Talk:Coronary artery disease

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance assessment scale
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Coronary artery disease as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Portuguese language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Contradictory Information

The NIH website lists the factors for CHD and assigns them risk factors. According the NIH, age is the major risk factor for men, not cholesterol levels, anyone can look up the USA NIH web site and calculate their risk of CHD based on the data from the Framingham studies. If these studies are incorrect, then somone needs to give a definitive reference that clearly demonstates that cholesterol is the primary risk factor. Wiseoldowl (talk) 23:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Link to the NIH info on Framingham risk scores. The five major clinical risk factors for CAD are (aside from age which is a given):
  1. Family history (not included in Framingham)
  2. Diabetes
  3. Smoking
  4. Hypertension
  5. High cholesterol
Dlodge (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed neutrality of Preventive diet section

I've placed a tag on this section as it appears neither neutral nor at all comprehensive. The neutrality of the "main article" to which it links is also disputed (Talk:Diet and heart disease). For an issue as important as this, neutrality and the most up to date evidence should be essential. OccamzRazor 18:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2003

About these yahoo-like hierarchy things:

Health Sciences > Medicine > Cardiology > Cardiac arrhythmias
or:
Health Sciences > Medicine > Cardiology > Heart attack

are these wanted or necessary?

What if I came to this CHD page via:
Health Sciences > Medicine > Clinical biochemistry > Hyperlipidaemia > Coronary heart disease.
or even:
Economics > Countries > Wealthy country > Diseases of affluence > CHD ???

I don't want to start an argument, but I vote to delete them on sight. What do others think? Tristanb 06:37 27 May 2003 (UTC)

Agreed. These category schemes are neither widely used nor consistent, and they wrongly assume that article categories form a simple tree, rather than a more general graph structure. The new category-scheme mechanism being discussed on the wikipedia-l mailing list will eventually let this sort of thing be done properly. I second your vote to delete them on sight. The Anome 06:55 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Two pages on this stuff???

The only distinction between ischaemic heart disease and coronary heart disease is in degree. I'm going to start merging the two articles together and have ischaemic heart disease redirect to this article (since this article has a better initial layout). This may take some time... Ksheka 02:11, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Okay. It's pretty much done.Ksheka 15:49, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)


RxMed ArticleTo further prove that you are right. Common Name: Coronary Artery Disease. Medical Term: Ischaemic Heart Disease. Goldy496 02:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
So, almost three years ago you said it was pretty much done. What happened? The ischaemic heart disease article is still there. --Skylights76 20:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree

Nivanovic 10:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heart vs. Artery?

Is there any reason for preferring "coronary heart disease" to "coronary artery disease"? I realize both are used commonly, so it is difficult to differentiate on that basis alone. My personal preference is for "coronary artery disease", as "coronary heart disease" seems redundant. Any thoughts? — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add a category of cardiac rehabilitation. This could be under the heading of risk factor modification. Essentially we would be describing 2 related (preferably combined in any disease management) fields of therapy and lifestyle change. Firstly, reduction of risk of MI (heart attack). Secondly, regression (return towards 'normal') of atheroma burden. Because atheroma burden is widespread in many populations and typically hidden, especially in early stages, cardiac rehabilitation shares risk factor modification (targets) with disease prevention, including the disease condition diabetes, particularly Type II, and the similar 'high risk'conditions of obesity / overweight, which are also remedial. The related condition of angina is also improvable (by combined cardiac rehabilitation therapy and techniques). Related but distinct progressive structural cardiac dysfunction, Heart Failure, while appearing essentially recalcitrant, benefits from the same approach.

Phil H

Everyone knows the disease as coronary heart disease... keep it as that

Nivanovic 10:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't merge it!!! unless u say out the differences, causes and actual symptoms of the diseases.Because when you merge them, yes they are sometimes called the same, but what the person is diagnosed with, isn't necessarily as severe or about the same body part because one is a disease of the heart and one is of the artery... =]

65.10.207.219 15:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Tay =]

[edit] Prevention

"advised to avoid fats that are readily oxidized (e.g., saturated fats and trans-fats)," I started to write that this is simply dead wrong. Then I thought to say instead that it is hopelessly ambiguous. The term, "readily oxidized," might refer to oxidation during storage, prior to consumption, or to oxidation during metabolism after consumption. Oxidation prior to storage results in rancidity. Fats are hydrogenated to protect against rancidity. The result of hydrogenation is saturated fats and trans fats. These are the fats that are not readily oxidized during storage. (Naturally occurring saturated fats, such as many animal fats and vegetable fats such as coconut oil also resist rancidity and are not hydrogenated.) But the text recommends avoiding fats that are readily oxidized: it must mean fats that are readily oxidized before consumption. So it is dead wrong. I'd like to see a lipid expert correct this glaring error. --user:joaquin Joaquin


The statement on Vitamin C caught my eye. I have never seen a cardiologist recommend vitamin C. The site http://www.emedicine.com/pmr/topic165.htm states that preliminary evidence supporting Vitamin C usage was not born out in later studies. It should be dropped. There are later sections in this article that are pushing Vitamin C. I believe that these will need to be modified. Kd4ttc 03:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The section on preventive diets in this article is similar to the section on preventive diets in the Diet and heart disease article. The neutrality of that article is disputed. That section caught my eye in particular. There is no explanation of why the Cretan diet works; in fact, it seems to go against all consensus dietary recommendations. Could a knowlegable, neutral person please address this? --Skylights76 20:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The last I checked, most people eventually die. If you reduce your odds of dying of heart disease, it means you are more likely to die of something else - like cancer or stroke (which is more common in Japan). A sudden death from heart attack is far from the worst way to go. I'd personally prefer that to cancer or being "half dead" due to stroke or dementia. Sure it's a good idea to avoid dying way too _early_ from a heart attack, and it's good to be fit so you can actually do fun stuff, but to go to great pains to avoid it seems silly to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.75.240.2 (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IHD vs. CAD

Is there any difference between "ischaemic heart disease" and "coronary artery disease"? If not, why are they in different articles? If yes, why is it not yet explained?

I believe "coronary artery disease" is the broader term and is used to define accumulation inside an artery that may not have a tremendous bearing on the heart while "ischaemic heart disease" is where one starts to see symptoms as the CAD is severe enough to impact the heart.

[edit] merger with cardiovascular disease

  • oppose merger Both are huge topics and deserve an article on their own. Cardiovascular disease is a broader topic and certainly not the same as CAD, but a superset. Anlace 18:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - See talk:cardiovascular_disease for arguments similar to the above by Anlace. 87.78.151.16 00:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I AGREE!!! Nivanovic 10:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding citations

Ok, I don't want to mess up the page, and because I'm new to how to edit articles, I won't add it in myself.

I found this, which could be used as a citation for the "single cause of sudden death".


http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/007115.htm

"Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the leading cause of death in the United States for men and women."

Is that something that could be used? Calvin 09:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed a promotion

I removed the sentence about fish oil for primary prevention as it seemed to be a promotion to a newsletter at http://www.newsmax.com/blaylock/. The newsletters that I saw were unreferenced and not balanced. Please restore this sentence if someone disagrees.Badgettrg 03:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: Vitamin D section under Prevention

I'd like to propose a section on Vitamin D under prevention (and maybe list it under Risk Factors?) that includes vitamin D deficiency. There seem to be some interesting studies that refer to the connection between being Vitamin D replete and not developing heart disease or heart disease risk factors.

Since supplements aren't exactly Diet, and since the best way to obtain vitamin D is through sun exposure, and that's controversial, it seems like the discussion would be best suited to its own section.

http://www.vitamindcouncil.com/researchHeartDisease.shtml

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3002267

Chaveso 17:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Bizzar reference

I don't do any wikipedia editing, but I noticed at the bottom the reference:

Sir Ben-dover Risk Assessment of having a heart attack or dying of coronary heart disease, from the American Heart Association.

Sir Ben-dover? That cannot be right, I had a quick look at the site and cannot see any reference to such a name. Could someone verify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.247.6 (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree: There defintively is no "Sir Ben-dover" in all reports from the AHA! Thomasjst (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CHD and women

I added a section about this important and very modern aspect of CHD.Thomasjst (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CHD: Coronary or Congenital?

It is noted that both Coronary (Ischaemic) and Congenital Heart Disease are abbreviated on Wikipedia as CHD. Although this may be common practice, it could be confusing to some Wikipedia users. Could something be done to reduce confusion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.255.254 (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard CAD called CHD anywhere other than on wikipedia - CHD is congenital heart disease. Dlodge (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to strongly disagree: CHD is not at all a common & accepted abbreviation for Congenital Heart Disease (in fact, there is no one). Common is to use as synonymes "CHD" (= Coronary Heart Disease) and "CAD" (= Coronary Artery Disease) - both referring to ischemic heart disease. Thomasjst (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess we'll all have to agree to disagree then. Dlodge (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)