Talk:Ischaemic heart disease

Comment
My father died of Ischaemic heart disease, could this have been detected?


 * Answer: Yes, via autopsy that will be performed by a licensed pathologist.


 * While ischemic heart disease can be detected (typically via a stress test), it is much more likely that someone without previously diagnosed ischemic heart disease would die of acute myocardial ischemia and infarction (a myocardial infarction) rather than chronic myocardial ischemia. Ksheka 02:00, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

in a stress test report if results say " findings negative for reversible ischaemia" then what does it mean
 * Negative for ischemia means that there is no obstructive plaque detected by the test. These tests are typically tunes to be sensitive enough to detect plaques that block up (stenose) about 70% or more of an artery.  No test is perfect, and some false negatives (and false positives) do occur.  The results of the test should be gone over with a cardiologist (or other trained professional) and used along with a careful history and physical to decide if further evaluation is necessary. Ksheka 13:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

ALERT VET-NAM VETS
VA Ordered to Release Agent Orange Rule

A coalition of veterans' service organizations won their case to force the VA to issue a final regulation authorizing payment of claims for ISCHEMIC HEART DISEASE, Parkinson's disease, or B-cell leukemia for any veteran who stepped foot in Vietnam during the war, or their survivors. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit instructed VA to issue the rule by Sept. 1. Read the Full Article.

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,218379,00.html?ESRC=vr.nl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.14.150 (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Robin Cook
Is this article describing what the BBC article on robin cooks death refers to as "hypertensive heart disease"? Or would a redirect to Hypertension be more appropriate? --NicholasJones 18:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I dont understand what you mean?

IHD vs. CAD

 * The result was No consensus to merge --  Jreferee  (Talk) 05:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

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? --Maxxicum 21:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree. They should be merged. It is going to be some work. Miguel Andrade 01:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree CAD and IHD should be merged, but NOT Cardiovascular Disease. Finavon 15:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Gotta agree as well. They really do appear to be the same thing, so I say merge. Radagast83 08:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Exact same disease. A quick search of internet resources reveals all. RxMed Article In short, CAD is the common name, and IHD is the medical term for it. I vote for merge as well. Goldy496 02:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

They're not 100% the same. Ischemic heart disease means the muscle of the heart doesn't get enough oxygen and dies ("ischemic" litteraly means not enough blood). Usually this is because of the heart (coronary) arteries are clogged, but a heart can become ischemic for many other reasons. Perhaps ischemic heart disease is usually used to refer to coronary heart disease (i'm an MD, but not a native english speaker), but technically the heart can get ischemic for many reasons. So if you merge i would advise to merge under the name ischemic heart disease. See - the doctors do have a point in naming it ischemic heart disease, especially if for a certain patient the coronary cuase of the ischemia hasn't been proven yet. Pizzaman79 10:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

CAD is associated with atherosclerosis while IHD is not always associated with this etiology and can in fact have many different etiologies - if you merge, at least make sure to make this clear and list the other possible causes of IHD

Fixed

Congenital anomalies Myocardial bridges Vasculitides Aortic dissection Granulomas Tumors Scarring from trauma, radiation

Transient

Vasospasm Embolus Thrombus in situ

-(Feb 2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.35.79.70 (talk • contribs)
 * Could you provide a good source proving that a heart condition cannot be called CAD if it's causes are different from atherosclerosis? By the way, I second the idea that if merged, article should stay under the name "Ischaemic heart disease", not "Coronary artery disease", because the former has more strict definition, while the latter's definition is not that easy to prove. --Maxxicum 01:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_9 --Maxxicum (talk) 11:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Most common cause of death?
I thought that was cancer (Malignant neoplasms)?


 * See the table at the bottom of Causes of Death, Australia, 2004, for instance... --Sabik 12:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In many countries, cancer causes more deaths than IHD, including the UK, where IHD used to be the most common cause. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracies
Several descriptions/clarifications are inaccurate, for example where temporary pain and damage is described as ischaemia, which it is not. Yazza 17:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, ischaemia is certainly the mechanism underlying temporary pain and damage. JFW | T@lk  20:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Hard water as a preventative factor
There is research indicating that drinking hard water may help prevent ischaemic heart disease (http://www.mgwater.com/calcium.shtml). Should this information be included in this article? --Masden 12:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, this is not widely recognised. JFW | T@lk  20:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Acute Coronary Syndrome
ACS is a general term used to describe conditions ranging from unstable angina to ST elevated MI. The listing of ACS as though it is a different type when compared to MI or unstable angina is wrong. 128.232.242.238 (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Prevention
The "Prevention" section is quite limited. The various antihypertensive drug options were recently reviewed (at ), finding only small difference in outcomes for alpha-blockers, beta-blockers, angiotensin convering enzyme, angiotensin receptor blockers, and calcium-channel blockers. Discussion of smoking cessation is obviously needed: the impact of smoking on heart disease has long been recognized, but it is now thought to have been severely underestimated due to systemic biases in studies. Some discussion on management of diabetes as a risk factor would seem useful too. LeadSongDog come howl!  17:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking to emphasize inexpesive, non-medical interventions;

like exercise, healthy eating, getting up (not sedentary), smoking.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0045030

http://www.cardiosource.org/News-Media/Media-Center/News-Releases/2012/09/WHF-Health-Policy-Paper.aspx

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/HeartAttack/PreventionTreatmentofHeartAttack/Lifestyle-Changes_UCM_303934_Article.jsp

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/heart_vascular_institute/conditions_treatments/conditions/coronary_artery.html#prevention — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.113.171 (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The PLoSONE article is primary, so while interesting it is of limited use. The second is just a press release announcing (jointly published as  and  the same month). All these journals are subscriber-only, but the article looks like it should be useful. The third is basic public-facing guidance from the American Heart Association website. It looks helpful, I'll have to get a copy. The fourth, from JHU, is rather troubling. It has a self-promotional tone that borders on advertising. Worse, its advice on diet is grossly simplistic: "Eat a diet low in saturated fat, cholesterol and salt." It omits mention of transfats, LDL vs HDL, sodium vs potassium, ...  Frankly I'm shocked that a fine organization such as JHU would put that out in that state. LeadSongDog  come howl!  16:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

well.. found another one. I suppose its just common sense to be healthy one should maintain their health.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0014189 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.113.171 (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, that's a primary source. Per wp:MEDRS we try to use secondary sources such as "Review" or "Systematic Review" articles. Mostly we use the index at Pubmed to find these. LeadSongDog come howl!  22:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)