Tim Russert's heart scan score 210. . .in 1998

Despite the media blathering over how Mr. Russert's tragic death from heart attack could not have been predicted, it turns out that he had undergone a heart scan several years ago.

A New York Times article, A Search for Answers in Russert’s Death, reported:

Given the great strides that have been made in preventing and treating heart disease, what explains Tim Russert’s sudden death last week at 58 from a heart attack?

The answer, at least in part, is that although doctors knew that Mr. Russert, the longtime moderator of “Meet the Press” on NBC, had coronary artery disease and were treating him for it, they did not realize how severe the disease was because he did not have chest pain or other telltale symptoms that would have justified the kind of invasive tests needed to make a definitive diagnosis. In that sense, his case was sadly typical: more than 50 percent of all men who die of coronary heart disease have no previous symptoms, the American Heart Association says.

It is not clear whether Mr. Russert’s death could have been prevented. He was doing nearly all he could to lower his risk. He took blood pressure pills and a statin drug to control his cholesterol, he worked out every day on an exercise bike, and he was trying to lose weight, his doctors said on Monday. And still it was not enough.

“What is surprising,” Dr. Newman said, “is that the severity of the anatomical findings would not be predicted from his clinical situation, the absence of symptoms and his performing at a very high level of exercise.”

Buried deeper in this article, the fact that Mr. Russert had a heart scan score of 210 in 1998 is revealed.

That bit of information is damning. Readers of The Heart Scan Blog know that heart scan scores are expected to grow at a rate of 30% per year. This would put Mr. Russert's heart scan score at 2895 in 2008. But the two doctors providing care for Mr. Russert were advising the conventional treatments: prescribing cholesterol drugs, blood pressure medication, managing blood sugar, and doing periodic stress tests.

Conventional efforts usually slow the progression of heart scan scores to 14-24% per year. Let's assume the rate of increase was only 14% per year. That would put Mr. Russert's 2008 score at 779.

A simple calculation from known information in 1998 clearly, obviously, and inarguably predicted his death. Recall that heart scan scores of 1000 or greater are associated with annual--ANNUAL--risk for heart attack and death of 20-25% if no preventive action is taken. The meager prevention efforts taken by Mr. Russert's doctors did indeed reduce risk modestly, but it did not eliminate risk.

We know that growing plaque is active plaque. Active plaque means rupture-prone plaque. Rupture prone plaque means continuing risk for heart attack and death. Heart attack and death means the approach used in Mr. Russert was a miserable failure.

While the press blathers on about how heart disease is a tragedy, as Mr. Russert's doctors squirm under the fear of criticism, the answers have been right here all alone. It sometimes takes a reminder like Mr. Russert's tragic passing to remind us that tracking plaque is a enormously useful, potentially lifesaving approach to coronary heart disease.

Who needs to go next? Matt Lauer, Oprah, Jay Leno, some other media personality? Someone close to you? Can this all happen right beneath the nose of your doctor, even your cardiologist?

I don't need to remind readers of The Heart Scan Blog that heart disease is 1) measurable, 2) trackable, 3) predictable. Mr. Russert's future was clear as long ago as 1998. Every year that passed, his future became clearer and clearer, yet his doctors fumbled miserably.

Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD

Comments (10) -

  • Richard A.

    6/18/2008 4:51:00 AM |

    "He also had a dangerous combination of other risk factors: high triglycerides, a type of fat in the blood, and a low level of HDL, the “good cholesterol” that can help the body get rid of the bad cholesterol that can damage arteries."

    I wonder if he was taking fish oil supplements to try to drive down his triglycerides and niacin to prop up his HDL?

  • Anonymous

    6/18/2008 5:36:00 AM |

    I had a 234 score in 2005 and a 419 score in 2007 - if it wasn't for resources like TYP - I wouldn't have pushed my Dr with questions about Vit D and CQ 10 and Fish Oil...  sit waiting for the next scan to see if things are under control (now - small LDL-P 123 nmol/L).

    Just think if Tim R had the time to do a bit of research himself and found TYP - but that is what your physicans should be doing for you.... growing... learning... but as an engineer, I know the spectrum of people calling themselves engineers is a large spectrum... so it is with MDs.

    Thanks for what you do Dr D.


  • Dr. William Davis

    6/18/2008 11:53:00 AM |

    Yes. Fish oil alone could have cut his risk of sudden cardiac death by 45%. It would have cost him all of $3 per month.

  • Anonymous

    6/18/2008 3:09:00 PM |

    I have been wondering if the trans-Atlantic flight several days before his death could have had something to do with it...

  • Anonymous

    6/18/2008 5:08:00 PM |

    Dr Davis I just wonder what you think of this Dr. Mehmet(?) Oz who keeps popoing up on television and writing books talking about the same old stuff, low fat, high carbs blah blah blah . . . I think since Mr. Russerts death I've seen him on tv 3 times and NOT ONCE has he mentioned calcium scoring, vitamin D, fish oil . . .

  • Anonymous

    6/19/2008 3:45:00 AM |

    What a tragedy.  All week long I have been asking myself how such a smart man could be so uninformed about his own health?

    With all the resources at Mr. Russert's disposal, I would think he could have easily learned more about his condition, and the measures he might have taken to save himself.  [Then too, he might have also come across the Track Your Plaque website... or the book.]  Instead, he was apparently greatly trusting of his internist and cardiologist, and perhaps thought he was receiving optimal medical management... and nothing more could be done?

    Beyond that, I wonder about his Vitamin D status, and whether he was dehydrated from the long flight back from Europe?  I also wonder if the emotional stresses (good and bad) of a quick trip to Europe, his son's graduation from college, and having recently placed his beloved father into a care home, on top of what could only be termed a stressful and grueling work life (no matter how much he may have loved it) might have lead his body to the tipping point on that day.   I suppose we are unlikely to have these answers under the circumstances.

    R.I.P. Mr. Russert, but shame, shame, shame on your physicians, IMO they really let you down.

    Thanks for this truthful blog, an antidote to all the media nonsense and C.Y.A. I have seen in the past few days.


  • sschein

    6/23/2008 5:36:00 PM |

    My wife has been to Dr. Michael Newman the internist for Tim Russert.  I don't think she is going back.  I had Angioplasty about 10 years ago with stents put in my right and left artery.  Since then I have the thallium stress test every year, take 1500 mg's of niaspan a day, Lipitor, a blood pressure lowering drug, and aspirin.  Both my cardiologist, and my internist state that a heart scan would not do me any good, and my cardiologist stated that the heart scan would simply confuse the issues.  Are they right? Would the heart scan harm me?  If so, how?

  • Anonymous

    6/25/2008 5:18:00 PM |

    In response to the comment by sschein, I'm not sure it's such a great idea to have a thallium stress test every year.  You should probably investigate the possibility of a CT-angiogram.  

    I am not a doctor so I don't want you to think I'm defending them, but there's only so much that a doctor can do in the office visit environment.  It's really up to the patient to do the research and decide on what he believes is the best course of treatment for him or herself and then try to bring the doctor around to his point.  In my own case I refuse to have a thallium stress test and have finally decided to have a 320 slice CT-angiogram when I go to Boston next month.  My cardiologist may not agree that it's the choice he'd choose, but he's going along with it.  Quite simply they don't have the time to convince the patient one way or the other.  We really don't know all the details about Tim Russert's care.  If he had his own private physician who tended only to him or who was consulted extensively I'd probably expect better.  As just one patient (admittedly a famous one) I'm not sure how much you can expect from a doctor.  If he suggests a stress test or an angiogram and you think better of the idea, it's up to the patient to chart his own course.

    Andy (the164club) TYP member

  • Jeffrey Dach MD

    7/1/2008 11:38:00 AM |

    Tim Russert and George Carlin

    Two beloved American celebrities have succumbed to heart disease before their time.  The national response has been disappointment in a medical system that could allow this to happen.  What could have been done differently to save the lives of both Tim and George, to avoid this fatal outcome?

    To read more...Saving Tim Russert and George Carlin by Jeffrey Dach MD

    Jeffrey Dach MD
    4700 Sheridan Suite T
    Hollywood FL 33021
    my web site

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 6:54:38 PM |

    A simple calculation from known information in 1998 clearly, obviously, and inarguably predicted his death. Recall that heart scan scores of 1000 or greater are associated with annual--ANNUAL--risk for heart attack and death of 20-25% if no preventive action is taken. The meager prevention efforts taken by Mr. Russert's doctors did indeed reduce risk modestly, but it did not eliminate risk.

Omega-3 fatty acids likely NOT associated with prostate cancer

Omega-3 fatty acids likely NOT associated with prostate cancer

A weakly constructed study was reported recently that purportedly associated higher levels of omega-3 fatty acid blood levels and prostate cancer. See this CBS News report, for instance.

Lipid and omega-3 fat expert, Dr. William Harris, posted this concise critique of the study, exposing some fundamental problems:

First, the reported EPA+DHA level in the plasma phospholipids in this study was 3.62% in the no-cancer control group, 3.66% in the total cancer group, 3.67% in the low grade cancer group, and 3.74% in the high-grade group. These differences between cases and controls are very small and would have no meaning clinically as they are within the normal variation. Based on experiments in our lab, the lowest quartile would correspond to an HS-Omega-3 Index of <3.16% and the highest to an Index of >4.77%). These values are obviously low, and virtually none of the subjects was in “danger” of having an HS-Omega-3 Index of >8%. So to conclude that regular consumption of 2 oily fish meals a week or taking fish oil supplements (both of which would result in an Index above the observed range) would increase risk for prostate cancer is extrapolating beyond the data.

This study did not test the question of whether giving fish oil supplements (or eating more oily fish) increased PC risk; it looked only a blood levels of omega-3 which are determined by intake, other dietary factors, metabolism and genetics.

The authors also failed to present the fuller story taught by the literature. The same team reported in 2010 that the use of fish oil supplements was not associated with any increased risk for prostate cancer. A 2010 meta-analysis of fish consumption and prostate cancer reported a reduction in late stage or fatal cancer among cohort studies, but no overall relationship between prostate cancer and fish intake. Terry et al. in 2001 reported higher fish intake was associated with lower risk for prostate cancer incidence and death, and Leitzmann et al. in 2004 reported similar findings. Higher intakes of canned, preserved fish were reported to be associated with reduced risk for prostate cancer. Epstein et al found that a higher omega-3 fatty acid intake predicted better survival for men who already had prostate cancer, and increased fish intake was associated with a 63% reduction in risk for aggressive prostate cancer in a case-control study by Fradet et al). So there is considerable evidence actually FAVORING an increase in fish intake for prostate cancer risk reduction.

Another piece of the picture is to compare prostate cancer rates in Japan vs the US. Here is a quote from the World Foundation of Urology:

"[Prostate cancer] incidence is really high in North America and Northern Europe (e.g., 63 X 100,000 white men and 102 X 100,000 Afro-Americans in the United States), but very low in Asia (e.g., 10 X 100,000 men in Japan).”

Since the Japanese typically eat about 8x more omega-3 fatty acids than Americans do and their
blood levels are twice as high, you’d think their prostate cancer risk would be much higher...
but the opposite is the case.

Omega-3 fatty acids are physiologically necessary, normalizing multiple metabolic phenomena including augmentation of parasympathetic tone, reductions of postprandial (after-meal) lipoprotein excursions, and endothelial function. It would indeed make no sense that nutrients that are necessary for life and health exert an adverse effect such as prostate cancer at such low blood levels. (Recall that an omega-3 RBC index of 6.0% or greater is associated with reduced potential for sudden cardiac death.)

I personally take 3600 mg per day of EPA + DHA in highly-purified, non-oxidized triglyceride form (Ascenta Nutrasea liquid) that yields an RBC omega-3 index of just over 10%, the level that I believe the overwhelming bulk of data suggest is the ideal level for humans.

Comments (6) -

  • Jeff

    7/23/2013 10:56:11 PM |

    Can you advise where you get the Nutrasea Liquid that you mention you personally use above?.  I'm not finding any in the 3600mg range.  I couldn't find any where 2 doses equals that amount either.  Looking for high quality Omega 3's that are not sourced from Krill due to shell fish allergy.  Currently taking fish oil gel caplets of dubious quality.  Thanks in advance.

  • pickinthefive

    7/29/2013 5:58:45 PM |

    Hi Dr. Davis,
    A question I would have.  If you are at a known risk for prostate cancer, i.e. father or uncle's already have it, or in my case a reletively high PSA and symptoms of BPH, would it be wise to avoid the Omega 3's ?
    Thank you,

  • Edwin

    8/14/2013 9:27:43 AM |

    So my eating a canned salmon sandwich for lunch most days which has about 1g of Omega3 (I take no supplements) should be safe?

  • Stephen in Anaheim

    8/15/2013 5:29:38 AM |

    I have to say that this is a great thing to read! In most dietary articles that I stumble across nowadays, I can find at least a paragraph or more on why people should be adding more Omega-3 fatty acids to your diet. In fact, I have read that Omega-3 can be quite beneficial for a number of medical conditions ranging from childhood asthma to fibromyalgia. It is scary to think that it could associated with a higher risk of prostate cancer, even though the underlying study was not well constructed.

  • Edward

    8/16/2013 3:08:29 AM |

    Dr. Davis,
    I take fish oil from a brand called "Carlson fish oil" it contains omega 3 fish oil 1,600. What would be the highest safest amount a person can take in Omega 3 in your experience from your patients and practice? What are your thoughts on the Linus Pauling Heart therapy which calls for a person taking at least 10 grams of vitamin C and 3-5 grams of Lysine in order to reverse plaque and heart disease? I have read the two time Nobel prize winner's books and his writings on heart disease are compelling. I would love the insight from an actual cardiologist with a practice to confirm what works and doesn't work.

  • Edward

    8/16/2013 1:19:06 PM |

    Dr. Davis,
    How much fish oil would you consider the highest and safest dosage for a person to take for heart disease and would the dosage a person who is healthy or heart problems differ?