Effect of invasive coronary revascularization in acute MI
Below is a review of a new study supporting BYPASS SURGERY in dramatically lowering death rates. Does this new study in AM J of Cardiology force you to refer your CV patients for surgery? Does this require you to alter your INFORMED CONSENT procedures in case a patient that you treat later dies?
I have MY answers but if something ever goes wrong you need your answers on the tip of your tongue. It is not enough to know the right answer by the time things are in court. You need to have dissected this WEAK study enough to know why you are not suddenly required to push surgery to patients who consult with you about their CAD problems
This major 5 years Canadian study of revascularization surgery during hospitalization for acute MI is done by University of Alberta and in a current AM J of Cardiology. The death rate in this study was ONLY 5% in the operated group vs. 17% in those not receiving surgery. So what does that prove? To me that is a bad outcome in both studies because they are both wrong in their approach. I am convinced that lowering blood viscosity safely with Beyond Chelation Improved is the correct approach.
This study covers 1994 to 1999. You might say that the data is so old and that it merely shows that back then doctors had no real idea how to keep heart attack patients alive with either group.
You could argue that losing 5 or 17% of acute heart attack patients within a 5 year period after hospitalization for an acute MI represents suboptimal care based on our statistics using Chelation therapy. However, those who make their living performing invasive surgery will certainly try to use data like this to justify using surgery for as long as people will lie on the table and let them operate.
On the surface then, some might argue that data like this from current literature could force us to more carefully inform our patients about the potential benefit from surgery. I disagree since I see the weaknesses in this study. Furthermore, since I continue to have no reported fatal MI or strokes in any patient on my total program for over 20 years now, I think that we would be comparing apples to oranges.
However, please stay fully informed about what surgeons are saying. You need to know these figures and be able to explain why you disagree.
I hope more of you will start to focus on practicing as a metabolic cardiologist like Dr Stephen Sinatra and Dr Roberts who have published a book about REVERSING HEART DISEASE. That is the minority school of thought that enables us to offer things like CoQ, Lipoic Acid, Carnitine, Ribose, Magnesium and the entire program of oral chelation and anti-clotting enzymes such as Boluoke or Nattokinase.
These figures will get some favorable press but do not require me to specifically discuss this one study. I will continue to routinely recommend against any form of invasive heart surgery for coronary heart disease because there are complications with surgery and I make it clear that my recommendations are based on my clinical experience.
I will continue to point out to my patients who may choose to forgo invasive revascularization surgery that a major advantage to my combined Metabolic Cardiology with Oral Chelation approach is that using my suggestions, we avoid the memory loss issues and infection and many other of the reported complications associated with CABG. However, I make it clear that my supplement program will not confer any long lasting benefits. It works only as long as they take it without fail for the rest of their life. I tell them that they must never stop the supplement program.
There are many unique aspects to the Beyond Chelation program I use, which is partially based on Lester Morrison’s $10 million dollars of research into mucopolysaccarides. In developing BC-I, I brought along my advanced knowledge of EDTA and we successfully added my EDTA work to his work with mucopolysaccarides. Later, we were able to use the instrumentation from not allowed class="postlink" href="http://www.rheologics.com">http://www.rheologics.com to document that BC-I, virtually without fail, dramatically and routinely lowers blood viscosity. Thus, Beyond Chelation-Improved provides a more effective, yet safer, aspirin, coumadin, Plavix like effect. It also continues to lower toxic lead levels, which we now recognize is vital for optimal health, and that lead lowering takes many years to slowly move lead out of bones, etc.
I have never advised anyone to discontinue the 9 tablets twice a day found in BC-I no matter how good they start to feel. Furthermore, research today about some of the over 100 nutrients found in BC-I such as Omega 3 supplementation is beneficial for virtually everyone at every stage of life.
Thus it is my belief that no one today should go without Omega 3 supplementation. It also appears that ideally, those taking Omega 3 should balance it out with the GLA Omega 6 supplement such as the Primrose capsule I have included in the 9 pill packet of BC-I.
Here is the quick summary from their study.
Garry F. Gordon MD,DO,MD(H)
President, Gordon Research Institutehttp://www.gordonresearch.com
HEART DISEASE ALERT
August 4, 2008
Research from University of Alberta, Department of Medicine has provided new data on heart attack epidemiology
A new study, 'Effect of invasive coronary revascularization in acute myocardial infarction on subsequent death rate and frequency of chronic heart failure,' is now available. According to a study from Edmonton, Canada, "There is debate about whether therapies that reduce mortality in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) will increase the risk for heart failure. In this study, an inception cohort of patients hospitalized with AMIs from April 1, 1994, to March 31, 1999 (without previous diagnoses of heart failure or myocardial infarction), were followed for a mean of 32 months to explore whether invasive coronary revascularization during the index AMI hospitalization was associated with a trade-off between reduced mortality in the short term and increased heart failure in the intermediate term."
"Of 13,472 patients (mean age 65 ±13 years, 70% men), 3,278 (24%) underwent invasive coronary revascularization during their index AMI hospitalizations. Patients who underwent invasive revascularization during their index AMI hospitalizations were less likely to die (171 of 3,278 [5%] vs 1,688 of 10,194 [17%], p<0.0001) and were less likely to develop heart failure, either during the AMI hospitalization (571 of 3,278 [17%] vs 2,422 of 10,194 [24%], p<0.0001) or after discharge (144 of 3,278 [4%] vs 754 of 10,194 [7%], p<0.0001). These associations persisted after covariate adjustment (for heart failure, hazard ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.56 to 0.81; for death or heart failure, hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.51 to 0.70)," wrote F.A. McAlister and colleagues, University of Alberta, Department of Medicine.