Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Where do our sons learn not to go to the doctors? Does that now create a social burden? [View all]FarCenter
(19,429 posts)59. Did you have his cholesterol level measured during the autopsy?
Most Heart Attack Patients' Cholesterol Levels Did Not Indicate Cardiac Risk
Jan. 13, 2009 A new national study has shown that nearly 75 percent of patients hospitalized for a heart attack had cholesterol levels that would indicate they were not at high risk for a cardiovascular event, based on current national cholesterol guidelines.
Specifically, these patients had low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels that met current guidelines, and close to half had LDL levels classified in guidelines as optimal (less than 100 mg/dL).
"Almost 75 percent of heart attack patients fell within recommended targets for LDL cholesterol, demonstrating that the current guidelines may not be low enough to cut heart attack risk in most who could benefit," said Dr. Gregg C. Fonarow, Eliot Corday Professor of Cardiovascular Medicine and Science at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and the study's principal investigator.
While the risk of cardiovascular events increases substantially with LDL levels above 4060 mg/dL, current national cholesterol guidelines consider LDL levels less than 100130 mg/dL acceptable for many individuals. The guidelines are thus not effectively identifying the majority of individuals who will develop fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events, according to the study's authors.
Jan. 13, 2009 A new national study has shown that nearly 75 percent of patients hospitalized for a heart attack had cholesterol levels that would indicate they were not at high risk for a cardiovascular event, based on current national cholesterol guidelines.
Specifically, these patients had low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels that met current guidelines, and close to half had LDL levels classified in guidelines as optimal (less than 100 mg/dL).
"Almost 75 percent of heart attack patients fell within recommended targets for LDL cholesterol, demonstrating that the current guidelines may not be low enough to cut heart attack risk in most who could benefit," said Dr. Gregg C. Fonarow, Eliot Corday Professor of Cardiovascular Medicine and Science at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and the study's principal investigator.
While the risk of cardiovascular events increases substantially with LDL levels above 4060 mg/dL, current national cholesterol guidelines consider LDL levels less than 100130 mg/dL acceptable for many individuals. The guidelines are thus not effectively identifying the majority of individuals who will develop fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events, according to the study's authors.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090112130653.htm
He should have gone to the doctor with the symptoms that he had during the first attack. That is acute care, not preventive care.
An EKG during a routine physical may or may not have picked up the fact that he had a heart attack already. I'm not sure whether a stress EKG will be covered by the ACA health plans. A stress EKG is not usually part of a routine physical, although it is for a high-cost evaluation like the Princeton one.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
102 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Where do our sons learn not to go to the doctors? Does that now create a social burden? [View all]
HereSince1628
Oct 2013
OP
American waiting rooms have similar messages...not seen unless you are there
HereSince1628
Oct 2013
#2
I think the real 'social problem' is the built in promise of profit for Insurance Companies.
Bluenorthwest
Oct 2013
#12
And statins probably work as anti-inflammatories, rather than by cholesterol lowering.
FarCenter
Oct 2013
#79
"No one questions the importance of regular exams for (insert demographic here)"
lumberjack_jeff
Oct 2013
#70
The question is whether a routine exam results in finding something that can be prevented
FarCenter
Oct 2013
#72
Where is some proof that all things being equal, men have a 'habit' of not seeing doctors while
Bluenorthwest
Oct 2013
#16
It's widely known that men don't seek medical care...here are newspaper articles
HereSince1628
Oct 2013
#18
The lifetime cost for women's health care is 1/3 more, largely due to longer lifespan.
lumberjack_jeff
Oct 2013
#56
"if you're well enough to crawl to the bathroom, young man, you're well enough for school!"
MindPilot
Oct 2013
#6
Do you have any sort of figures or stats to support your assumption that men as a whole have
Bluenorthwest
Oct 2013
#9
So 57% vs 74%? A 15 point difference is all this is about? Interesting take to lump all men
Bluenorthwest
Oct 2013
#37
Actually, those numbers are on percents of people having vistis, not numbers of visits
HereSince1628
Oct 2013
#51
The difference you cite is in percents for each seeing a doctor at least once
HereSince1628
Oct 2013
#92
That poster says he does not go to the doctor because of how his Mother dealt with doctors.
Bluenorthwest
Oct 2013
#28
I understand that for this to work everyone has to have insurance. That's what the
liberal_at_heart
Oct 2013
#19
but people will still play football and people will still let their children play football.
liberal_at_heart
Oct 2013
#27
You can also think about the introduction and acceptance of seat belts and car seats
HereSince1628
Oct 2013
#30
I know people that don't wear seat belts, and I know people who only wear seat belts because
liberal_at_heart
Oct 2013
#35
Yes, a specific action is public education to create cultural awareness and peer pressure.
HereSince1628
Oct 2013
#38
I am a sugar addict. Shame does not work on me. I try my best to be healthy but it is my damn
liberal_at_heart
Oct 2013
#39
That's the state of affairs relative to macho. I'm sure The Marlboro Man felt that way early on
HereSince1628
Oct 2013
#36
But they are at high risk for injury, accidents. They should understand that.
Arugula Latte
Oct 2013
#46
My daughter amazes me. She will come to me and say hey mom I was feeling this way so I looked
liberal_at_heart
Oct 2013
#49
I'm sure calling men slackers and a burden will get them to the Dr. right away
The2ndWheel
Oct 2013
#41
all I can say is good luck with that. People's apprehension to go to the doctor runs deep.
liberal_at_heart
Oct 2013
#43
Making insurance mandatory will encourage men to get the preventive care they need.
lumberjack_jeff
Oct 2013
#53
I'm think historic and current attitudes give legitimacy to an unfortunate pov
HereSince1628
Oct 2013
#60
Young men are roughly 20% more likely to be uninsured than young women.
lumberjack_jeff
Oct 2013
#67
I'm not sure that being married means more preventive care visits for men
HereSince1628
Oct 2013
#61
I have no doubt that is true...the question is does that enable a reasonably general inference?
HereSince1628
Oct 2013
#64
some women bug their husband until they go to the doctor. Sometimes it works, sometimes it
liberal_at_heart
Oct 2013
#63
As a man, I mainly don't like ceding control to the GP or primary care physician.
Gidney N Cloyd
Oct 2013
#69
My experience has been different, but that's the thing about personal experience.
HereSince1628
Oct 2013
#73
I'm a 39 year old man. Until recently, I could count all my adult doctor visits on one hand.
Xithras
Oct 2013
#74
so, you are defending not taking care of your health basically. well for one thing,
bettyellen
Oct 2013
#99
Conservatives think illness is a moral failing. It's not just macho.
Manifestor_of_Light
Oct 2013
#95
"Social burden"? Maybe. Is the fact that they're dying also a consideration? n/t
lumberjack_jeff
Oct 2013
#101