ItHome Cardiovascular News that blockage isn’t a time bomb in your chest – Heart Sisters

that blockage isn’t a time bomb in your chest – Heart Sisters

Credits to the 👉🏾Source Link👉🏾 Olivia
that blockage isn’t a time bomb in your chest – Heart Sisters

by Carolyn Thomas     @HeartSisters  

If you’re a heart patient living with stable angina, the ISCHEMIA clinical trial presented last weekend at the 2019 American Heart Association Scientific Sessions is all about you. Cardiologist Dr. John Mandrola described the impact of this study in his must-read Medscape column like this:


But realistically, does one study have the power to actually change the practice of cardiology?      .

Many of us learned about the results of this long-anticipated study via news headlines like this one:

Stents and Bypass Surgery are No More Effective Than Drugs” – Washington Post

Before we take such a dramatic headline as gospel, I have both questions and concerns:

My first concern: of the 5,000+ participants enrolled in this $100 million study, over 3/4 were men.

My question: how could anyone accurately extrapolate how the study’s conclusions apply to female heart patients when women made up only 23 per cent of the participants being studied?

Consider, for example, how the accuracy of that headline from the Post could be clarified by simply including the required word “MEN” . For example:

“Stents and Bypass Surgery are No More Effective Than Drugs FOR MEN!”

My question:  why was half of the world’s population inadequately represented in this study?

The ISCHEMIA trial focused on whether cardiologists should recommend what is called OMT  (Optimal Medical Therapy that included lifestyle modifications and medications) vs. OMT plus invasive interventions (stents or coronary bypass surgery) in people with moderate-to-severe stable angina – defined as chest pain that comes on with exertion, and goes away with rest.

That definition is important. Invasive cardiac interventions can and do save lives – but that is largely true only for those having or at high risk for having a heart attack, not in those with stable angina or no angina symptoms at all.(1)

What previous studies have suggested is that invasive cardiac procedures to help re-establish blood flow to the heart muscle do not “fix” the problem that caused a blockage in the first place. Only the ‘culprit lesions’, as cardiologists call the most significant blockages, get treated.

But the true cause of each blockage – the systemic issue that likely started decades earlier – is not “fixed” at all. What invasive interventions can do is manage significant cardiac symptoms (although the ISCHEMIA results found that, astonishingly, only about half of the patients in the invasive intervention group were symptom-free after one year).


By comparison, OMT (the treatment option recommended for stable angina in the ISCHEMIA study) can positively affect every cell in the body.


My question:  didn’t we know that already?


Dr. Judith Hochman, one of the lead authors on ISCHEMIA, predicted this: if interventional cardiologists (coincidentally, the ones who earn a living implanting stents) adopted the findings of this study, it could mean saving over $500 million dollars every year in U.S. health care spending alone.


My concern:  when people with the letters M.D. after their names tell us that one or more of our coronary arteries feeding the heart muscle has some type of blockage inside, it can be a short hop/skip/jump/freakin’ leap to the frantic fear that something catastrophic is happening to us RIGHT NOW, and that this blocked artery needs to be unblocked.


This is because heart patients tend to have an intuitive affection for action over inaction when something seems wrong. Physicians, by the way, can demonstrate this preference as well, in what researchers call intervention bias”.  Studies (like this one, for example) suggest that “a majority of physicians will choose aggressive patient management options even when more conservative management is considered medically acceptable.” (2)


So while some patients may be open to non-invasive options like OMT, researchers report that heart patients seem to have a distinct preference for invasive procedural interventions (80 per cent) over medications (16 per cent). In fact, about 1/3 of patients studied believed that “medications do not really solve the problem.” (3)



Research also supports this reality: a study published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine, for example, found that over 80% of heart patients who did have a stent implanted mistakenly believed that the procedure would cut their odds of having a future heart attack.  But about the same proportion of the cardiologists who had treated these patients claimed that they had told the patients that stents would do nothing more than relieve chest pain.(4)


My question: where are patients getting this mistaken belief in stents as lifesavers?  Many of my Heart Sisters blog readers have similarly told me during the past decade that the cardiologist who performed their intervention (even in the absence of a heart attack) had “saved my life.”


Dr. John Mandrola opened his Medscape column about ISCHEMIA with a direct ‘thank you’ to pioneer cardiologist Dr. Bernard Lown, whom I wrote about last week.

As Dr. Lown had quietly explained in 2012, long before the ISCHEMIA trial reinforced his conclusion:


“Doctors counsel heart patients to undergo invasive interventions because they are true believers of what they communicate.


“Often, though, they think like plumbers rather than like scientists: a blocked pipe has to be unblocked.

In the case of the heart, the sooner the better.


“But such medical opinions, though seemingly propelled by common sense, are not supported by clinical evidence.”

Dr. Mandrola considers the new ISCHEMIA study “influential”  because it confirms that OMT treats the systemic disease  – not just a specific blockage, adding:

That blockage is not a time bomb in your chest. The clear results of ISCHEMIA, combined with the prior evidence, show that the clogged pipe frame of treating (stable) coronary artery disease was wrong. Clinicians must help change the public perception.

“The results do not mean that stents and surgery have no role. It means the initial approach is to treat the underlying disease.”

  1. Edward Hannan. “Appropriateness of Coronary Revascularization for Patients Without Acute Coronary Syndromes.” Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2012; 59:1870-1876.
  2. Foy, A. J.  & Filippone, E. J.  “The case for intervention bias in the practice of medicine.” The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 86(2), 2013; 271–280. 
  3. Bowling A. et al. “What do patients really want? Patients’ preferences for treatment for angina.”  Health Expectations, Volume 11, Issue2 June 2008; 137-147
  4. Rothberg MB, Sivalingam SK, Ashraf J, et al. “Patients’ and Cardiologists’ Perceptions of the Benefits of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Stable Coronary Disease.” Ann Intern Med. 2010; 153:307–313.

NOTE FROM CAROLYN: I wrote more about both invasive and non-invasive cardiac treatments in my book, “A Woman’s Guide to Living with Heart Disease” . You can ask for it at your local library or favourite bookshop, or order it online (paperback, hardcover or e-book) at Amazon, or order it directly from my publisher, Johns Hopkins University Press (use the JHUP code HTWN to save 20% off the list price).

Q: Will this big study change the way cardiology is practiced?

.See also:

-More solid information about the ISCHEMIA trial from Shelley Wood writing in TCTMD

 Dr. Bernard Lowns wonderful book, The Lost Art of Healing: Practicing Compassion in Medicine.

Did you really need that coronary stent?

Squishing, burning and implanting your heart troubles away

Women’s heart health: why it’s NOT a zero sum game

Cardiac gender bias: we need less TALK and more WALK


Source Link

related posts

Leave a Comment

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We will assume you are ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More

%d bloggers like this: