What if you knew for a fact that your risk for heart attack was 100% by, say, age 58? This is indeed true for many people, though at age 60, 65, 70--or 45.

In other words, unless something were done about the causes of heart disease, you would inevitably suffer a heart attack at 58.

What sort of action could you take at age 45?

Obviously, not smoking is an absolute requirement. Continue and you may as well start getting your affairs together.

How about exercising and eating a generally healthy diet? Will your risk be reduced to zero? No. It might be reduced 20-30%, depending on genetic factors.

How about a statin drug? Watch TV ads during Oprah, and you might think it's a cure. But in reality, while it is a financial bonanza for the drug manufacturers, it will reduce risk for heart attack by 30%.

(Note that risk reduction by following multiple strategies is not necessarily additive. In other words, if you have a healthy lifestyle and take a statin agent, is risk reduced 60% (30 + 30)? No, because the effects may overlap.)

So, eating healthy, exercising, and taking a statin drug might reduce risk 35-40%, maybe 50% in the best case scenario. Would you be satisfied? Most would not.

Add fish oil at a truly therapeutic dose. Risk reduction by itself: 28%.

Add niacin or other strategies for correction of your individual, specific causes of heart disease: Now we're up to 90% reduction.

Throw in a tracking process to prove whether or not atherosclerotic plaque has progressed or reversed. Now we're approaching 100% if plaque reverses. The only way I know how to track plaque is through CT heart scans. What other test is readily available to you with low radiation exposure, yet is relatively inexpensive and precise? It certainly is not stress testing, heart catheterization, CT angiograms, or other techniques. Cholesterol won't tell you. Besides CT heart scans, there's nothing else I know of.

Let's fact it: For many people, uncorrected risk for heart attack is truly 100% at some age. Take action while you can.

That, in a nutshell, is the Track Your Plaque program.

This is a sample image from the heart scan of a 54-year old, 212 lb, 5 ft 2 inch woman. The heart is the whitish-gray in the center; lungs are the dark (air-filled) areas on either side of the heart. Note the massive amount of surrounding gray tissues that encircles the heart and lungs. This is fat. At this weight, the diameter of total fat exceeds the combined diameter of the heart and lungs. If we were to show the abdomen, there would be even more fat. (The image shows the body not well centered because the technologist centers the heart, since this is, after all, a heart scan.)

This is a 55-year old, 151 lb, 5 ft 4 inch woman. Note the contrast in the quantity of fat tissue surrounding the chest, a much more normal appearance. Note that this woman is still around 25 lb over ideal weight, but not to the extreme degree of the woman above.

Another curious observation: Note the more whitish streaking in the heavier woman's lungs. Heart scans are performed while holding a deep inspiration (a deep breath inwards), mostly to eliminate lung respiratory motion during image acquisition. Nonetheless, the heavier woman's lungs are not as fully expanded as the more slender woman. In other words, the heavier woman cannot inflate her lungs as effectively as the thinner woman. Ever notice how breathless heavy people are? Some of this effect is just being out of shape. But there's also the added effect of the abdominal fat exerting upwards compression on the lung tissues, and the constrictive effect of the encircling fat mass. At the beginning of inspiration, the chest fat exerts the resistance of inertia to inspiration that is absent, or less, in a slender person. With each breath, the heavy woman must move 50 lbs or so of surrounding fat mass just to inhale.

The heavier woman is, in effect, suffocating herself in fat.

The distortions to the human body incurred by extreme weight gain are both fascinating and shocking. I hope you're breathing easily.

John's initial heart scan four years ago showed a score of 329. His physician prescribed Zocor for a somewhat high LDL cholesterol.

One year later, John asked for another scan. His score: 385, a 17% increase. John exercised harder and cut his fat intake.

This past fall--3 years after his last scan--John had yet another heart scan. Score: 641, a 66% increase over the last scan, all the while on Zocor.

John sought an opinion from a reputable cardiologist. He concurred with the prescription of Zocor and advised annual stress tests. That's it.

Followers of the Track Your Plaque approach know that the expected uncorrected rate of increase in heart scan score is 30% per year. On Zocor or other cholesterol reducing statin agent, a common rate of growth is between 18-24% per year--better but not great. Plaque growth is certainly not stopped.

But that is the full extent of interest and responsibility of your cardiologist. Prescribe a statin drug, perform a stress test, and the full extent of his obligation has been fulfilled. In legal terms, your physician has met the prevailing
"standard of care". No more, no less.

In other words, the prevailing standard of care falls shamefully short of what is truly possible. For the majority of the motivated and interested, coronary plaque reversal--reduction of your heart scan score--should be the standard aimed for. It's not always achievable, but it is so vastly superior to the prescribe statin, wait for heart attack approach endorsed by most cardiologists.

This is an example of a so-called "hiatal hernia", meaning the stomach has migrated through the diaphragmatic hiatus into the chest--the stomach is literally in the chest. This example is an unusually large one. Hiatal hernias can cause chest pain, indigestion, and a variety of other gastrointestinal complaints. Heart scans are reasonably useful to screen for this disorder, though very small ones could escape detection by this method.

Sometimes, you can actually hear the gurgling of stomach contents (the common "growling" stomach) by listening to the chest. Large ones like this actually crowd your heart (the gray structure above the circled hernia), irritating it and even causing abnormal rhythm disorders. The dense dark material within the hernia represents lunch.

I would not advocate CT heart scans as a principal method to make a diagnosis, but sometimes it just pops up during a heart scan and we pass it on to the person scanned.

At the meetings of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research, Dr. Bruce Troen of the University of Miami detailed his views on the extraordinary benefits of vitamin D replacement. He also talked about the enormous problem of unrecognized vitamin deficiency.

“There’s a huge epidemic of hypovitaminosis D, and the real key here is not just that it’ll benefit you from a bone and neuromuscular standpoint, but if you correct hypovitaminosis D and the corresponding secondary hyperparathyroidism, then you’re going to decrease prostate cancer, colon cancer—actually “up to 17 different cancers, breast cancer included.”

Unfortunately, Dr. Troen did not talk much about the heart benefits of vitamin D, likely since the data is scant, nearly non-existent. However, if the Track Your Plaque experience means anything, I predict that vitamin D replacement will become among the most powerful tools you can use to gain control over coronary plaque.

Read the text of a report from the Internal Medicine World Report to read more of Dr. Troen's comments.

http://www.imwr.com/article.php?s=IMWR/2006/11&p=40

Here's an interesting example of a 71-year old man who achieved "reversal" of an abnormality by a nuclear stress test.

This man underwent bypass surgery around 10 years ago, two stents three years ago. A nuclear stress test in April, 2005 showed an area of poor blood flow in the front of the heart. On the images, normal blood flow is shown by the yellow/orange areas. poor or absent blood flow is shown by the blue/purple areas within the white outline.

Now, I can tell you that this man is no paragon of health. He's only accepted limited changes in his otherwise conventional program--in other words, someone who I'd be shocked achieved true reversal of his heart disease. (I didn't have him undergo any CT heart scans because of the difficulties in scoring someone who has undergone bypass surgery and stents, and because of limited motivation. True plaque reversal is for the motivated.)This patient did, however, accept adding fish oil and niacin to his program.

Nonetheless, stress testing can be helpful as a "safety check". Here's the follow-up stress test:

You'll notice that the blue/purple areas of poor blood flow have just about disappeared. This occurred without procedures.

Does this represent "reversal"? No, it does not. It does represent reversal of this phenomenon of poor flow. It does not represent reversal of the plaque lining the artery wall. That's because improvement of flow, as in this man, can be achieved with relatively easy efforts, e.g., improvement in diet, statin drugs, blood pressure control, etc. True reversal or reduction of coronary plaque, however, is tougher.

If blood flow is improved, who cares whether plaque shrinks? Does it still matter? It does. That's because the "event" that gets us in trouble is not progressive reduction in blood flow, but "rupture" of a plaque. A reduction in plaque--genuine reversal--is what slashes risk of plaque rupture.

People frequently ask, "Why measure coronary artery calcium? My doctor said that calcium only tells you if there's hard plaque, and that hard plaque is stable. He/she says that calcium doesn't tell you anything about soft plaque."

Is that true? Is calcium only a reflection of "hard" plaque? Is hard plaque also more stable, less prone to rupture and causes heart attack?

Actually, calcium is a means of measuring total plaque, both soft and hard. That's because calcium comprises 20% of total plaque volume. Within plaque, there may be areas that are soft (labeled "lipid pool" in the diagram). There are also areas made of calcium (shown in white arcs within the plaque). Even though this is just a graphic, it's representative of what is seen when we perform intracoronary ultrasound of a live human being's coronary artery. In other words, this cross section contains both "soft" (lipid pool) as well as "hard" (calcium) elements.

Is this artery "soft" or "hard"? It's both, of course. The artery compostion can vary millimeter by millimeter, having more soft or hard elements. The artery can also change over time in either direction. Thus, "soft" plaque may indeed be soft today, only to be "hard" in 6 months, and vice versa.

The essential point is that measuring just "soft" plaque provides limited information. What the CT heart scan does is provide a gauge of total plaque, soft and hard, and it does so easily, safely, precisely. If your score increases, the lengthwise volume of total plaque has also grown. If your score decreases, the total amount of plaque has also decreased.

We're all so inundated with marketing messages for food. Unfortunately, many people confuse the messages delivered through marketing with the truth.

For instance:

Pork: "The other white meat." Pork is a high-saturated fat food.

"Bananas: A great source of potassium." Bananas are a high glycemic index (rapid sugar release), low fiber food.

"Pretzels: A low-fat snack." A high glycemic index food made from white wheat flour. It makes you fat and skyrockets blood sugar.

Jif peanut butter: "Choosy moms choose Jif." Do they also choose hydrogenated fats?

Hi-C: Upbeat jingles like "Who put the straw in my Hi-C fruit drink, a new cool straw that wriggles and bends? Who put the straw in my Hi-C fruit drink, with Vitamin C for me and my friends? Who was that man, I'd like to shake his hand, he made my Hi-C cooler than before!" What about the 25 grams of sugar per 4 oz serving? And the high fructose corn syrup that creates an insatiable sweet tooth, raises triglycrides 30%, and exagerates pre-diabetes?

Marketing is not reliable, unbiased information. If Ford boasts that their cars are superior to GM, do you say "Well then, I need to buy a Ford?" Of course not. Take marketing for what it is: A method of persuading people to buy. It may or may not contain the truth. It's a big part of the reason Americans are the fattest people on earth and are experiencing an explosion of chronic diseases of excess.

"Are you taking your health to heart? Perhaps you understand the importance of eating a diet low in cholesterol or getting 30 minutes of exercise a day. But do you know your own risk of developing cardiovascular disease?

It’s time to take your heart health personally. Heart disease is the No. 1 killer of American women — and that means it is not “someone else’s problem.” As a woman, it’s your problem.

That’s where the Go Red Heart Checkup comes in. This comprehensive evaluation of your overall heart health can help you now and in the future. By knowing your numbers and assessing your risks now, you can work with your doctor to significantly reduce your chances of getting heart disease tomorrow, next year, or 30 years from now!"

So reads some of the materials promoted by the American Heart Association Red Dress campaign to increase awareness of heart disease in women. The effort is well-intended. There is no doubt that most women are unaware of just how common coronary disease is in females.

But I've got a problem with the solutions offered. "Know your numbers"? Eat healthy, don't be overweight, be active, don't smoke. That's the gist of the program's message--nothing new. In 2006, why would some sort of screening effort for detectin of heart disease not be part of the message? Why isn't there any message about the real, truly effective means to detect hidden heart disease in women--namely, heart scanning?

Does a 58-year old woman with normal blood pressure, LDL 144, HDL 51, 20 lbs overweight have hidden heart disease? I've said it before and I'll say it again: You can't tell from the numbers. She could die of a heart attack tomorrow without warning, or maybe she'll be dancing on our graves when she's 95 and never have experienced any manifestation of heart disease. The numbers will not tell you this.

I'm glad the American Heart Association has seen fit to invest its sponsors' money in a campaign to promote prevention. I wish they hadn't fallen so far short of a truly helpful message. Perhaps the sponsors (like Pfizer, maker of Lipitor) will benefit, anyway.

Several days ago, I wrote about a local prominent judge in my neighborhood who was unexpectedly found dead in bed of a heart attack at age 49.

As expected, I've received multiple calls from patients and physicians who want heart catheterizations. For instance, an internist I know called me in a panic. He asked that I perform a heart catheterization in a patient with a heart scan score of 768. I've been seeing this patient for about a year. He's without symptoms, even with strenuous exercise; stress tests (i.e., tests of coronary bloow flow) have been normal.

I remind patients and colleagues every day, day in day out: Having a heart scan score revealing some measure of coronary plaque is not a sufficient reason by itself to proceed with procedures. Fear of suffering a fate like the unfortunate judge is also not a reason to proceed with procedures.

Increased awareness of the gravity of heart disease is a good thing. Some good can come out of a needless tragedy like this. The lesson from the judge's unfortunate experience: he needed a CT heart scan. I'm told that the judge's doctor advised him that a heart scan was a waste of time. I hope that appropriate legal action for negligence is taken by the judge's family against this physician.

Not doing a heart scan is wrong. That's the lesson to learn. The lesson is not that everybody with coronary plaque needs a procedure. Had the judge undergone a simple heart scan, intensified prevention could have been instituted and he'd still be alive with his wife and children today.

The indications for procedures are unchanged by your heart scan. If a stress test is abnormal and indicates poor flow to a part of the heart, that would be a reason. If symptoms like chest discomfort or breathlessness appear, that's an indication. If there's evidence of poor heart muscle contraction, that's a reason to proceed with a procedure. But just having coronary plaque is not a sufficient reason.

Clinical studies can be designed in a number of ways. The ease and cost of these studies differ dramatically, as does the confidence of the findings.

The most confident way to design a clinical study is to tell neither the participants nor the investigator(s) what treatment is being offered, then to administer treatment or placebo. Neither the people doing the research nor the participants know what they are receiving. Of course, there needs to be some way to find out what was given at the end of the study in order to analyze the outcome.

This is called a “double-blind, placebo-controlled” clinical study. While not perfect since it tends to examine a treatment phenomenon in isolation (e.g., the effects of a single drug in a select group of people), it is the best sort of study design that is most likely to yield confident results, both negative and positive. This sort of design is followed, for instance, for most prescription drugs.

There are pitfalls in such studies, of course, and some have made headlines lately. For instance, beyond tending to examine single conditions in a select group of participants, a double-blind, placebo-controlled study can also fail to uncover rare effects. If a study contains 5000 participants, for instance, but a rare complication develops in 1 person out of 20,000, then it’s unlikely such an ill-effect will be observed until larger numbers of people are exposed to the agent.

Another pitfall (though not so much of study design, but of human greed) is that study outcomes that are not favorable can be suppressed by simply failing to publish the results. This has undoubtedly happened numerous times over the years. For this reason, a registry has been created for all human clinical trials as a means to enforce publication of outcomes, both favorable and unfavorable.

Despite its weaknesses, the double-blind, placebo-controlled study design remains the most confident way to show whether or not some treatment does indeed yield some effect. It is less prone to bias from either the participant or the investigator. Human nature being what it is, we tend to influence results just to suit our particular agenda or interests. An investigator who knows what you are given, drug or placebo, but owns lots of stock in the company, or is hoping for special favors from the pharmaceutical company sponsor, for instance, is likely to perceive events in a light favorable to the outcome of the study.

Now, most studies are not double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. These are notoriously difficult studies to engineer; raise lots of ethical questions (can you not treat a person with an aggressive cancer, for instance, and administer a placebo?); often require substantial numbers of participants (thousands), many of whom may insist on payment for devoting their time, bodies, and perhaps even encountering some risk; and are tremendously expensive, costing many tens of millions of dollars.

For this reason, many other study designs are often followed. They are cheaper, quicker, may not even require the active knowledge or participation of the group being studied. That’s not to say that the participants are being tricked. It may simply be something like trying to determine if there are more heart attacks in people who live in cities compared to rural areas by comparing death rates from heart attack from public records and population demographic data. Or, a nutritional study could be performed by asking people how many eggs they eat each week and then contacting them every month for 5 years to see if they’ve had a heart attack or other heart event. No treatment is introduced, no danger is added to a person’s established habits. Many epidemiologic studies are performed this way.

The problem is that these other sorts of study designs, because they generate less confident results, are not generally regarded as proof of anything. They can only suggest the possibility of an association, an hypothesis. For real proof to occur, a double-blind, placebo-controlled may need to follow. Alternatively, if an association suggested by a study of lesser design might, by reasons of a very powerful effect, be sufficient. But this is rare. Thalidomide and catastrophic birth defects are an example of an association between a drug and fetal limb malformation that was so clear-cut that no further investigation was required to establish a causative association. Of course, no one in their right mind would even suggest a blinded study.

Where am I going with this tedious rambling? Lately, the media has been making a big to-do about several studies, none of which are double-blind, placebo-controlled, but were cross-sectional sorts of observations, the sorts of studies which can only suggest an effect. This happened with Dr. Steve Nissen’s study of Avandia (rosiglitazone) for pre-diabetes and risk for heart attack and the recent study suggesting that cancer incidence is increased when LDL cholesterol is low. Both were observations that suggested such associations.

Now, those of you following the Heart Scan Blog or the www.cureality.com website know that we do not defend drug companies nor their drugs. In fact, we’ve openly and repeatedly criticized the drug industry for many of its practices. Drugs are, in my opinion, miserably overused and abused.

But, as always, I am in the pursuit of truth. Neither of these studies, in my view, justified the sort of media attention they received. They are hypothesis-generating efforts—that’s it. You might argue that the questions raised are so crucial that any incremental risk of a drug is simply not worth it.

Despite the over-reaction to these studies, good will come of the fuss. I do believe that heightened scrutiny of the drug industry will result. Many people will seek to avoid prescription drugs and opt for healthy changes in lifestyle, thus reducing exposure to costs and side-effects.

But beware of the media, acting as our Chicken Little, reporting on studies that prove nothing but only raise questions.

jpatti
9/11/2007 10:26:00 AM |

There's another issue with double-blind studies, for things other than drugs or supplements, they're impossible.

Your example of the number of eggs in a person's diet is a good example; there's no "placebo" for eggs.  Similarly, if I increase my level of exercise, I notice that - it can't be blinded.  For diet and other lifestyle changes, we will never be able to gain the amount of evidence as for drug trials.

I think this is why many doctors don't think so much about prescribing these types of things, except for a cursory instruction to "eat better, lose weight and exercise," they're just not as strongly convinced of the benefit of these changes because they can't be proven as strongly.  But... not being able to prove something doesn't mean it's not important to health!

As a diabetic, I measure my bg multiple times a day and make changes to my food intake, exercise and medication dosage to hit established bg goals.  While I think tightly-controlling bg is probably the number one thing I can do for my heart health, it can never be proven in a double-blind study.

Heart attack guaranteed

Heart scan curiosities 3

The shameful "standard of care"

Heart scan curiosities 2

Vitamin D: New Miracle Drug

Heart disease "reversal" by stress test

Calcium reflects total plaque

Don't mistake marketing for truth

Tattered Red Dress

Panic in the streets

Chicken Little

Comments (1) -

jpatti

Add comment

Related posts

Comments (1) -

jpatti

Add comment