Talk:Myocardial infarction/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Easy find

Is there any way to make duckduckgo link to this page upon a search for "ischemic heart disease"? Some way to add a tag or a search attribute? 117.199.12.93 (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Use of "heart attack" within the text

I noticed that "heart attack" is used a number of times within the text, interchangeably with "Myocardial Infarction". I wonder if this needs to be standardised to using one or the other, or if their equivalence could be emphasised and then the more familiar "heart attack" could be used more in the body text. It would improve readability greatly if we were able to use "heart attack" more often in the body text, and would presumably not be less accurate than "MI" if it were clearly stated that "heart attack" = "MI" for the purposes of this article. Just wanted to know what people thought of such use, or whether we need to avoid the use of "heart attack" completely.

Nren4237 (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Biomarkers

Bakerstmd is keen to add something about biomarkers in the diagnosis of MI. I am really not sure why the reader might still have any interest in CK-MB, which is historical like ASOT and LDH, and I am not aware of a single clinician who uses BNP, CD40, CRP etc in the diagnosis of MI, whether STEMI or NSTEACS. Sometimes "less is more" applies. We might actually need to talk more about standard versus highly sensitive troponin assays. JFW | T@lk 21:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree. I guess maybe CKMB is still used in parts of the world? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

See PMID: 21545940. These were the newest guidelines for NSTEMI that I could find, from 2011. While it is recognized that CK-MB is less specific than Troponin for diagnostic purposes, it has a role in being serially measured as an index of infarct size. It also has the advantages of being recognized by older physicians. Per section 2.2 "Early Risk Stratification", there is still a level IIb "consideration" allowed for measuring CK-MB. I don't work up ACS patients in the ER, but I am occasionally asked by older attending physicians to order a CK-MB for patients on the ward with suspicion of cardiac ischemia. One of the hospitals where I work includes it in the default panel of cardiac markers. Therefore it seems wrong not to mention it on the page about MI. Bakerstmd (talk) 01:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@jfdwolff Jmh649

Yes it is not that old and I am sure it is still used in some parts. We have removed it from out default panel of cardiac markers maybe 5 years ago. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Bakerstmd As per Amsterdam et al 2014 (AHA/ACC NSTEMI guidelines) CK-MB is deprecated and there is a high-grade recommendation against its use. As such, I have toned down any reference. It should be retained for historical interests only. Incidentally, there is no "history" section! JFW | T@lk 10:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Genetics

I added a list of genes associated with MI, as determined by GWAS, under Causes. I'm not sure if this is the best place to put this information. Please let me know if it should go somewhere else!Salubrious Toxin (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Beta blockers now not as great

Reperfusion therapy has made beta blockers less amazing at saving lives doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2014.05.032. Unsure how to work this into the current text. JFW | T@lk 22:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Guidelines

I noticed Doc James addition of the BMJ meta-analysis showing no benefit of pretreatment with clopidogrel or prasugrel in NSTEMI with evidence of harm. While this may be the case (the study didn't look at new newer, faster-acting agents) it doesn't yet displace guideline-driven practice. As such I have added some stuff about the NICE (2010) and ACC/AHA (2014) guidelines for NSTEMI. We need to be extremely careful not to give the impression that current practice is completely without merit, which is the way it looked. There is always going to be a disconnect between the most recent guidelines and studies (even secondary sources) that have appeared since their publication. JFW | T@lk 10:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The ESC guideline is here: doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehr236. I still need to match it to the current content. JFW | T@lk 16:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Prevention content

I was a little bit troubled to find that the "Prevention" section made no distinction between primary and secondary prevention. I have therefore BOLDly moved all secondary prevention into the "Management" section and stubbed the primary prevention section. There is loads to discuss, and a substantial risk of semantics and content bloat, but it needs to be absolutely authoritative. There's no shortage of documents, but I think we need to stick to the very best: national and international guidance (AHA/ACC, NICE, ESC) and Cochrane. JFW | T@lk 15:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Clinical guideline 181: Lipid modification: cardiovascular risk assessment and the modification of blood lipids for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. London, 2014. is the latest NICE guideline on lipid management for CVD prevention.

doi:10.1136/bmj.g280 is a BMJ article about statins for primary prevention. It precedes the above guideline.

I still need to identify the relevant American guidance. JFW | T@lk 16:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Primary prevention - just the best sources please

I have meant to add the importance of the treatment of hypertension and diabetes to the "prevention" section. Strangely, finding a really great source that shows the extent of the risk reduction is surprisingly hard. Jmh649 and NikosGouliaros could you lend a hand?

• We know that hypertension is associated with coronary artery disease, but can we show that effective treatment of hypertension unequivocally improves CHD risk? A single amazing source would be sufficient.
• Similarly, how do we present the differential results of glycaemic control between type 1 and type 2 diabetes? JFW | T@lk 00:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

We have [1] for hypertension but it is a little old. This is a little newer [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

We have this excellent review of hypertension and diabetes [3] which does not support more agressive BP lowering in DM. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Doc James' [4] is excellent, as it is recent and actually proves that BP reduction deceases CHD risk even in patients without hypertension, as well that, by and large, that risk reduction is independent of the antihypertensive drug chosen. Its additional benefit is that it's open access. [5] is a non-open access alternative, but it's from 2003. [6] is old too (2002), but proves that risk reduction applies to both middle-aged and elderly persons. These are established principles; I wonder if new meta-analyses are being conducted for them, and if it is meaningful to be strict with the 5 year rule (Coming up: more references). -- NikosGouliaros (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 30 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mccalld2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)