Archive for the ‘News’ Category

What’s new in bypass vs. stent

By Tyrone M. Reyes, M.D.

When cholesterol-filled plaque severely narrows a coronary artery and causes chest pain or other symptoms, there are two ways to immediately improve blood flow — angioplasty, usually with the placement of a wire-mesh stent, or bypass artery surgery (see illustration). If the blockage is simple and confined to a single artery, angioplasty is often a good choice. It is quick and effective, and since it doesn’t require opening the chest, the recovery time is short. For more severe or complicated problems, doctors have traditionally relied on bypass surgery. This has long been the approach taken for the left main coronary artery before it divides into two branches (see illustration). This is a serious problem because the left main coronary artery nourishes such a wide expanse of heart muscle. Bypass surgery has also traditionally been performed for three-vessel disease, which covers simultaneous blockages in the left anterior descending artery, the circumflex artery, and the right coronary artery.

Advances in angioplasty, especially in stent design, have prompted interventional cardiologists (the doctors who do angioplasty) to push the envelope in the types of coronary disease (CAD) they tackle. Some have been using angioplasty and stents for left main coronary artery disease and three-vessel disease. How well angioplasty works in these situations is controversial. Earlier trials suggested that bypass surgery was superior for these complex cases, but most of the trials were done before the advent of the latest generation of artery-opening stents. That gap has been temporarily plugged by the Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) trial. (Percutaneous coronary intervention or PCI is medicalese for angioplasty, with percutaneous meaning through the skin.) Results of the SYNTAX trial were published in the March 5, 2009 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

You Have A Choice

The study concluded that surgery was still the standard of care for patients with three blocked coronary arteries or left main coronary artery disease. The main lesson from SYNTAX, however, is not that surgery or stenting is better for left main or three-vessel coronary artery disease. Instead, it is that you have a choice, depending on the anatomy of your heart, the number and location of your blockages, and your other health issues.

“There are certain patients who would be better served by stents and others who do better with surgery,” says Joseph Sabik, MD, chairman of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery at the Cleveland Clinic. “What has to happen is patients have to be informed of the risks and benefits of each procedure so they can make an informed decision.”

Do You Need Revascularization?

In January 2009, a panel of experts unveiled the criteria for using revascularization (angioplasty or bypass). Among these are:

• Revascularization is appropriate if the expected improvement in survival, symptoms, function, and/or quality of life outweigh the potential risks.

• Revascularization would be inappropriate in a patient with plaque accumulation in one or two arteries and little muscle at risk, who experienced symptoms only during strenuous exercise, and was not taking medications.

• Conversely, revascularization would be appropriate if a similar patient had severe symptoms despite taking the best available heart medication.

If you’re considering revascularization, here are some questions to ask your cardiologist or surgeon:

• Which coronary artery is blocked, and is the location of the blockage more suitable for stenting or surgery?

• Will this procedure help me feel better? Live longer?

• Is medical therapy as effective in terms of helping me feel better and live longer?

• If I have a stent implanted, will I need bypass surgery three to five years from now?

• If I choose surgery, which bypass grafts are you going to use? (Arteries from the chest and the radial artery in the arm may last longer than the saphenous veins from the legs.)

• How much experience do you have in my procedure of choice?

Making The Right Choice

Angioplasty is less expensive and allows for a faster recovery, and advances in stent technology have reduced the rate of renarrowing (restenosis) of the blocked arteries. On the downside, angioplasty patients must take medications such as clopidogrel (Plavix), which prevents clots from forming in the stent but also increases the risk of bleeding.

Bypass surgery is painful and requires longer hospital stay and several months of recovery. “The benefit, though, is that it’s our best long-term solution to these problems,” Dr. Sabik says. Bypass surgery is becoming less invasive, he adds, and for many patients, the operation can now be performed through small incisions in the side of the chest rather than requiring the sternum (breastbone) to be split.

Although SYNTAX and other studies suggest that surgery may be best for patients with severe CAD, Dr. Sabik says that may not be the case for every patient, especially those with co-morbid conditions who aren’t healthy enough for surgery. Angioplasty also may be more appropriate for patients with single-vessel CAD, particularly involving the right coronary or circumflex arteries, he adds.

He recommends that patients meet with cardiologists and surgeons to weigh their options and decide on the best course of action. “You have to take each patient and look at them as an individual, look at what you’re trying to accomplish, and make sure the treatment is right for them, considering who they are and what problems they have,” Dr. Sabik elaborates.

Complementary, Not Competitve

The future of revascularization may lie in a combination approach. For instance, surgery might be done to bypass blocked left main coronary artery, while a stent might be used to open a blocked right coronary artery. These hybrid procedures allow people to reap the benefits of both approaches.

“We have to think about these two procedures not so much as competitive anymore but as complementary,” he says. “The best approach might be a combination of what the cardiologists do and what the surgeons do, taking the best of both and treating the patient as an individual.”

• Reference: The Syntax Trial, New England Journal of Medicine, March 5, 2009

• Sources: “Trial renews surgery vs. stent debate,” May 2009

Harvard Health Publications

heart_letter@hms.harvard.edu.

“Which option is best to reopen blocked coronary arteries?”

Cleveland Clinic Health Advisor, July 2009

N95 Masks Are No Better for Preventing H1N1

It turns out that N95 respiratory masks may be no better than ordinary disposable surgical masks for preventing H1N1 swine flu. In September 2009, researchers reported that only N95 masks could provide significant protection against H1N1. But now, the same group of researchers report that updated results of their research reveal that this is not the case.

These new results were presented at the Infectious Diseases Society of America 47th Annual Meeting in Philadelphia. To date, all of the research on the N95 mask and the H1N1 flu virus has been done in health care workers who have a higher risk of H1N1 exposure than the average person. The good news is – regular disposable surgical masks are a lot less expensive and easier to find than the N95 mask.

So, it seems that, if you want to protect yourself against H1N1 swine flu, the best thing to do is to get your flu shots – both the seasonal flu vaccine and the H1N1 flu vaccine (if you can find it).

 

Source:

Infectious Diseases Society of America 47th Annual Meeting. Presented 31 October 2009.

Created on: 11/05/2009
Reviewed on: 11/05/2009

Your rating: None

No Benefit for Hormone Therapy in Low-Risk Prostate Cancer

According to a new study presented at the American Society for Radiation Oncology 51st Annual Meeting, men with low-risk prostate cancer who undergo radiation therapy do not need to be treated with hormone therapy. Hormone treatment does not improve survival in this group of prostate cancer patients.

This study, involving 1979 men with prostate cancer, is the largest prostate cancer study to date. Study participants were randomly assigned to receive either hormone therapy plus radiation or radiation alone. After 8 years of follow-up, the overall survival and prostate cancer-specific survival were similar between the two groups of patients. Since hormone therapy can lead to loss of sexual function and liver toxicity, being able to skip hormone treatment means fewer adverse side effects for low-risk prostate cancer patients.

 
This new study definitively establishes that there is no benefit to hormone therapy in men with low-risk prostate cancer. On the other hand, short-term hormone treatment does improve survival in men with intermediate-risk prostate cancer. This study is the first to demonstrate compelling evidence of survival benefit in men with intermediate-risk patients with prostate cancer. However, the radiation doses and techniques used in this study are outdated, and it may be that the higher doses of radiation that are given now would eliminate the need for hormone therapy.
 

Source:

American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) 51st Annual Meeting, Presented 2 November 2009.

 

Created on: 11/04/2009
Reviewed on: 11/04/2009

Your rating: None

Elderly depression: The age factor in depression 2/2

Depression does not become more common as you get older, but it may become more complex.  Recent findings on age and depression confirm the so-called ‘U-curve’ of well being and happiness over the human life cycle.  Put simply, we’re at our most dissatisfied in our mid-forties – a finding that’s so in 47 of 55 countries surveyed. Depression seems to have much less of an impact in terms of daily disability in the older age groups.

But depression in the elderly is complicated by other diseases and it’s often hard to sort out cause and effect. Do you get depressed because you’ve had a heart attack? Does depression make it more likely that you’ll get diabetes? We really don’t know! Elderly depression is not so much about the numbers of people who are depressed, but more a matter of knowing how best to treat it.  Higher costs in terms of time, money and health care resources are involved in treating elderly depression and, too often, such resources simply aren’t adequate.  Moreover, the growing number of people over 60 (and, proportionately, even more so those over 80), means that elderly depression is set to rise dramatically. As yet, society seems unprepared for this.   Recent findings from the Zürich Study of younger persons (stretching over 20 years and with an age range of 20-41) have pointed to high levels of chronic depression existing alongside heart and lung problems, insomnia, pain (other than backache and headache) and sexual problems. Interestingly, the authors ascribe the heart and lung problems   in this age group as probably ‘associated with increased anxiety’.

In the elderly, by contrast, depression tends to exist alongside age-related conditions like stroke, high blood pressure, atrial fibrillation, diabetes, cancer and dementia.

The Zürich Study also found that other mental health problems co-exist with depression in the   20-41 age group. The six leading risk factors were found to be tobacco dependence, substance abuse, generalized anxiety disorder, obsessive-compulsive syndrome, panic attacks and alcohol use disorder. Again, with the exception of anxiety, these are probably more prominent risk factors for depression in younger persons than for the elderly. The psychosocial impact of bereavement, loneliness and growing physical and cognitive problems in coping with the normal activities of daily life are more characteristic associations with depression in old age.

The next article in this series looks at current   practice in the diagnosis and treatment of elderly depression.

 

Sources:

J. Angst, A. Gamma et al, “Long-term depression versus episodic major depression: results from the prospective Zürich study of a community sample”, J. Affective Disorders 115, 112-121, 2009
N. G. Choi & J. S. Kim, “Age group differences in depressive symptoms among older adults with functional impairments”, Health & Social Work 32[3], 177-188, August 2007

 

Related article:
Elderly and depression: How to understand Depression in the elderly 1/2

Created on: 11/04/2009
Reviewed on: 11/04/2009

Your rating: None

Many Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain Recover Within a Year

Chronic low back pain, or low back pain lasting at least three months,is a major health problem, affecting 12 to 33 percent of the adult population at any given time. The prognosis of chronic low back pain is uncertain, but according to a new study published in the British Medical Journal, more than one third of patients with chronic low back pain recover within 12 months.

Researchers from the University of Sydney in Australia sampled 973 patients presenting to primary care with complaints of low back pain of less than 2 weeks’ duration. Of these patients, 406 participants went on to experience low back pain for three months. The researchers found that, among those participants who developed chronic low back pain, 35 percent were pain-free at nine months and 41 percent were pain-free at 12 months. Delayed recovery was linked to previous sick leave due to low back pain, high disability or pain intensity levels, lower levels of education, and greater perceived risk of persistent pain.
 
It is estimated that 11 to 84 percent of people will experience chronic low back pain at some point in their lives. Based on the findings of this study, many patients with recent onset, non-radicular chronic low back pain will recover fully within 12 months. A limitation of this study was that it only included Australian participants. However, this study does offer a moderately optimistic outlook for patients with chronic low back pain, as long as they do not have the characteristics associated with delayed recovery.
 

Source:

BMJ. Published online October 6, 2009.

Created on: 10/15/2009
Reviewed on: 10/15/2009

Your rating: None
}