CAC scoring of cardiac arteries is actually very valuable in tracking heart diseases in asymptomatic persons. What should we do? Wait until the first heart attack? If they survive, treat the now damaged patient. If they die, say, “well, I guess they had heart disease”. And yes there are actions you can take to improve your chances of red…
CAC scoring of cardiac arteries is actually very valuable in tracking heart diseases in asymptomatic persons. What should we do? Wait until the first heart attack? If they survive, treat the now damaged patient. If they die, say, “well, I guess they had heart disease”. And yes there are actions you can take to improve your chances of reducing the effects of heart disease. One of the biggest: quit eating bread, grains, sweets, sugars. Insulin resistance is the leading factor in the cause of heart disease, but not the only one.
“Valuable”? Do we have evidence from a randomized control study demonstrating fewer deaths and fewer non-fatal heart attacks in the group given coronary artery screening scans? Until we do, the scans will remain in the “unproven” bin with dozens of other tests.
The chain of events you suggest would likely emanate from the CMS approval of this measurement/calculation, is pretty convincing. And there would probably be no going back once it's standard procedure.
Years ago I was told by a civics teacher that anything appearing in WSJ is there because it pertains in some way to investment. This opinion piece is a classic case.
CAC scoring of cardiac arteries is actually very valuable in tracking heart diseases in asymptomatic persons. What should we do? Wait until the first heart attack? If they survive, treat the now damaged patient. If they die, say, “well, I guess they had heart disease”. And yes there are actions you can take to improve your chances of reducing the effects of heart disease. One of the biggest: quit eating bread, grains, sweets, sugars. Insulin resistance is the leading factor in the cause of heart disease, but not the only one.
“Valuable”? Do we have evidence from a randomized control study demonstrating fewer deaths and fewer non-fatal heart attacks in the group given coronary artery screening scans? Until we do, the scans will remain in the “unproven” bin with dozens of other tests.
Indeed! In the meantime, unscrupulous physician – investors get a nice payout.
When you throw mud at a target enough times, you will hit the bull’s-eye; imagine getting paid for all those attempts!
The chain of events you suggest would likely emanate from the CMS approval of this measurement/calculation, is pretty convincing. And there would probably be no going back once it's standard procedure.
Years ago I was told by a civics teacher that anything appearing in WSJ is there because it pertains in some way to investment. This opinion piece is a classic case.