How will you know your score dropped?

This issue came up twice this week.

Bill is a busy accountant. Two years ago, just after the tumult of the 2005 tax season was over, he got a CT heart scan. His score: 398. At age 53, this was a significant score. His internist did the usual: prescribed a statin (Zocor), told him to cut the fat in his diet, and be sure to exercise. (Yawn.)

Since then, Bill quit preparing tax returns and migrated to a less harried job in corporate accounting. It took two years since his heart scan for Bill to start thinking that perhaps his doctor's advice wasn't enough. If it was, he realized, everyone on a statin drug who made these minimal lifestyle changes would be cured of heart attack risk. Clearly not the case.

So Bill enrolled in the Track Your Plaque program. Our first step: Get another heart scan.

Bill was surprised. "Why another scan? I already had one!"

I explained to Bill that atherosclerotic plaque is like money: it grows in percentages, just like money in a bank account or in a mutual fund. If, for instance, you deposit $500 in a mutual fund and it yields 5% return, then after one year you will have $550. One year later, you will have 5% x $550, or $605. Another year: $665. In other words, growth is not 10% of the original amount you deposited. Growth is compounded, year over year. That's why money, when compounded, can grow so quickly.

Atherosclerotic plaque and your CT heart scan score do the same thing: they grow by a percentage of the current plaque quantity. In fact, we use the compound interest equation to calculate the annualized rate of plaque growth. But plaque grows at the extraordinary rate of 30% per year, on average. Imagine that was the rate of return on your money. You'd be the richest man or woman on earth.

Back to Bill. Now Bill, in his defense, was on a statin drug and did make modest efforts towards a (mis-guided) low-fat diet and walking four days per week. If, on a second CT heart scan, his score was:

398--No change. That's a success, since the expected rate of increase of 30% has been stopped. However, on his current program, this is highly unlikely. (I've seen it happen just once ever out of about 2000 people.)

250--Pop the cork on your champagne, because Bill needs to celebrate. He has substantially reversed his plaque. Highly unlikely on the current effort.

525 --The score is higher by 30%, so it has slowed, but it surely hasn't stopped. This is the most typical result on the sort of program Bill is following.

The message: Don't delay after your first heart scan score. It plaque grows like money with a huge return, there's no time like the present to take the steps to regain control.
Loading
Turning plaque into profit

Turning plaque into profit

For reasons unknown to me, I received a solicitation to invest in a company called Prescient Medical, with a slogan that caught my eye:


Detect and treat heart attacks before they occur.


The glossy brochure details their technology development strategy:

Predict(TM) Optical Catheter System--A catheter introduced into the coronary artery during a catheterization procedure to determine whether a specific plaque or vessel area is "vulnerable," i.e., prone to rupture in future.

Protect(TM) Luminal Shield--A stent-like metal device deployed into the coronary artery at the region of vulnerable plaque to prevent future plaque rupture.

The company anticipates FDA approval for their systems by 2009 and sales to begin by 2010. They predict sales of $7 billion.

Let's stop and think about this for a moment. It seems to me that, rather than pursuing the market of another stent for a "severe blockage," this company is going after the untapped procedural market of vulnerable plaque. In other words, their technology (an optical sensor technology that emits and analyzes light wavelengths to map specific plaque characteristics) identifies plaque that may rupture in months or years, followed by implantation of stent(s) that presumably prevent plaque rupture.

Thus, conceivably, many 20%, 30%, 40% etc. "blockages", atherosclerotic plaques that do not block flow and thereby pose no need for a conventional stent, will end up with this new type of stent. One patient could therefore receive multiple "Luminal Shields" in a single procedure.

When would these devices be employed? One pathway I could conceive of that my colleagues will be sure to exploit is 1) identify plaque by CT angiography, then 2) bring patient to the catheterization laboratory and perform this procedure for whatever hot, vulnerable plaques are identified. In other words, symptoms are no longer necessary. Reduced blood flow is no longer necessary. An abnormal stress test is no longer necessary. All that is required is that you have plaque. If the plaque is then determined to be vulnerable, then it is stented.

What bothers me about all this is the emerging effort to exploit this untapped market--a big one--of early heart disease as identified by coronary atherosclerotic plaque. As heart scans have demonstrated, there is an enormous amount of hidden heart disease in this world. This company has discovered a way to turn plaque into a profit opportunity, much as the statin drug industry found a way to "turn cholesterol into money."

The conventional stent market has plateaued and now has been, to some degree, battered by the drug-coated stent argument. Prescient has found a new and significant market for procedures and stents.

Is this really necessary? Why does plaque have to become a procedural disease? Doesn't it make more sense that, if vulnerable plaque is identified, that clinical trials are then designed to develop treatment strategies that modify vulnerable characteristics? Shockingly, this has not been done to any significant extent. Instead, the easiest path to a profit opportunity is to implant a "Luminal Shield."

You and I are able to inactivate, disempower, and essentially shut down plaque, while others are working furiously to convert it into a procedural profit opportunity. I personally find this so distasteful that I would sooner endorse a high-dose statin strategy than this approach.

You can view a video of my colleague, Dr. Martin Leon, on the Prescient Medical website, (or click here to go directly to the video), talking about how this technology will "change the treatment paradigm of the interventionalist from reactive to proactive." Scary stuff. Dr. Leon has made millions of dollars (probably more like tens of millions of dollars) from his support of technology companies for the interventional coronary device market.

My hope is that word of the sorts of techniques we use in the Track Your Plaque program disseminate before this sort of luminal coating idiocy gets off the ground.

(In actuality, a different version of this approach has been available for years using intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), another procedure that involves threading a catheter down each coronary artery during a catheterization procedure. IVUS can also cross-sectionally map a plaque's anatomy and identify "vulnerable" features, like a thin cap overlying a collection of semi-liquid fat ("lipid pool"). There has been some discussion of using this approach to identify vulnerable plaque followed by stent implantation, but it has never gotten off the ground and has certainly not found validation in any clinical study. By the way, any stent prevents plaque rupture, since by their very nature, the plaque contents are compressed, modified, and excluded to the exterior of the stent. Plaque rupture within a stent is very rare in its few millimeters of length. It may therefore not require some new technology to prevent plaque rupture.)

Comments (7) -

  • Cindy Moore

    2/4/2008 1:38:00 AM |

    Well, I've heard of some, diabetics all I think, who have had a cath done and ended up with stents simply because they are diabetic.  No symptoms, just high cholesterol and diabetic.  

    I know one woman who has 2 50% blockages and has been told she needs a bypass ASAP....and completely asymptomatic. (her's was diagnosed by ultrasound, external ultrasound too, does that sound right? can they see that degree of detail?)

  • Dr. Davis

    2/4/2008 1:10:00 PM |

    Hi, Cindy--

    No, ultrasound cannot visualize coronary arteries. But they can visualize the left ventricle. Perhaps she had an abnormal left ventricle that provided presumptive evidence of poor flow. But that's just my guess.

  • Anonymous

    2/4/2008 3:36:00 PM |

    This post reminds me of how trusting people can be with hospitals and magazine articles, even when they suspect something might be wrong.  

    When it comes to investments it always amazes me how people can trust strangers to invest their hard earned money.  A person might read a magazine article about a "hot investment", or maybe a stock broker mentions the companies latest recommendations from their company "research experts".  And without much thought and no research of their own people will happily hand over cash with out really knowing what investment they are buying into.    

    It is a different reaction if a stranger off the street came to you and said he/she knows of a fantastic investment you should buy into.  If that happened, you would naturally be cautious.  If you did not dismiss the stranger outright, you would ask questions, want to know what kind of success the stranger had in the past, details about the investment, and what was their definition of success?  

    I've been talking with a lady who's husband has heart disease.  She learned of my heart healthy diet and felt a need to give me her negative unsolicited thoughts.  She reads magazines and tells me of the latest procedures or drug possibilities being developed.  She does not think highly of her husbands doctors. Up until the other day I had not heard her say a kind word about any doctor.  "They don't know what they are doing!" she would tell me.  I told her about TYP and the great information she could learn from the web sight,and the success many are having with reversing heart disease, but TYP did not interest her.  Her doctor had not told her of CT scans, lipoprotien testing.  Even learning from me about heart healthy supplements and diet held little to no interest for her.          

    The other morning she told me her husband had a check-up and the doctor told him he was doing "fantastic".  I nodded and said that was great, I hope he has continued success.  I walked away thinking what I really wanted to say - why do you still trust so much?  Did you ask for your husbands doctors definition of fantastic?  Is it fantastic because he has enriched the hospital with procedure after procedure?

  • Dr. Davis

    2/4/2008 5:44:00 PM |

    Yes. Well said.

    As you point out, most people regard the absence of symptoms the same as health. Of course, that's not even close to the truth.

    The emerging phenomenon of self-empowerment in health will make for great confusion as well as great opportunity.

  • Thomas

    2/5/2008 1:00:00 AM |

    Dr. Davis,

    A little bit off the main thread, but what do you think are the chances of having completely clear coronary vessels if you have a heart scan score of zero?

  • Dr. Davis

    2/5/2008 1:24:00 AM |

    Thomas--

    The chances are excellent. The likelihood of uncalcified plaque and the risk of coronary events like heart attack is exceptionally low.

    There are exceptions when symptoms are present or certain forms of lipid (cholesterol) abnormalities are present, but they are indeed exceptional. Please read the Track Your Plaque Special Report, What if my heart scan score is zero?

  • Anonymous

    3/22/2008 3:25:00 PM |

    Sad but its all about the money now. After my 3rd visit to er room last dec 04 I had them unplug me and walked slowly out of the cath lab...Dr. said I needed bypasses etc., but I refused...plus the 10,000 for all the drugs was a bit much...3 bags of morphine was the cheapest........read your book after scan and have been doing good so far so guess 2 of the 4 stents from 03/1999 are not blocking anymore plus nitro use is way down now going into the 4th yr.

    Was going to make appt. but with the weather so bad I'm just staying put and reading all this stuff. Would like to say my BP is lower now that am low carbing and no atenolol or altace needed so what you eat does make a big difference.

    Hope you keep this site going as its really helping me a lot. I'm so far keeping the right neck flowing at 50% after operation, the left still no flow and not operatable now. Good luck and keep the info coming....Roaming

Loading
Mercury and fish oil

Mercury and fish oil

As time passes, the dose of fish oil advocated in the Track Your Plaque program is going upward.

While epidemiologic studies, like the Chicago Western Electric Study and the Nurses' Health Study suggest that decreases in mortality from heart disease begin by just eating fish a couple times per month, there are newer data that suggest greater quantities confer greater benefits.

In the last Heart Scan Blog post, I discussed the recently-released ERA JUMP Study that demonstrated a relationship between higher omega-3 fatty acid blood content and reduced quantities of carotid and coronary plaque. The JELIS Study demonstrated a 19% reduction in cardiovascular events when fish-consuming Japanese added 1800 mg of EPA (only).

However, the suggestion that increased quantities of fish oil potentially yield greater protection from heart attack and facilitate coronary plaque regression is also stirring up worries about mercury exposure. So I dug up a Heart Scan Blog post from a year ago that discussed this issue and reprint it here.


I often get questions about the mercury content in fish oil. I've even had patients come to the office saying their primary care doctor told them to stop fish oil to avoid mercury poisoning.

Manufacturers of fish oil also make claims that this product or that ("super-concentrated", "pharmaceutical grade", "purified", etc.) is purer or less contaminated than competitors' products. The manufacturers of the "drug" Omacor [now Lovaza], or prescription fish oil, have added to the confusion by suggesting that their product is the most pure of all, since it is the most concentrated of any fish oil preparation (900 mg EPA+DHA per capsule). They claim that "OMACOR is naturally derived through a unique, patented process that creates a highly concentrated, highly purified prescription medicine. By prescribing OMACOR® (omega-3-acid ethyl esters), a prescription omega-3, your doctor is giving you a concentrated and reliable omega-3. Each OMACOR capsule contains 90% omega-3 acids (84% EPA/DHA*). Nonprescription omega-3 dietary supplements typically contain only 13%-63% EPA/DHA."

How much truth is there in these concerns?

Let's go to the data published by the USDA, FDA, and several independent studies. Let's add to that the independent (and therefore presumably unbiased) analyses provided by Consumer Reports and Consumer Labs (www.consumerlab.com). How much mercury has been found in fish oil supplements?

None.

This is different from the mercury content of whole fish that you eat. Predatory fish that are at the top of the food chain and consume other fish and thereby concentrate organic methyl mercury, the toxic form of mercury. Thus, shark, swordfish, and King mackerel are higher in mercury than sardines, herring, and salmon.

The mercury content of fish oil capsules have little to do with the method of processing and much more with the animal source of oil. Fish oil is generally obtained from sardines, salmon, and cod, all low in mercury. Fish oil capsules are not prepared from swordfish or shark.

Thus, concerns about mercury from fish oil--regardless of brand--are generally unfounded, according to the best information we have. Eating whole fish--now that's another story for another time. But you and I can take our fish oil to reduce triglycerides, VLDL, IDL, small LDL, and heart attack risk without worrying about mercury.



I am not advocating ad libitum eating of fish. Sadly, this may be related to excessive accumulation of contaminants. I am suggesting that greater quantities of omega-3 fatty acids from relatively contaminant- and mercury-free fish oil capsules.

More on this in an upcoming webinar on the Track Your Plaque website: Fish Oil and the Track Your Plaque Program - Is More Better?

Comments (9) -

  • Anne

    8/2/2008 2:39:00 PM |

    I take omega-3 fish oil supplements and I eat lots of oily fish, generally around 400g salmon, 200g sardines and 200g trout per week. I'm not worried about the mercury content of the fish I eat, partly because these are fish low in mercury anyway but also because I did a fair bit of research and discovered that a lot of the mercury content of fish and how it affects a person depends on the age of the person and how many years they have been eating fish. I, for example, only started to eat fish a couple of years ago in my early 50s, and by the time any serious level of mercury might have built up in my body I will be an extremely old lady...but I'm not worried.

    I've also read that the mercury in the bodies of children growing up in the Pacific who eat a lot of fish is much higher than the rest of the world but they are not damaged by it, and the beneficial effects of the fish outweigh the effects of the mercury. Here's one comment about that:  'Mercury, fish and you: what to do ?': http://tinyurl.com/5ddkbs

    Anne

  • Jim

    8/2/2008 2:53:00 PM |

    I have been increasing the amount of salmon in my diet, but it is getting harder to find wild salmon in my area (Tulsa, Oklahoma), and when I do find it, it is much higher in price than farmed salmon. So, as a result, I eat a lot of farmed salmon, which probably does not offer much of a health benefit.

  • Jenny

    8/2/2008 2:54:00 PM |

    Are there good quality large scale studies linking the use of fish oil capsules with improved outcomes?

    Studies like the Japanese one you cited are of people eating fish, not taking the oil separately, and it's worth noting that the Japanese who are always cited as the good health example for fish do eat shark and just about anything else that swims.

    It is also a fact that the people I mentioned who needed chelation therapy for proven mercury poisoning were eating mostly salmon and cod.

    I do use fish oil capsules. But so many nutrients have proven ineffective when taken apart from the foods they are embedded in that one has to wonder.

    Vitamins A, C and E supplementation has not tested out but foods high in those nutrients do.

    So that makes me wonder how much of the benefit of eating fish is from the oil and how much from  other factors associated with fish eating. Has the benefit of fish oil eaten without the rest of the fish and not as part of a meal been shown in high quality research not funded by fish oil merchants?

  • Ross

    8/2/2008 7:19:00 PM |

    What you want is molecularly distilled fish oil.  The molecular distillation process reduces the amount of mercury to a level that is not detectable with modern instrumentation.  Since our bodies can tolerate detectable quantities of mercury without harm, using molecularly distilled fish oil is pretty much mercury free.

    So which brands use molecular distillation?  Carlson's, LEF, and pretty much all of the major brands do.  If you're not sure, take a look at the label.  It should be written somewhere on there.

    Any product claiming to have "lower mercury levels" than other quality sources is just blowing smoke.  None of them contain measurable amounts of mercury.

  • Red Sphynx

    8/2/2008 9:29:00 PM |

    Is rancidity a significant problem with capsules?

  • Anne

    8/3/2008 8:37:00 AM |

    The omega-3 fish oil I take is not in capsule form but a liquid - Eskimo-3. It says it has been purified so that mercury and other environmental contaminants are well below current acceptable levels and this has been confirmed by independent studies. It has not been chemically modified. You have to store it in the fridge once opened. They press the oil from sardines caught in deep seas from the Antarctic and south Atlantic.

    Anne

  • Dr. Brad

    8/3/2008 11:28:00 PM |

    the data on mercury toxicity from fish is very interesting- basically, the toxicologist (in lieu of epidemiologists) defined the 'upper limits'. Toxicologists routinely assume 1/10th the level where problems were identified as their upper limit threshold-- if you look at the original data, however, you'll find that it was based on people who's primary food was pilot whale and another group and in both cases there was at best, minimal cognitive changes noted.  they then took this threhold and lowered the limit by 10 fold--- the result of this national public policy--- 3/4 of all pregnant woman eat insufficient amounts of omega3FAs-- had epidemiologist looked at this issue and been involved in creating the recommended guidelines you would have seen 5-10x higher levels of mercury consumption permitted.  i'll find the original data on this and send it your way abit later.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 2:54:54 PM |

    The mercury content of fish oil capsules have little to do with the method of processing and much more with the animal source of oil. Fish oil is generally obtained from sardines, salmon, and cod, all low in mercury. Fish oil capsules are not prepared from swordfish or shark.

  • moseley2010

    12/6/2010 6:09:56 PM |

    I also get these mercury remarks or concerns every time I encourage friends to start taking fish oil supplements. I always explain that as long as they come from clean waters, like the ones surrounding New Zealand, it's ok. I guess I gave them the wrong explanation. Now I know what to tell them.

Loading