Don't neglect the basics in your heart disease reversal program

23. May 2006 William Davis (0)
Carl loved new ideas and novel approaches. You could tell by the sheer number of nutritional supplements he took. His list had grown to 18 different supplements over the past two years.

Carl came to me for coronary plaque regression. Lipoprotein analysis did uncover several previously unsuspected abnormalties, most notably small LDL particles and lipoprotein(a). In addition, Carl's LDL cholesterol ranged between 111 mg-156 mg and he was clearly hypertensive, with systolic blood pressures consistently around 150-160. (Recall that people with Lp(a) are more prone to hypertension.)

Carl was more than willing to have his lipoprotein(a) reduced. We did so with niacin and testosterone and the level dropped to near zero. Likewise, we corrected his small LDL pattern with niacin, fish oil, and a reduction in processed carbohydrates.

But Carl really resisted doing much about his LDL cholesterol and high blood pressure. I got the sense that these "boring" issues simply didn't interest him. After all, LDL cholesterol and blood pressure were the stuff of TV commercials and the popular conversation propagated by drug companies.

Carl's follow-up heart scan, however, finally persuaded him: a 24% increase in one year, likely due to the neglect of the basic issues.

I liken Carl's case to being like the teenager with a new car who polishes the paint to a bright finish, puts new wheels and tires on it, spruces up the interior with various doodads--but then fails to change the oil. Sometimes it's the most basic issues that can diminish your success.

Issues like LDL cholesterol and high blood pressure aren't the most glamorous, but they do count in your coronary plaque control program.
Tags :

Add comment

Loading
Do stents prevent reversal?

Do stents prevent reversal?

27. January 2007 William Davis (3)
I've seen this phenomenon several times now: A highly-motivated Track Your Plaque participant with a stent in one artery will do all the right things--lose weight, achieve 60:60:60 in basic lipids, identify and correct hidden lipoprotein disorders, take fish oil, correct vitamin D, etc.

Follow-up heart scan shows dramatic reduction in scoring in the two arteries without stents--30% per artery. But the artery with the stent will show marked increase in scoring above and/or below the stent. (It's impossible to tell what happens in or around the stent itself from a calcium scoring standpoint, since steel looks just like calcium on a CT heart scan.) In other words, there is marked plaque growth in the vicinity of the stent, despite the fact that dramatic reversal of atherosclerosis has occurred in other arteries without stents.

Should we take this to mean that a stent destroys the opportunity for atherosclerotic plaque reversal in the stented artery? I don't know, but I fear this may be true. What dangers does this different sort of plaque pose? Is it the result of the injury imposed at time of stent implantation, some modification of flow or biologic responses as a result of the presence of the stent?

These are all unanswered questions. But I believe that it is yet another suggestive piece of evidence that the best stent is no stent at all.
Tags :

Comments (3) -

  • neil

    1/29/2007 4:38:00 AM |

    While I certainly enjoyed your book and am extremely grateful for your generous sharing in your daily blog, I am very troubled by this blog entry. Over the last day I have been thinking quite a lot about it off and on, and that would be because I have three stents implanted; two Cypher and one Taxus.

    Since my dates in the hospital cath lab in early 2004 I have been following along with TYP principles carefully with the hope of being additional plaque neutral or even a bit of regression, but I see from this entry my hopes might be dashed.

    Your statement in the blog entry "I've seen this phenomenon several times now", does this mean it happens most always, or sometimes, or occasionally? What is the game plan now for these patients? Do they (or did) have any similarities that might be contributing to their plaque growth (LPa, diabetes, vit. D, BMI, gender, etc), or are their lipoproteins and assays corrected to perfection?

    Thanks again for all that you do, your program and willingness to share is unique and very special to many of us. If you could follow up sometime on this situation with a future blog entry or observations, I would be most appreciative.

    With concern,

    Neil

  • Dr. Davis

    1/29/2007 1:29:00 PM |

    Neil--
    All this means is that the presence of a stent may modify the potential for reversal ONLY IN THE VICINITY OF THE STENT. Other areas, meaning the majority of your other arteries' lengths, are still subject to your control and the benefits of your prevention program.

    Keep in mind that this is an experience involving just a handful of patients. To my knowledge, there are no formal published experiences like this to compare to. All patients had their patterns corrected to perfection by Track Your Plaque standards and don't seem to be distinguished by any one single lipoprotein pattern.

    My "gut sense" is that the sort of plaque growth that we see around stents and tracked by heart scanning does not carry the same implications that non-stent associated plaque does.

  • Anonymous

    2/27/2008 12:43:00 AM |

    I just found your site recently and have been reading through the posts.  I find it very educational.  Thanks!  

    I'm curious.  Were the stents medicated stents (since it is my understanding that they prevent this kind of thing)?

Add comment

Loading
Bait and switch

Bait and switch

24. July 2008 William Davis (0)
"When banks compete, you win.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Add comment

Loading
"Heart scans" are not always heart scans

"Heart scans" are not always heart scans

18. July 2007 William Davis (6)
Beware of the media reports now being issued that warn that "CT heart scans" pose a risk for cancer.

One report can be viewed at
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20070717/ct-heart-scan-radiation-cancer-risk.

This was triggered by a Columbia University study of risk for cancer based on the dose of radiation used in CT coronary angiograms. Theoretically, exposure to the radiation dose of CT coronary angiography can raise risk for cancer by 1 in 143 women if radiated in their 20s just from that single exposure.

If you've been following the Track Your Plaque discussion, as well as my diatribes in the Heart Scan Blog, you know that the media got it all wrong. The "heart scans" they are referring to are not the same as the heart scans that we discuss for the Track Your Plaque program.

A conventional heart scan (of the sort we refer to) exposes the recipient to 4 chest x-rays of radiation if an EBT device is used, around 8-10 chest x-rays of radiation if a 64-slice CT scanner is used. For the quality of information we obtain from these screening heart scans, we feel that it's an acceptable exposure.

The "heart scan" this study and subsequent reports refer to is not truly a screening heart scan, but a CT coronary angiogram, or CTA. CTAs are performed on the same CT or EBT devices, but involve far more radiation. CTA exposes the recipient to about 100 chest x-rays of radiation on a 64-slice device (more or less, depending on the way it is performed.) Just a couple of years ago, some centers were performing CTA on 16-slice devices, a practice I and the Track Your Plaque program vocally opposed, since up to 400 chest-rays of radiation were required! I even called a number of centers advising them that they were putting the public in jeopardy. CTAs also require injection of x-ray dye, just like any conventional angiogram.

CTA on 64-slice CT scanners require the same radiation exposure as a conventional heart catheterization, an issue glossed over in most conversations. In other words, the test that many of my colleageus so casually recommend poses a similar risk.

The message: the test I advocate for screening for coronary heart disease is a CT or EBT heart scan, not a CT coronary angiogram. CTA is a useful test and will get better and better as the engineers discover ways to reduce radiation exposure. But, in 2007, CTA is a diagnostic device, not a screening device. If you require an abdominal CT scan because your doctor suspects pancreatic cancer, or a CT scan of the brain because you might have a life-threatening aneurysm causing double-vision or seizures, it would be silly to not undergo the scan because of long-term and theoretical cancer risk.

But undergoing a CT coronary angiogram for screening purposes is ridiculous with present technology. I've said it before and I will say it--shout it--again:

CT coronary angiograms are not screening procedures; they are diagnostic procedures that should be taken seriously and do indeed pose measurable risk for cancer, a risk that is presently unacceptable for a screening test.

You wouldn't undergo a mammogram to screen for breast cancer if it exposed you to 100 chest x-rays of radiation, would you? Screening tests should be safe, reliable, accurate, and inexpensive. CT coronary angiography is none of these things. Genuine heart scans--the kind the Track Your Plaque program talks about and relies on--is all of those things.
Tags :

Comments (6) -

  • Anonymous

    7/19/2007 12:16:00 AM |

    Dr. Davis, would you please specify the millisievert values you are assuming for chest x-ray, EBCT Ca score, MSCT Ca score, and CT angiogram? I just got a 64-slice Ca score and they told me I received an effective dose of 2 mSv. Would a CT angiography typically result in 20 mSv?

  • Dr. Davis

    7/19/2007 12:59:00 AM |

    Hi,

    Please see my Blog post, CT scans and radiation exposure at http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2007/06/ct-scans-and-radiation-exposure.html

    You may notice some differences. There's enormous variation in exposure, depending on how it's measured, how the scan is performed, type and manufacturer of scanner. However, you can get a good idea of ballpark figures from the table in the blog post.

  • Dr. Davis

    7/19/2007 1:02:00 AM |

    Let me try that URL again:

    http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/
    search/label/CT%20scans%20and%
    20radiation%20exposure

    Or, go to the left sidebar of Blog contents and see "CT scans and radiation"

  • JT

    7/22/2007 1:55:00 AM |

    I watch Fox news.  And with that statement I'm sure some are rolling their eyes.  Never before in the history of America has declaring what news channel one watches apparently pigeonholed one on their political views.  

    Like many I get my news from different locations: internet blogs, TV, radio, magazines, newspapers, etc, but in the morning I often watch Fox and Friends.  I do so for two reasons I suppose, the first being that I enjoy the joking around / humor on the set.  The second reason why I watch Fox is because it goes out of its way to present two sides of a debate.  It seems revolutionary what Fox has done to TV news - present two sides of a story.  Some people become terribly wound up over this.  On a personal note, I have an "ultra liberal" uncle, by his own definition, that in all honesty is so upset over Fox news and me watching it that he no longer communicates with me.  Uncle Gordon probably has never watched Fox News.  He only knows what he has heard.  And knowing him if he did watch he would only see the conservatives and not notice the liberal view point.  I hope one of these days he calms down and we can find ourselves on friendly terms again.  Change is hard for some to come to terms with.          

    When reading this blog, it disturbed me.  I wish that all news reporters tried harder to present two sides to a story. These high radiation reports would be easy to demonstrate as being only half true.  But instead, because of poorly researched, unprofessional reporting, there undoubtedly will be Americans that will decide to not have a life saving CT heart scan for fear of radiation poisoning.  And that is sad.

  • Dr. Davis

    7/22/2007 3:09:00 AM |

    Hi, JT--

    I couldn't agree more.

    If there's one theme that presents itself over and over lately, it is the struggle to discern the truth in the sea of information we're all presented with every day. I can only hope that we all zig-zag towards a real truth over time.

  • Darwin

    7/24/2007 6:34:00 PM |

    Re the CTCA - new study out concerning radiation exposure for young women.

Add comment

Loading