Google AdSense – Maximize revenue from your online content: heart

Showing posts with label heart. Show all posts

Saturday, April 20, 2013

[PSP] Carnage Heart Exa - Full ISO -

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Sunday, January 6, 2013

What to Do When Heart Disease Hurts Your Sex Life

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
couple-heart-attack-sex

If movies and soap operas are anything to go by, sex can be dangerous for people with heart conditions. While research shows that sex can indeed trigger heart attacks in some people, especially men, the odds of literally succumbing to passion are very low. Sexual activity is a contributing factor in less than 1% of heart attacks, according to a 1996 study by Harvard Medical School researchers.

Although heart attacks during sex are rare, no one wants to be among the unlucky few who die while getting lucky. So if you have cardiovascular disease (CVD), or even if it runs in your family, it’s important to ask your doctor what type of sexual activity is safe. If you’ve just had a heart attack, for instance, you should wait three to four weeks before having intercourse, according to current guidelines. And if you have heart failure, your doctor may recommend that you avoid lying on your back during sex, because fluid is more likely to pool in your lungs in that position.

The physical danger posed by sexual activity is probably the least of your problems, however. There are plenty of other ways for heart disease to curtail your sex life. Everything from incision pain following bypass surgery to the emotional stress of living with a heart condition can get in the way of intimacy.

Sexual activity and heart conditions can interact in complicated ways, which can be difficult to tease apart. To make matters worse, heart patients (and their partners) are often uncomfortable discussing their sex lives with their doctors—and vice versa.

“I’ve found that most doctors don’t have the time—or the personality—to talk about sex with their heart patients,” says Edward Chapunoff, MD, a cardiologist in private practice in Pompano Beach, Fla., and the author of Answering Your Questions About Heart Disease and Sex. “They are evasive about it. They won’t bring it up themselves and even if the patient brings it up, a doctor might be hesitant to discuss it.”

So what’s a heart patient to do? Prepare a list of intimacy questions in advance of your next checkup and don’t let your doctor’s squirming deter you. In the meantime, here are some answers to three not-so-frequently asked questions about sex and heart disease.

Keep your ticker in tip–top shape and fight diabetes with the latest news, recipes, and advice for maintaining a healthy lifestyle.

View the original article here

Loneliness Hurts the Heart

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
lonely-hearts

Being alone can break your heart—literally.

People who lack a strong network of friends and family are at greater risk of developing—and dying from—heart disease, research shows. According to some studies, the risk of solitude is comparable to that posed by high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and even smoking.

Experts haven’t pinpointed exactly how social networks protect against heart disease, but there are a number of probable explanations. People who are socially isolated are more likely to drink, smoke, and get less exercise. And once someone has heart disease, friends and family often provide key support, such as picking up prescriptions, encouraging exercise, cooking healthy meals, and helping with household chores.

While that everyday help is important, it’s not the whole story. In recent years, researchers have begun to unravel the cardiovascular effects of social isolation, and they’ve discovered that feeling alone may hurt the heart even more than actually being alone.

“We started looking at social isolation about 20 years ago, and we found fairly quickly that objective social isolation in everyday life isn’t as important as perceived social isolation,” says John Cacioppo, PhD, a professor of psychology at the University of Chicago. “And there’s a term for perceived social isolation: It’s loneliness.”

What we call loneliness—the feeling that you have no one to turn to, that no one understands you—is a form of stress. And if it becomes chronic, it can wreak havoc on your blood vessels and heart.

What is loneliness?
Though the concepts are sometimes used interchangeably, loneliness is distinct from social isolation (also known as low social support). There’s some overlap between the two, but not as much as one might think.

Social support is typically measured using a handful of characteristics such as marital status, number of friends, and participation in group activities (such as churchgoing). Low scores on these measures don’t necessarily correspond to loneliness, however. Some people need more “me” time than others, after all, and some people are content with just one or two close friends.

To factor in these individual preferences, researchers define loneliness as the gap between a person’s desired and actual social relationships—a subjective measure that’s most easily gauged with questionnaires. To put it another way, social isolation mainly describes the extent of a person’s social network, while loneliness emphasizes quality, rather than quantity, and describes the satisfaction and comfort a person derives from their interpersonal relationships. It’s the difference between the amount of food on your plate and how good it tastes.

Fifteen years ago, after undergoing surgery to replace a heart valve, Dale Briggs, 63, of Clovis, Calif., felt anxious and isolated, not like himself at all. Briggs rated high on the social support scale—he’s married, he’s a weekly churchgoer—but he felt that he wasn’t connecting with people anymore.

“During that period I could have had 15 people in my house all the time, but I would have traded them all for someone who had been through what I’d been through and who I could talk to about it,” Briggs recalls. “I felt isolated in my mind, like I couldn’t relate to anybody.”

Keep your ticker in tip–top shape and fight diabetes with the latest news, recipes, and advice for maintaining a healthy lifestyle.

View the original article here

Study: Heart Attack Patients Receive High Dose of Radiation

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
heart-attack-radiation

MONDAY, Nov. 16, 2009 (Health.com) — Heart attack patients are exposed to a radiation dose equal to about 725 chest X-rays over the course of their hospital stay, according to research presented Monday at the American Heart Association meeting in Orlando. The radiation comes from tests such as computed tomography (CT) scans, cardiac catheterizations, and artery-clearing angioplasties.

Too much radiation can increase the risk of developing some cancers, although the benefits of such tests typically outweigh the risks when it comes to diagnosing and treating heart attacks. The cancer risk associated with an angioplasty or with a CT scan—which delivers about 500 times more radiation than an X-ray—is hard to measure.

Prashant Kaul, MD, the lead study author and a cardiovascular fellow at Duke University Medical Center, in Durham, N.C., stresses that many cardiac tests that use radiation are necessary and appropriate.

"We’re not saying those should be withheld," he says. "We're just trying to increase awareness so that when physicians are ordering tests, they bear in mind the indications.”

The study, which was conducted over three and a half years, included nearly 65,000 heart attack hospitalizations at 49 academic hospitals across the United States. The researchers estimated radiation doses by looking at hospital records; they didn’t measure exposure directly.

A single radiation-delivering test generally poses little cancer risk, but the heart attack patients in the study averaged about four such tests during their hospital stay, potentially multiplying the risk.

Angioplasty (also known as percutaneous coronary intervention, or PCI), a procedure in which a balloon-tipped catheter is used to open a blocked artery, delivers a dose of radiation about 750 times greater than an X-ray, but that doesn’t mean doctors shouldn't perform it, says Dr. Kaul.

“No one would argue that you shouldn’t do that—it’s a lifesaving procedure,” he says.

Thomas C. Gerber, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine and radiology at the Mayo Clinic’s College of Medicine, in Jacksonville, Fla., says "it’s difficult to assess the health risk of ionizing radiation.”

It’s unclear if there’s a risk associated with a radiation dose less than 100 millisieverts, which is an amount of radiation about seven times greater than the average dose seen in the study, says Dr. Gerber.

“If there's an increased risk of cancer, it’s small, and nobody’s been able to show it,” says Dr. Gerber, who has studied radiation safety in medical testing but was not involved in the study.

The patients in the study were exposed to about 14.5 millisieverts, a dose roughly five times greater than the amount of exposure from so-called background radiation in the environment.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has estimated that the amount of radiation absorbed by the body during a CT scan increases the lifetime risk of dying of cancer by a factor of 1 in 2000. The natural risk of dying from cancer is about 1 in 5, so the added risk posed by the radiation is very small.

According to the FDA, the benefits of a CT scan generally outweigh the risks for those with a medical need, but not for symptomless people who are considering a CT scan only for screening purposes.

According to Dr. Kaul, physicians should take into account a patient's total radiation exposure during a hospital stay, rather than the dose from one individual test.

Exposure to radiation during occasional tests is safer than a relatively large dose in a short period of time, experts say.

“Having 17 millisieverts in January and another 17 millisieverts in October isn’t the same as having 34 millisieverts all at the same time,” says Dr. Gerber. “Small amounts of radiation in certain increments don’t mean the same as one large dose of radiation at the same time.”

Patients shouldn’t be afraid to ask their doctor if a test is truly necessary, he says. “There's nothing wrong with patients asking their doctor, ‘How will this test change what you do for me?’ If it doesn’t, that test may not be necessary.”

Heart attack patients shouldn't forgo a test simply because of concerns about radiation, says Dr. Kaul. Doing so could prevent doctors from diagnosing a dangerous problem or treating a patient to the best of their ability.

“We don’t want to scare people into thinking they’re going into the hospital and their risk of cancer’s going to suddenly increase,” says Dr. Kaul. “It’s a balance between the hypothetical risk of cancer with the risks of not performing an imaging study."

Keep your ticker in tip–top shape and fight diabetes with the latest news, recipes, and advice for maintaining a healthy lifestyle.

View the original article here

Saturday, January 5, 2013

Best Treatments for a Heart Attack

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
Best Treatments for a Heart Attack - Heart Disease - Health.com S
H
A
R
E

SweepstakesHealth NewsettersSubscribeHealthy & HappyNews & ViewsFamilyHome and TravelMind and BodyMoneySex and RelationshipsDiet & FitnessFitness • Cardio • Strength • YogaWeight Loss • Diets • Dieting TipsFood & RecipesEating • Cooking • Nutrition • Restaurants and Fast FoodsRecipesBeauty & StyleBeauty • Skincare • Hair • Makeup • StyleCelebrity • Celebrity Tips • Celebrity HealthHealth A-ZAlzheimer's DiseaseAsthmaBipolar DisorderBirth ControlBreast CancerChildhood VaccinesCholesterolChronic PainCold, Flu, and SinusCOPDCrohn's DiseaseDepressionDiabetes (Type 2)FibromyalgiaGERDHeadaches & MigrainesIncontinenceMenopauseOsteoarthritisOsteoporosisRheumatoid ArthritisSexual HealthSleep DisordersUlcerative ColitisMore ConditionsMagazineCurrent IssueSubscribeTablet EditionArchiveGive a Gift SubscriptionCustomer ServiceMedia KitAge-Proof Your BonesHome >> Health A-Z >> Heart Disease Condition Center >> Journey >> Heart Attack >> Best Treatments for a Heart AttackBest Treatments for a Heart Attack Comments: Add | Read Related StoriesWhat a Heart Attack Feels LikePerspectives on Heart Attack Treatment Last Updated: November 17, 2008

Free Heart Health Email Newsletter

Keep your ticker in tip–top shape and fight diabetes with the latest news, recipes, and advice for maintaining a healthy lifestyle.

See more Newsletters

Add your commentThe rules: Keep it clean, and stay on the subject or we might delete your comment. If you see inappropriate language, e-mail us. An asterisk * indicates a required field.

Your Name

Your Comment *500 characters remaining

Advertisement
Editor's Pick jobs-that-harm-heart

10 Ways Your Job Can Hurt Your Heart

16 Most Misleading Food Labels

5 Shortcuts to a Heart-Healthy Diet

5 Ways to Cut Your Heart Attack Risk

Best and Worst Nuts for Your Health

Advertisement
Healthy & HappyDiet & FitnessFood & RecipesBeauty & StyleHealth A-ZHealth.comHealth A-ZHealthy LivingWeight LossEatingRecipesHealth NewsInside Health MagazineSweepstakesSite MapAbout UsContact UsFree NewslettersHelpAdvertise with Health.comAdvertise with Health MagazineHealth BuzzHealth Magazine Customer ServiceSubscribeTablet EditionGive a GiftRenew Your SubscriptionStay Connected to Health.comSign Up for NewslettersBecome a Fan of HealthGet Health Twitter UpdatesSubscribe to RSSJoin Healthy Voices

The material in this site is intended to be of general informational use and is not intended to constitute medical advice, probable diagnosis, or recommended treatments. See the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy (Your California Privacy Rights) for more information. Ad Choices

View the original article here

What You Must Do if You Think You Are Having a Heart Attack

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
What You Must Do if You Think You Are Having a Heart Attack - Heart Disease - Health.com S
H
A
R
E

SweepstakesHealth NewsettersSubscribeHealthy & HappyNews & ViewsFamilyHome and TravelMind and BodyMoneySex and RelationshipsDiet & FitnessFitness • Cardio • Strength • YogaWeight Loss • Diets • Dieting TipsFood & RecipesEating • Cooking • Nutrition • Restaurants and Fast FoodsRecipesBeauty & StyleBeauty • Skincare • Hair • Makeup • StyleCelebrity • Celebrity Tips • Celebrity HealthHealth A-ZAlzheimer's DiseaseAsthmaBipolar DisorderBirth ControlBreast CancerChildhood VaccinesCholesterolChronic PainCold, Flu, and SinusCOPDCrohn's DiseaseDepressionDiabetes (Type 2)FibromyalgiaGERDHeadaches & MigrainesIncontinenceMenopauseOsteoarthritisOsteoporosisRheumatoid ArthritisSexual HealthSleep DisordersUlcerative ColitisMore ConditionsMagazineCurrent IssueSubscribeTablet EditionArchiveGive a Gift SubscriptionCustomer ServiceMedia KitAge-Proof Your BonesHome >> Health A-Z >> Heart Disease Condition Center >> Journey >> Heart Attack >> What You Must Do if You Think You Are Having a Heart AttackWhat You Must Do if You Think You Are Having a Heart Attack Comments: Add | Read Related StoriesHow Doctors Diagnose and Treat a Heart AttackSurprising Heart Attack Triggers Last Updated: November 17, 2008

Free Heart Health Email Newsletter

Keep your ticker in tip–top shape and fight diabetes with the latest news, recipes, and advice for maintaining a healthy lifestyle.

See more Newsletters

Add your commentThe rules: Keep it clean, and stay on the subject or we might delete your comment. If you see inappropriate language, e-mail us. An asterisk * indicates a required field.

Your Name

Your Comment *500 characters remaining

Advertisement
Editor's Pick jobs-that-harm-heart

10 Ways Your Job Can Hurt Your Heart

16 Most Misleading Food Labels

5 Shortcuts to a Heart-Healthy Diet

5 Ways to Cut Your Heart Attack Risk

Best and Worst Nuts for Your Health

View the original article here

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Scientists Map Genetic 'Blueprint' of Heart

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

THURSDAY, Sept. 13 (HealthDay News) -- Researchers have identified the genetic "blueprint" for how a heart becomes a heart -- a sort of instruction manual for building a fully functioning heart from embryonic stem cells.

The scientists reprogrammed embryonic stem cells from mice into beating heart cells. Then they removed and analyzed DNA from developing and mature heart cells to determine which aspects of heart formation they encoded, using large amounts of computing tools and gene-sequencing data to do so.

The findings provide clues into the genetic basis for some forms of congenital heart disease, say the Gladstone Institutes scientists, and could lead to new treatments for life-threatening birth defects such as arrhythmias -- irregular heart beat -- and ventricular septal defects, or "holes" in the heart.

"Congenital heart defects are the most common type of birth defects -- affecting more than 35,000 newborn babies in the United States each year," Benoit Bruneau, associate director of cardiovascular research at Gladstone, said in an institute news release. "But how these defects develop at the genetic level has been difficult to pinpoint because research has focused on a small set of genes. Here, we approach heart formation with a wide-angle lens by looking at the entirety of the genetic material that gives heart cells their unique identity."

"Our findings reveal new clues as to how complex genetic and epigenetic patterns are precisely regulated during heart formation," study collaborator Laurie Boyer, from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said in the news release. "In particular, our identification of key segments of the genome that contribute to this process will hopefully allow us to identify the genetic causes of many forms of congenital heart disease -- an important first step in the fight against this devastating disease."

The researchers found that groups of genes work together in heart cells, switching on and off simultaneously at certain times during development. They also identified new genes involved in heart formation and figured out how they interact with previously known genes.

"Next, we hope to examine the DNA of patients living with congenital heart disease, in the hopes that we can pinpoint the specific genetic disruption that caused their heart defect," said Bruneau, who is also a professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. "Once we identify that disruption, we can begin exploring ways to restore normal gene function during early heart formation and reduce the number of babies born with debilitating, and sometimes fatal, congenital heart defects."

The study was published online Sept. 13 in the journal Cell.

View the original article here

Non-Alcoholic Red Wine May Boost Heart Health

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Non-Alcoholic Red Wine May Be Effective at Lowering Blood Pressure

By Denise Mann
WebMD Health News

Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD

Sept. 6, 2012 -- Much research has touted the health benefits that come from drinking moderate amounts of red wine.

Now, a new study may extend some of these benefits to teetotalers. Non-alcoholic red wine may be even more effective at lowering blood pressure in men who are high risk for heart attack. The study findings appear in Circulation Research.

The study included 67 men who had diabetes or three or more heart disease risk factors. When the men drank red wine with alcohol, their blood pressure went down a little, and there was no change in blood pressure levels when they drank gin.

When the men drank non-alcoholic red wine, their blood pressure went down enough to lower their risk of heart disease by 14% and stroke by as much as 20%.

The real health benefits in red wine may be found in powerful antioxidants called polyphenols, not the alcohol. In fact, the alcohol in red wine may dampen its blood pressure-lowering potential. In the study, the red wine with alcohol and non-alcoholic wine contained equal amounts of polyphenols.

The researchers were able to link polyphenol levels to a boost in men's levels of nitric oxide, which helps lower blood pressure. Nitric oxide helps blood vessels relax and allows more blood to reach your heart and organs.

During the study, the men ate similar diets and drank either 10 ounces of red wine, 10 ounces of non-alcoholic red wine, or 3 ounces of gin. All of the men tried each diet/beverage combination for four weeks.

"The non-alcoholic part of the wine -- namely polyphenols -- exert a protective effect on the cardiovascular system," says researcher Ramon Estruch, MD, PhD of the University of Barcelona in Barcelona, Spain. "Polyphenols also have anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties that may be useful to prevent other disease such as diabetes."

He predicts that more people will turn to non-alcoholic wine in the future.

This is welcome news for people who can't or don't want to drink alcohol, says Suzanne Steinbaum, DO, at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. Although some alcohol is thought to be good for you, too much alcohol can increase blood pressure levels.

"Certain people don't want to drink alcohol, so here we have an alternative way for them to get the heart health benefits," she says. "It's not so much the alcohol as it is the polyphenols in red wine."

Other alcoholic drinks have also been shown to have health benefits, but they may do so differently than red wine, Steinbaum says.

SOURCES: Chiva-Blanch, G. Circulation Research, study received ahead of print. Suzanne Steinbaum, DO, preventive cardiologist, Lenox Hill Hospital, New York City. Ramon Estruch, MD, PhD, of the University of Barcelona in Barcelona, Spain. Connie Diekman, RD, director, university nutrition, Washington University, St. Louis.

View the original article here

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Common Painkillers May Be Risky After Heart Attack

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

By Salynn Boyles
WebMD Health News

Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD

Sept. 10, 2012 -- Heart attack survivors who take commonly used pain relievers have a higher risk of dying or having another heart attack, new research shows.

The Danish study adds to the evidence linking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as celecoxib (Celebrex), diclofenac (Voltaren), ibuprofen (Advil, Motrin), and naproxen (Aleve) to poorer outcomes in heart patients.

Using the painkillers after a first heart attack was linked to a higher risk for a second heart attack or death from any cause. And the risk persisted over at least five years.

Like previous studies, the new research does not prove that NSAIDs are directly responsible for these events.

But the evidence as a whole strongly suggests that the pain relievers should be used cautiously, if at all, by heart attack survivors, says Anne-Marie Schjerning Olsen, MD, who led the Danish study.

"Our results indicate that use of NSAIDs is associated with persistently increased coronary risk, regardless of the time elapsed after a [heart attack]," she says. "Thus, long-term caution is advised in all patients."

The study included data on nearly 100,000 survivors of first heart attacks, taken from Danish hospital and pharmacy registries.

Just under half of the people (44%) filled at least one prescription for an NSAID at some point after their heart attack.

Compared to those who presumably did not take NSAIDs, people who did had a 59% increased risk of death from any cause within one year of having the heart attack and a 63% increased risk over five years.

The risk of having another heart attack or dying from heart disease was 30% higher after one year in NSAID users and 41% after five years.

American Heart Association (AHA) immediate past president Gordon Tomaselli, MD, says the study is one of the first to suggest that NSAID use may be risky for many years after a first heart attack.

Tomaselli directs the division of cardiology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore.

In 2007, the AHA issued a statement on NSAID use in heart patients, urging doctors to carefully weigh the risks vs. benefits before recommending the drugs or prescribing them.

Tomaselli says this means carefully assessing a person's risk, which is influenced by conditions like heart failure or diabetes.

He says for many heart patients, non-NSAID painkillers like acetaminophen (Tylenol) or even short-term prescription-narcotic use may be safer pain-relief options.

"Patients who do take NSAIDs should always use the lowest dose possible to control pain for the shortest duration," Tomaselli says. Heart attack survivors should talk to their doctor before regularly using any NSAID, even those available without prescription like ibuprofen or naproxen, he says.

Even though there have been concerns about the safety of NSAID use in heart attack survivors for many years, Schjerning Olsen says most people, and many doctors, are unaware of the potential risk.

"It is important to get the message out to clinicians taking care of patients with cardiovascular disease that NSAIDs are harmful, even several years after a heart attack," she says.

The study appears today in the journal Circulation.

SOURCES: Schjerning Olsen, A.M. Circulation, Sept. 10, 2012. Anne-Marie Schjerning Olsen, MD, research fellow, Department of Cardiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Gentofte, Hellerup, Denmark. Gordon Tomaselli, MD, director, division of cardiology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; immediate past president, American Heart Association. News release, American Heart Association.

View the original article here

Many Heart Attacks May Go Unrecognized in Seniors

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
By Steven Reinberg
HealthDay Reporter

TUESDAY, Sept. 4 (HealthDay News) -- Far more older people than thought may suffer heart attacks that are never diagnosed, a new study suggests.

These so-called "silent heart attacks" can increase the risk of dying as much as any confirmed heart attack does, the researchers added.

To reach their conclusion, the study authors used sophisticated MRI scans to spot heart trouble among more than 900 older Icelanders between the ages of 67 and 93.

"MRI scanners are really a spectacular tool for finding heart disease," explained lead researcher Dr. Andrew Arai, chief of the cardiovascular and pulmonary branch at the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

However, people shouldn't be running out to get scanned, he stressed: "I wouldn't recommend that. Most guidelines don't recommend having these expensive tests unless you are having symptoms."

Right now, it isn't clear when such scans are called for and who would benefit from them, Arai noted, although this latest finding is a first step toward determining that.

The report was published in the Sept. 5 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Among the more than 900 Icelanders studied, 91 had heart attacks that had been diagnosed, while 157 had heart attacks that had not been recognized before, the researchers found. Cardiac MRI detected more cases of unrecognized heart attack in people with diabetes (21 percent) than in those without diabetes (14 percent), the researchers added.

Over more than six years of follow-up, 33 percent of those who had recognized heart attacks died, as did 28 percent of those with unrecognized heart attacks, which was significantly more than the 17 percent who died among those who had never had a heart attack, the researchers noted.

Not surprisingly, significantly more people who had a recognized heart attack were taking beta blockers to lower blood pressure and statins to lower cholesterol than people who had an unrecognized heart attack.

In fact, about half of those with an unrecognized heart attack were taking aspirin, but less than half were taking beta blockers or statins. This may well have added to their risk of having a heart attack, the researchers suggested.

The greater number of unrecognized heart attacks may be due to several factors, including diabetes, which raises the risk of a heart attack, milder symptoms and a less severe attack, the study authors noted.

Although the study was done in Iceland, Arai said he believes the results would be similar in the United States.

Commenting on the study, Dr. Gregg Fonarow, a spokesman with the American Heart Association and a professor of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said: "Prior studies have demonstrated that a portion of myocardial infarctions [heart attacks] are not detected clinically, or are so-called 'silent myocardial infarctions.'"

Cardiac MRI is a very sensitive approach for detecting heart attacks, he added.

"This study found a higher prevalence of previously unrecognized heart attacks than described in prior studies," Fonarow said. "Silent heart attacks have a similar adverse long-term prognosis as clinically recognized heart attacks."

Fonarow, however, doesn't think cardiac imagining is useful yet as a screening tool to find people at risk for a heart attack or to diagnose an unrecognized heart attack.

"At this point in time, there is not sufficient evidence on which to recommend cardiac imaging as a screening test. Further studies are necessary," he said.

Copyright © 2012 HealthDay. All rights reserved. SOURCES: Andrew Arai, M.D., chief, cardiovascular and pulmonary branch, U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, Md.; Gregg Fonarow, M.D., spokesman, American Heart Association, and professor, cardiology, University of California, Los Angeles; Sept. 5, 2012, Journal of the American Medical Association

View the original article here

Fish Oil Fizzles for Fighting Heart Attack, Stroke

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

By Salynn Boyles
WebMD Health News

Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD

Sept. 11, 2012 -- Millions of people take omega-3 supplements to improve their heart health, but new evidence questions their benefit.

Researchers looked at 20 studies involving nearly 70,000 people, many of whom were heart patients. Adding omega-3 to their diet did not appear to lower the chance of having a heart attack or stroke or lower the risk of death from these and other causes.

Many people take fish oil capsules to get omega-3. But, as in this study, not all omega-3 came from fish oil. It also came from other sources.

The study appears in the Sept. 12 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

A study published last spring failed to show a benefit for omega-3 supplements in people with existing heart disease.

The American Heart Association recommends that all adults eat at least two 3.5-ounce servings of fish a week, and that people with heart disease take about 1 gram total of two types of omega-3 fatty acids (EPA and DHA) per day, preferably from fatty fish.

Capsules containing DHA and EPA are an option, but talk to your doctor before using them.

The AHA also recommends that people with high levels of blood fats known as triglycerides take 2 to 4 grams of EPA+DHA per day under a doctor's care.

Higher doses should only be taken under the supervision of a doctor, as they can cause dangerous bleeding.

In the new analysis, when people who took omega-3 were compared to people who took placebo capsules, no major difference was seen in the risk for heart attacks, strokes, sudden cardiac death, and death between the two groups.

The findings do not justify the use of omega-3 supplements regularly as a treatment or prevention, researcher Evangelos C. Rizos, MD, and colleagues from Greece's University Hospital of Ioannina write in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Heart doctor David A. Friedman, MD, calls the new analysis, pun intended, "disheartening."

He is the chief of heart failure services for North Shore-LIJ Plainview Hospital in Plainview, N.Y.

Friedman prescribes high-dose omega-3 to many of his patients, and he says the supplements clearly lower blood triglyceride levels.

But he says this may not translate into the heart benefits that had been expected.

"It may be that food sources of omega-3, rather than supplements, are a better choice," he says.

But Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, of Harvard's School of Public Health, says there may still be a role for omega-3 in the treatment and prevention of heart disease.

Mozaffarian studies fish oil and heart health but did not take part in either review.

"The good news is that the combined evidence from controlled trials confirms that fish oil reduces death from heart disease," he says. "The bad news is that effect appears smaller than we had thought -- about a 10% lowering of risk."

He says that many studies may have failed to show a benefit because participants did not take high enough doses of the supplements or because most were also taking other drugs to lower their heart attack and stroke risk.

SOURCES: Rizos, E.C. Journal of the American Medical Association, Sept. 12, 2012. Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, co-director, Program in Cardiovascular Epidemiology, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School; department of epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston. David A. Friedman, MD, chief, Heart Failure Services, North Shore-LIJ Plainview Hospital, Plainview, N.Y. News release, JAMA. AHA: "Fish and Omega 3 Fatty Acids." Kwak, S.M. Archives of Internal Medicine, 2012.

View the original article here

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

MedlinePlus: heart problems associated with diabetes

The first row in the table of contents contains the following groups: learn more & Multimedia. Reference materials of PRA

View the original article here

MedlinePlus: heart problems associated with diabetes

The first row in the table of contents contains the following groups: learn more & Multimedia. Reference materials of PRA

View the original article here

Saturday, June 16, 2012

High Blood Pressure in Pregnancy May Threaten Kids' Heart Health

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
View Stages of Pregnancy Slideshow Pictures

By Steven Reinberg
HealthDay Reporter

THURSDAY, May 24 (HealthDay News) -- Preeclampsia, a dangerous spike in a woman's blood pressure during pregnancy, may predispose offspring to high blood pressure in childhood and young adulthood, a new study finds.

From early in life, these children have distinct cardiovascular risk factors that may put them at risk for health problems later on, the British researchers said.

"A pregnancy complicated by preeclampsia is an early warning sign that both the mother and offspring are going to be at greater risk of developing high blood pressure later in life," said lead researcher Dr. Paul Leeson, from the department of cardiovascular medicine at the University of Oxford in England.

The findings suggest a need to monitor these children, the authors said. "There is likely to be value in considering a history of preeclampsia to understand better a person's risk of developing high blood pressure," Leeson said.

High blood pressure, also called hypertension, can lead to stroke, heart attack and kidney failure.

Research into the biology underlying this association may also help identify new ways to prevent high blood pressure, Leeson added.

The report, published May 21 online, appears in the June print issue of Pediatrics.

For the study, Leeson's team reviewed 18 studies published between 1948 and 2011 that dealt with cardiovascular risk factors of children and young adults exposed to preeclampsia and those not exposed.

This type of study, which involved more than 45,000 individuals, is called a meta-analysis and is designed to look for common patterns in unrelated studies.

In their analysis, the researchers found that kids exposed to preeclampsia had higher blood pressure readings in childhood and as young adults, compared with those who were not exposed.

Systolic blood pressure of those exposed to preeclampsia was 2.39 mm Hg higher on average than that of those whose moms had healthy pregnancies, and diastolic pressure was 1.35 mm Hg higher on average, the researchers noted. In a blood pressure reading of 120/80, the first number -- 120 -- is the systolic pressure.

Over time, this difference in systolic blood pressure would increase a person's risk of death from heart disease by about 8 percent and stroke by 12 percent, the authors said.

Children and young adults exposed to preeclampsia also had a higher body mass index (BMI) than children not exposed, the researchers say. BMI, a calculation of body size based on height and weight, is another risk factor for cardiovascular disease.

The study does not prove that preeclampsia causes cardiovascular disease, however. It merely shows an association between the two.

Dr. Natalie Meirowitz, chief of maternal-fetal medicine in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Long Island Jewish Medical Center in New Hyde Park, N.Y., said this study points to a major public health issue.

"This study really says the intrauterine environment affects a child's vascular function as an adult," Meirowitz said.

"It may be obesity that is driving this," added Meirowitz. More pregnant women are obese, which is a risk factor for preeclampsia.

"We really need to consider cardiovascular disease that comes from the intrauterine environment and understand it better so we can prevent future cardiovascular disease," she said.

Obesity in pregnancy is a modifiable risk factor, Meirowitz said. "There isn't enough attention paid to it and the effect it can have on children later in life," she said.

Copyright © 2012 HealthDay. All rights reserved. SOURCES: Paul Leeson, M.B., Ph.D.,department of cardiovascular medicine, University of Oxford, England; Natalie Meirowitz, M.D., chief, maternal-fetal medicine, department of obstetrics and gynecology, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New Hyde Park, N.Y.; June 2012 Pediatrics