Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Heart Disease and Birth Control

Heart Disease and Birth Control?
I heard on the news yesterday that if you've taken birth control pill for 10 years you have a 20-30 percent increase in your chances of Heart Disease(healthy non-s mokers!). Has anyone else heard anything about this?
Heart Diseases - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Yes it is true, birth control pills are considered as one of the factors that promotes the development of Heart disease in prolonged use, me personally won't think about it twice of taking this medication. If you are taking it and decide to quit well that will be the best thing to do and to prevent pregnancy you could practice the safe sex or use other methods to prevent it; as I said only if you are willing to stop taking them. Now all is in your hands. Good Luck
2 :
It has been a well established fact (20-30 years) that BC can also cause blood clots and stroke. The real question is why

Read more discussions :

Friday, January 16, 2009

Since Heart Disease is the largest killer of Americans, why won't people at least try to eat better

Since Heart Disease is the largest killer of Americans, why won't people at least try to eat better?
I understand that people should be able to eat what they want, but why do they refuse to develop a taste for and want something that won't hospitalize them? I'm not talking about people who are in their 60's, I'm talking about those in their 50's and below. Thanks for your help. :-)
Other - Society & Culture - 7 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Food tastes too good. Except spinach.
2 :
Because doing something like that, i mean eating health is to hard, more costly, and takes more time. America is only looking for what is the easiest and eating healthy is not the easy thing to do.
3 :
Because people are always on the go trying to make a living ,and do not have time to cook a healthy meal ,so they go to McDonald's instead because it is fast and easy.
4 :
American human nature. Whatever's quicker and easier.
5 :
That would be too easy.
6 :
Because a lot of so called 'healthy' foods aren't really healthy. American foods are processed and our meats are injected with steroids and antibiotics. Our food is so heavily altered and manufactured that by the time we get to it, it's hardly even real food anymore.
7 :
Because lots of reasons. One is that unhealthier foods usually taste better than healthier foods. Unhealthier meals are easier, quicker, and cheaper to prepare. There are also chemicals in fast food and other things you can buy that have an effect of a slight form of addiction. Take care and God bless

Read more discussions :

Monday, January 12, 2009

Is Coronary CT angiogram more reliable than invasive coronary angiogram to diagnose heart disease

Is Coronary CT angiogram more reliable than invasive coronary angiogram to diagnose heart disease?

Heart Diseases - 3 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Invasive is the best solution as in case of bile duct the obstruction cannot be seen on Sonogram, so a probe is passed to check its patency. This question was Put up in FRCS and many candidates flunked all ticked Sonogram.
2 :
It's a little weird that the person claiming to be a doctor seems to be answering a completely different question than the one you asked, Badius, but I will try to clear things up. Loving_Heart's answer is in reference to bile duct disease and not coronary disease. It's hard for anyone to say that coronary CT angiogram is "better" or "more reliable" than traditional coronary angiography because the studies that have been published almost universally use traditional coronary angiography as the "gold standard". The accuracy of coronary CT is therefore usually given in reference to coronary angiography. The studies that have been published suggest that 64-slice CT has a sensitivity of 93-100%, specificity of 90-95%, and positive and negative predictive values of 75-85% and 95-100%, respectively, for detecting significant coronary stenoses. In other words, CT angiography is a pretty good test and will probably get better. Right now, it is a little better at telling us who DOESN'T have coronary disease than who does, and it is much less helpful in people who have stents or bypasses.
3 :
No. An invasive coronary angiogram is the gold standard for visualizing the coronary vessels. The picture of a CT angio is often obscured by artefact caused by calcium in the vessels, by chest movement of the patients, etc. Current data has proven that the reproducibility of the invasive angio is definitely more than that of the CT angio. That said, if a patient of mine had low probability of coronary heart disease but complains of cardiac sounding chest pains with a normal ECG/stress test, I would be hard pressed to send him for an invasive angio and would opt instead for a CT angio. Each has its place in clinical management of people with heart disease

Read more discussions :