| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| shawnsmith |
Posted - 04/30/2007 : 06:14:56
from: "Fred Amir" <fredamir2000@yahoo.com>
Hi all,
I hope all is well in your corner of the world.
There were three recent medical studies of great
importance.
Unfortunately it can take years before results of such
studies change the way doctors diagnose and treat
their patients.
First two are about angioplasty and the third one is
about back surgery.
1- Imagine waking up in a hospital and being told you
need to have an emergency angioplasty. What do you do?
Two studies that ware recently published in the New
England Journal of Medicine (I will cite them later in
this email) revealed that the angioplasty routinely
done after a heart attack is worthless and treatment
with medications is just as good.
Dr. Howard Wayne author of Do You Really Need Bypass
Surgery, in which he cites more than 300 studies,
concludes the following:
1. A number of studies have shown people as young as
19 years old having blocked arteries. This means there
are many of us with blocked arteries, not knowing it,
and living normal lives. How can this be? Heart forms
a natural bypass around those arteries (known as
angiogenesis) and people live well because their
hearts function well.
2. Angiogram is a picture in time. One angiogram may
show a blockage that may have been there for many
years harmlessly. Blockage may not necessarily the
cause of heart problems. Important is the heart muscle
function. Even a 90% blockage may not mean that it is
about to get 100% blocked. In fact, that might be an
old stable blockage and more stable than a newer
smaller blockage.
3. Angiograms can only show arteries and veins as
small as 0.5mm and not smaller. And there are many
smaller veins that are providing blood to heart
muscles that are not seen, and as long as the heart
function based on
a- treadmill stress test,
b- echocardiogram
c- Thallium tests
are ok, that is what is most important.
NOTE: Dr. Wayne argues that the routine physical where
the doctor listens to your heart and does and EKG, is
not sufficient to detect a problem. I know of cases
where the patient did great during a checkup, only to
have a heart attack shortly after. If you are at risk
for heart attack, due to high blood pressure,
diabetes, smoking, family history, etc, insist to have
the above three more accurate tests done.
4. Dr. Wayne quotes many studies that show, indeed,
bypass surgery and angioplasty are not necessary or
not effective, and in fact they can cause many side
effects, including heart attacks and memory loss for
the patient.
5. Many population studies have shown in the US and
outside the US, that medical treatment is equal or far
superior than invasive angioplasty and bypass surgery.
6. The financial incentive is great for many
cardiologists who have now become technicians and do
angioplasty on routine basis, when there is really no
need for it. He recommends find a cardiologist that
does not do angiogram or angioplasty.
7. Dr. Howard Wayne points out that there is really no
case where a patient has to have emergency bypass
surgery or angioplasty.
8- He also does not give his patients
cholesterol- lowering drugs or blood thinners, as he
believes the current theory of how a heart attack
happens has not been proven yet. In fact, six out of
seven heart attacks does not happen at the site of
blockage!
You can find out more at Dr.Wayne�s website:
http://www.heartpro tect.com.
I highly recommend his book, Do You Really Need Bypass
Surgery, for the many studies he cites and his
alternate view of cause and treatment of heart
disease.
The only issue I have with his book is that for the
first four chapters he talks about his research and
how he came to his present conclusions but does not
give much scientific references. However, starting
from Chapter Five it is well documented.
I suggest reading the book and consulting your doctor.
Also, regarding cholesterol- lowering drugs, I highly
recommend The Cholesterol Myths By Dr. Uffe Ravnskov.
It is extremely well written and researched. Did you
know that higher cholesterol levels are actually
protective for women�s hearts? Did you know after the
age of 47 cholesterol- lowering medications have no
effect on mortality and heart attack rate? Did you
doctor ever tell you these facts?
http://www.amazon. com/Cholesterol- Myths-Exposing- Fallacy-Saturate d/dp/0967089700/ ref=pd_bbs_ sr_1/103- 7897926-0172604? ie=UTF8&s= books&qid= 1175876663& sr=1-1
2- Another recent study revealed that surgery for back
and leg pain is not much more effective than
non-invasive treatments.
In fact, for the past 50 years several studies have
shown that there is no correlation between spinal
abnormalities and back pain. By age 20 most people
have a herniated or degenerated disc in the L4-L5 and
L5-S1 Of the lower back vertebrae, and C5-C6 and C6-C7
in the neck, due to normal activity. So what is
diagnosed as the source of problem is actually a
normal occurrence. That�s why surgery is not the
solution. And all of you in this group know the reason
for back pain and its solution.
Cheers!
Fred
www.rapidrecovery. net
PS. Now here are the two studies that showed there is
no benefit on having an angioplasty, vs just taking
medications.
1- Coronary revascularization with stenting or balloon
angioplasty combined with optimal medical therapy is
no more effective in preventing a heart attack, other
major cardiovascular events or death in patients with
stable heart disease, than optimal medical therapy
alone, results of a new study conducted in 50
hospitals in the U.S. and Canada has shown.
The new findings, which are expected to change the way
stable heart disease is treated in the future, will be
presented March 27, 2007 at the American College of
Cardiology's 56th-annual scientific session by William
E. Boden, M.D., professor of medicine and public
health in the University at Buffalo School of Medicine
and Biomedical Sciences.
Read the full article at
http://www.news- medical.net/ ?id=22698
- Angioplasty no better than drugs for heart attack
victims who delay treatment
Medical Studies/Trials
Published: Wednesday, 15-Nov-2006
In what will come as a surprise to many doctors,
researchers in the United States how found that
contrary to current belief, heart attack survivors
with mild or no symptoms who wait three days or more
to seek medical help, will achieve little benefit from
the procedures used to open clogged arteries.
Read the full article at
http://www.news- medical.net/ ?id=21015
2- Here�s the study regarding back surgery:
http://jama. ama-assn. org/cgi/content/ abstract/ 296/20/2441
Surgical vs Nonoperative Treatment for Lumbar Disk
Herniation
The Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT): A
Randomized Trial
James N. Weinstein, DO, MSc; Tor D. Tosteson, ScD; Jon
D. Lurie, MD, MS; Anna N. A. Tosteson, ScD; Brett
Hanscom, MS; Jonathan S. Skinner, PhD; William A.
Abdu, MD, MS; Alan S. Hilibrand, MD; Scott D. Boden,
MD; Richard A. Deyo, MD, MPH
JAMA. 2006;296:2441- 2450.
Context Lumbar diskectomy is the most common surgical
procedure performed for back and leg symptoms in US
patients, but the efficacy of the procedure relative
to nonoperative care remains controversial.
Objective To assess the efficacy of surgery for
lumbar intervertebral disk herniation.
Design, Setting, and Patients The Spine Patient
Outcomes Research Trial, a randomized clinical trial
enrolling patients between March 2000 and November
2004 from 13 multidisciplinary spine clinics in 11 US
states. Patients were 501 surgical candidates (mean
age, 42 years; 42% women) with imaging-confirmed
lumbar intervertebral disk herniation and persistent
signs and symptoms of radiculopathy for at least 6
weeks.
Interventions Standard open diskectomy vs
nonoperative treatment individualized to the patient.
Main Outcome Measures Primary outcomes were changes
from baseline for the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item
Short-Form Health Survey bodily pain and physical
function scales and the modified Oswestry Disability
Index (American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons MODEMS
version) at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 and 2
years from enrollment. Secondary outcomes included
sciatica severity as measured by the Sciatica
Bothersomeness Index, satisfaction with symptoms,
self-reported improvement, and employment status.
Results Adherence to assigned treatment was limited:
50% of patients assigned to surgery received surgery
within 3 months of enrollment, while 30% of those
assigned to nonoperative treatment received surgery in
the same period. Intent-to-treat analyses demonstrated
substantial improvements for all primary and secondary
outcomes in both treatment groups. Between-group
differences in improvements were consistently in favor
of surgery for all periods but were small and not
statistically significant for the primary outcomes.
Conclusions Patients in both the surgery and the
nonoperative treatment groups improved substantially
over a 2-year period. Because of the large numbers of
patients who crossed over in both directions,
conclusions about the superiority or equivalence of
the treatments are not warranted based on the
intent-to-treat analysis.
*************
Sarno-ize it!
************* |
| 1 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| tennis tom |
Posted - 05/02/2007 : 08:40:28
Hi Shawn,
Thanks for the info from Fred Amir, that's good stuff. Keep it coming.
Regards,
tt
some of my favorite excerpts from 'TDM' : http://www.tmshelp.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2605
|
|
|
