When I was a cardiology fellow back in the 1980s, I learned about a variety of early tools for evaluating heart health that had been displaced by the modern standards of electrocardiography (ECG, or EKG for the Deutschephiles) and echocardiography. One such technique – ballistocardiography – stuck with me, and may be making a comeback.
Ballistocardiography is based on the observation that the mechanical action of the heart leads to subtle but reproducible movement of the whole body. It is the old “every action has an equal and opposite reaction” maxim in, well, action. We literally shudder a little bit each time the heart ejects blood. Back in the day, researchers compared patterns of that shudder to detect and quantify disorders of cardiac output. As someone who had studied biomedical engineering in college, I thought it was pretty cool that you could non-invasively estimate cardiac output by measuring how much somebody bounced up and down with each heartbeat, even though it had been eclipsed by more accurate and easier to use technology.
By the way, you can easily measure the effect yourself, if you have an analog bathroom scale. Just stand on it as still as you can, and you will notice the needle deflects slightly with each heart beat – as the blood goes “up” out of your heart, your body goes “down” and your weight appears to increase momentarily. More elaborate ways to measure and quantify the effect are, of course, available on YouTube.
Continue reading What Goes Around Comes Around
The headline in the New York Times summarized the initial reaction of the cardiology community – “unbelievable” – but still seemed to understate the ground-shaking implications of a recent study of coronary stenting.
The report of The Objective Randomised Blinded Investigation with Optimal Medical Therapy of Angioplasty in Stable Angina (ORBITA)Trial was published last week in the Lancet. In brief, investigators in the UK (hence “randomised”) enrolled about 200 patients with angina, objective evidence of inducible myocardial ischemia and angiographic and hemodynamic evidence of significant single vessel coronary artery disease. Half the group received a drug eluting stent, with excellent technical results. The other half got a sham angioplasty. Both groups were treated medically. The key finding: “real” stenting produced no measurable benefit in exercise time increment (the primary endpoint) compared with a “placebo procedure.” The study was well done, with true blinding of patients and evaluating physicians, careful selection of endpoints, and sufficient power to support the conclusion. Whoa.
Continue reading Holy (Sacred) Cow!
I had a great time at the national meeting of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) this past weekend. I hadn’t been to “the meetings” in a few years, in part because my professional focus is no longer primarily clinical and well, I never really liked going even when it was. I generally believed (and still do) that I get more valuable information about new developments in cardiology by reading journals than by shlepping around some gargantuan convention center and listening to a few talks while dodging the barrage of drug and device manufacturers. Now that the results of “late breaking” clinical trials are instantly available (complete with slides and expert analysis) within hours of their presentation, I find the whole convention thing even less compelling.
So (with a nod toward the upcoming Passover holiday) why was this meeting different from all other meetings?
First, I had the pleasure of hearing my brother, David Nash, founding Dean of the Jefferson College of Population Health, deliver the Simon Dack lecture. As I said to him when he first told me he was invited (and wanted to know if it was a big deal), this is a big deal. It is the opening keynote for the conference, and is intended to set a tone or theme for the meeting, which draws almost 20,000 people from around the world. Here is a picture of him being introduced by the President of the ACC:
Continue reading Population (Heart) Health