventional cholesterol testing is a fool's game, one that time and again fails to fully uncover or predict risk for heart disease. One look at Rudy's lipoproteins and it becomes immediately obvious: This man is at high risk for heart disease and the causes are clear.

Of course, many physicians and insurance companies argue that the added information provided by this portion of the lipoprotein test added around $70 more to the expense.

When you see results like this, is there even a choice?

A great study was just published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology:

Metabolic effects of weight loss on a very-low-carbohydrate diet compared with an isocaloric high-carbohydrate diet in abdominally obese subjects.

88 obese adults with metabolic syndrome were placed on either of two diets:

1) A very low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet (VLCHF): 4% calories from carbohydrates (truly low-carb); 35% protein; 61% fat, of which 20% were saturated. In the first 8 weeks, carbohydrate intake was severely limited to <20 grams per day, then <40 grams per day thereafter.

2) A high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet (HCLF): 46% calories from carbohydrates; 24% protein; 30% total fat, of which <8% were saturated.

Both diets were equal in calories (around 1400 calories per day--rather restrictive) and participants were maintained on the program for six months.

At the end of the six month period, participants on the VLCHF diet lost 26.4 lb, those on the HCLF diet 22.2 lbs (though the difference did not reach statistical significance). Thus, both approaches were spectacularly successful at weight loss.

Surprisingly, blood pressure, blood sugar, insulin and insulin sensitivity (a measure called HOMA) were all improved with both diets equally. Thus, these measures seemed to respond more to weight loss and less to the food composition.

Lipids differed between the two diets, however:

VLCHF:
Total cholesterol: initial 208.4 mg/dl final 207.7 mg/dl

LDL: initial 125 mg/dl final 123 mg/dl

HDL: initial 55 mg/dl final 64.5 mg/dl

Triglycerides: initial 144 mg/dl final 74 mg/dl

Apoprotein B: initial 98 mg/dl final 96 mg/dl

HCLF
Total cholesterol: initial 208.4 mg/dl final 187.5 mg/dl

LDL: initial 126 mg/dl final 108 mg/dl

HDL: initial 51 mg/dl final 54.5 mg/dl

Triglycerides: initial 157.6 mg/dl final 111 mg/dl

Apoprotein B: initial 100 mg/dl final 95 mg/dl

Some interesting differences became apparent:
--The VLCHF diet more effectively reduced triglycerides and raised HDL.
--The HCLF diet more effectively reduced total and LDL.
--There was no difference in Apo B (no statistical difference).

The investigators also made the observation that individual responsiveness to the diets differed substantially. They concluded that both diets appeared to exert no adverse effect on any of the parameters measured, both were approximately equally effective in weight loss with slight advantage with the carbohydrate restricted diet, and that lipid effects were indeed somewhat different.

What lessons can we learn from this study? I would propose/extrapolate several:

When calories are severely restricted, the composition of diet may be less important. However, when calories are not so severely restricted, then composition may assume a larger role. When calories are unrestricted, I would propose that the carbohydrate restriction approach may yield larger effects on weight loss and on lipids when compared to a low-fat diet.

The changes in total cholesterol are virtually meaningless. Part of the reason that it didn't drop with the VLCHF diet is that HDL cholesterol increased. In other words, total cholesterol = LDL + HDL + trig/5. A rise in HDL raises total cholesterol.

Despite no change in Apo B, if NMR lipoprotein analysis had been performed (or other assessment of LDL particle size made), then there would almost certainly have seen a dramatic shift from undesirable small LDL to less harmful large LDL particles on the VLCHF diet, less change on the HCLF diet.

The lack of restriction of saturated fat in the VLCHF that failed to yield adverse effects is interesting. It would be conssistent with the re-analysis of saturated fat as not-the-villain-we thought-it-was put forward by people like Gary Taubes (Good Calories, Bad Calories).

In the Track Your Plaque experience, small LDL is among the most important measures of all for coronary plaque reversal and control. Unfortunately, although this study was well designed and does add to the developing scientific exploration of diet, it doesn't add to our insight into small LDL effects. But if I had to make a choice, I'd choose the low-carbohydrate, high-fat approach for overall benefit.

Nothing we do in the Track Your Plaque program guarantees that coronary atherosclerotic plaque or your heart scan score is reduced or reversed.

But everything we do weighs the odds in your favor of successfully achieving reversal: correction of lipoprotein patterns, uncovering hidden patterns like Lp(a), vitamin D, being optimistic--it all tips the scales in your favor.

But how necessary is it to be skinny, meaning somewhere near your ideal weight?

It is important, but not as important as it used to be. Let me explain.

I used to tell people that plaque would not regress unless ideal weight was achieved and all the parameters of abdominal obesity and metabolic syndrome were corrected. This includes blood pressure, blood sugar, low HDL, small LDL, high triglycerides, and high c-reactive protein. Curiously, though, as we've gotten better and better at reducing coronary calcium scores, I've been finding that complete correction of all parameters, including achieving ideal weight, don't seem to be as necessary to achieve plaque reversal.

I almost hate to say this, but I've even witnessed significant drops in heart scan scores in people with body mass indexes (BMI) of 30--obese.

The necessary change doesn't seem to be weight, per se, but the consequences of weight. In other words, if you remain overweight, but blood sugar, HDL, small LDL, etc. have shown substantial improvement, then reversal is still achievable.

Then is it okay to be fat or overweight?

Reducing weight to ideal weight does indeed tip the scales in your favor, since it represents an observable, perceptible measure of all associated patterns. Dropping weight can also minimize the need for efforts to correct the consequences of overweight--you might need less niacin, fish oil, exercise, blood pressure medication, etc. to succeed at plaque reversal. Achieving ideal weight may also provide benefits like reduced risk of cancers and degenerative diseases of the hips and knees. But, to my recent surprise over the last two years, achieving ideal weight is not an absolute requirement to achieve reversal.

This is contrary to what some others say. For instance, in an upcoming interview with Dr. Joel Fuhrman on the Track Your Plaque website, Dr. Fuhrman argues that 10% body fat for males, 22% body fat for females, accelerates plaque and symptom reversal. Dr. Fuhrman is author of Fasting and Eating for Health, Eat to Live, and a new upcoming 2-part book, Eat for Health, and proponent of high-nutrient vegetarian diets and fasting. Dr. Fuhrman has been helpful in teaching us some important lessons on how to apply periodic fasting to accelerate plaque reversal.

So, which is it, fat or skinny?

If given a choice (which everyone has), I'd choose skinny. But, provided all the parameters associated with overweight are corrected, then remaining overweight doesn't necessarily mean that you can't still succeed at plaque reversal.

If you are interested in knowing what your ideal weight is, there are a number of software calculators and tables available, including the HealthCentral.com calculator and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute BMI Calculator.

Image courtesy Wikipedia.

Copyright William Davis, MD 2008

The long-awaited data analyses from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) are finally making it to press.

The MESA Study is an enormously ambitious and important study of 6800 people, 45 to 84 years old, that includes white, black, Hispanic, and Chinese participants from six communities around the U.S. (Forsyth County, NC; Northern Manhattan and the Bronx, NY; Baltimore and Baltimore County, Md; St Paul, Minn; Chicago, Ill; and Los Angeles County, California.) Participants had no history of heart disease at enrollment. All underwent a heart scan (either EBT or multi-detector heart scans) at the start. It is therefore the largest prospective study involving heart scans ever performed. It is, not unexpectedly, yielding some fascinating observations relevant to the Track Your Plaque program. The MESA study is, incidentally, funded by the non-commercial, publicly-funded National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and is therefore presumably free of commercial bias.

Among the most recent publications is Risk factors for the progression of coronary artery calcification in asymptomatic subjects: Results from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) In this analysis of 5700 of the MESA participants, a repeat heart scan was obtained an average of 2.4 years after the first. Conventional risk factors for heart disease were obtained at the start (see below for details under Measurement of Covariates.)

After analyzing the data and risk factors assessed, such as age, sex, race, blood pressure, body mass index (BMI), presence of diabetes, blood sugar, and family history of heart disease, two questions were asked:

1) What risk factors predict heart scan scores?

2) What risk factors predict progression (i.e., increase) in heart scan scores?

(The second question is particularly relevant to us and the Track Your Plaque experience.)

The MESA analysis showed that essentially all the risk factors assessed correlated with both the initial heart scan score, as well as the rate of progression. No surprises here.

But the most eye-opening finding was that the conventional risk factors assessed explained only 12% of the variation and progression in heart scan scores (coefficient of determination, or R squared, = 0.12.) In other words:

--Conventional risk factors like LDL cholesterol, diabetes, and excess weight explain only a tiny fraction of why someone develops coronary atherosclerotic plaque as represented by a heart scan score.

--The great majority of risk for a high heart scan score remains unexplained by conventional risk factors.

--The great majority of risk for progressive increase in heart scan scores also remains unexplained by conventional risk factors.

In light of the MESA analysis, it's no surprise that strategies like reducing LDL cholesterol with statin drugs fails to prevent most heart attacks. It's no surprise that conventional prevention programs that talk about "knowing your numbers," eating a "balanced" or low-fat diet, etc., fail miserably to prevent the vast majority of heart attacks and heart procedures.

MESA confirms what we've been saying these past few years: If you want control over coronary heart disease, you won't find it in Lipitor, a low-fat diet, and other limited conventional notions of risk. Correction of conventional risk factors like cholesterol and blood pressure are, in a word, a failure. I wouldn't even call the conventional approach Track Your Plaque-Lite. They don't even come close.

If conventional risk factors can explain only 12% of the reason behind heart disease, we've got to look elsewhere to understand why you and I develop this process.

Measurement of Covariates
Information on demographics, smoking, medical conditions, and family history was collected by questionnaire at the initial examination. Height and weight were also measured at the baseline examination, and blood was drawn for measurements, including lipids, inflammation, fasting glucose, fibrinogen, and creatinine. Resting blood pressure was measured 3 times in the seated position, and the average of the last 2 measurements was used in the analysis. Medication use was determined by questionnaire. Additionally, the participant was asked to bring to the clinic containers for all medications used during the 2 weeks before the visit. The interviewer then recorded the name of each medication, the prescribed dose, and frequency of administration from the containers.

Copyright 2008 William Davis,MD

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.

Here's a curious incidental finding on a heart scan: an unusual fat accumulation around the heart.

The arrows point to an unusually large accumulation of fat tissue on either side of the heart. This man was mildly but not excessively overweight at 5 ft 10 inches and 201 lbs.

I know of no specific implications of this curiosity. It makes me wonder if he was very obese at one time and has since lost the weight.

Cindy
7/9/2007 1:25:00 AM |

What are the health implications of this?

I buy beef hearts for my dogs and have noticed rather large fat deposits on the outside of the heart. They always seem to be on the top part of the heart!

Dr. Davis
7/9/2007 3:01:00 AM |

Hi, Cindy--

I'm not really sure.

This is a really dramatic case. (Unfortunately, I failed to post a normal image next to it.)

I do, however, pity the surgeon who, should this person go to bypass, have to dig through the fat to reach the heart. If only Track Your Plaque became common wisdom and made bypass unnecessary . . .

The myth of mild coronary disease

Red flags for lipoprotein(a)

Vytorin study explodes--But what's the real story?

Dr. Arthur Agatston in the news

Take this survey: I DOUBLE-DARE YOU

Michael Pollan on Nutritionism

Cholesterol follies

Equal calories, different effects

Is skinny necessary for reversal?

MESA Study: Track Your Plaque-Lite?

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

Heart Scan Curiosities #8: Fat heart

Comments (2) -

Cindy

Dr. Davis

Add comment

Related posts

Comments (2) -

Cindy

Dr. Davis

Add comment