HEALTH: ‘BLOOD PRESSURE – KNOW YOUR NUMBERS’
Tag Archives: Cardiovascular Disease
STUDY: “ANTI-INFLAMATORY” DIET OF VEGETABLES, FRUITS, COFFEE & TEA LOWERS HEART DISEASE AND STROKE RISKS
Dietary patterns with a higher proinflammatory potential were associated with higher CVD risk. Reducing the inflammatory potential of the diet may potentially provide an effective strategy for CVD prevention.
Background
Inflammation plays an important role in cardiovascular disease (CVD) development. Diet modulates inflammation; however, it remains unknown whether dietary patterns with higher inflammatory potential are associated with long-term CVD risk.
INFOGRAPHIC: ‘THE LINK BETWEEN FLU AND CVD’
INFOGRAPHIC: BRAIN HEALTH, STROKES & HEALTHY AGING
HEALTH: NEW STUDIES FIND “COFFEE & CAFFEINE” LOWER HEART DISEASE, CANCER RISK
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE (JULY 23, 2020): A large body of evidence suggests that consumption of caffeinated coffee, the main source of caffeine intake in adults in the United States, does not increase the risk of cardiovascular diseases and cancers. In fact, consumption of 3 to 5 standard cups of coffee daily has been consistently associated with a reduced risk of several chronic diseases.
Coffee and tea have been consumed for hundreds of years and have become an important part of cultural traditions and social life.5 In addition, people use coffee beverages to increase wakefulness and work productivity. The caffeine content of commonly used sources of caffeine is shown in Table 1. For a typical serving, the caffeine content is highest in coffee, energy drinks, and caffeine tablets; intermediate in tea; and lowest in soft drinks. In the United States, 85% of adults consume caffeine daily,6 and average caffeine intake is 135 mg per day, which is equivalent to about 1.5 standard cups of coffee (with a standard cup defined as 8 fluid oz [235 ml]).7 Coffee is the predominant source of caffeine ingested by adults, whereas soft drinks and tea are more important sources of caffeine ingested by adolescents,
MEDICAL PODCAST: “ASSESSING CHEST PAIN” (BMJ)
Chest pain is a common chief complaint. It may be caused by either benign or life-threatening aetiologies and is usually divided into cardiac and non-cardiac causes. James E. Brown, Professor and Chair, Wright State University Boonshoft School of Medicine, Kettering, Ohio, gives us an overview of assessing chest pain in the emergency setting.
COMMENTARY
Dr. James E Brown of the Wright State school Of medicine in Kettering Ohio gave a very interesting discussion of chest pain.
One interesting takeaway is the value of a very experienced clinician dealing with large volumes of emergency room patients. This would make telemedicine with an emergency room hub in a teaching center a very attractive platform.
The consultant doctor in the center has the advantage of his vast experience in rapidly narrowing down the heterogeneous list of different diagnoses that must be considered- the “differential diagnosis”.
Dr. Brown mentioned the “gestalt”, the incorporation of subjective features such as facial and voice cues which add to the objective parameters in patient evaluation. This of course would be amenable to telemedicine although other old-time clinical information like the changes in breath sounds would be more favorable to conventional in-person evaluation.
Ultrasound would More easily be done locally as well.
An interesting take away from this discussion is the value of The patient’s history and past laboratory data, so undervalued by rushed modern doctors. For instance, Electronic medical records (EMR) could provide past history or a previous electrocardiogram for comparison.
Dr. Brown favors the division of chest pain causes into cardiac and non-cardiac. It is easy to develop tunnel vision and look at the patient only as a possible coronary thrombosis. In fact it is better to Rapidly consider the non-cardiac causes that would demand immediate attention while waiting for the results of the Troponin-T test.
For instance pulmonary embolism, aortic dissection, tension pneumothorax, cardiac Tamponade should be considered.
These considerations should be running through the head of the clinician as the IV, EKG, and pulse oximetry are being set up.
In addition to the Troponin-T, bedside ultrasound, and Higher “slice count” CAT machines, and higher “Tesla” MRIs are becoming available major centers which could support small emergency rooms.
If there is One place where “the Flow” would be Appropriate it would be in the mind of the emergency room doctor evaluating acute chest pain.
I have a hard time imagining artificial intelligence endangering her job.
