Talk:Coronary artery disease

Medicine B‑class High‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

About these yahoo-like hierarchy things:

Health Sciences > Medicine > Cardiology > Cardiac arrhythmias
or:
Health Sciences > Medicine > Cardiology > Heart attack

are these wanted or necessary?

What if I came to this CHD page via:
Health Sciences > Medicine > Clinical biochemistry > Hyperlipidaemia > Coronary heart disease.
or even:
Economics > Countries > Wealthy country > Diseases of affluence > CHD ???

I don't want to start an argument, but I vote to delete them on sight. What do others think? Tristanb 06:37 27 May 2003 (UTC)

Agreed. These category schemes are neither widely used nor consistent, and they wrongly assume that article categories form a simple tree, rather than a more general graph structure. The new category-scheme mechanism being discussed on the wikipedia-l mailing list will eventually let this sort of thing be done properly. I second your vote to delete them on sight. The Anome 06:55 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Two pages on this stuff???

The only distinction between ischaemic heart disease and coronary heart disease is in degree. I'm going to start merging the two articles together and have ischaemic heart disease redirect to this article (since this article has a better initial layout). This may take some time... Ksheka 02:11, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Okay. It's pretty much done.Ksheka 15:49, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

RxMed ArticleTo further prove that you are right. Common Name: Coronary Artery Disease. Medical Term: Ischaemic Heart Disease. Goldy496 02:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, almost three years ago you said it was pretty much done. What happened? The ischaemic heart disease article is still there. --Skylights76 20:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree

Nivanovic 10:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heart vs. Artery?

Is there any reason for preferring "coronary heart disease" to "coronary artery disease"? I realize both are used commonly, so it is difficult to differentiate on that basis alone. My personal preference is for "coronary artery disease", as "coronary heart disease" seems redundant. Any thoughts? — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add a category of cardiac rehabilitation. This could be under the heading of risk factor modification. Essentially we would be describing 2 related (preferably combined in any disease management) fields of therapy and lifestyle change. Firstly, reduction of risk of MI (heart attack). Secondly, regression (return towards 'normal') of atheroma burden. Because atheroma burden is widespread in many populations and typically hidden, especially in early stages, cardiac rehabilitation shares risk factor modification (targets) with disease prevention, including the disease condition diabetes, particularly Type II, and the similar 'high risk'conditions of obesity / overweight, which are also remedial. The related condition of angina is also improvable (by combined cardiac rehabilitation therapy and techniques). Related but distinct progressive structural cardiac dysfunction, Heart Failure, while appearing essentially recalcitrant, benefits from the same approach.

Phil H

Everyone knows the disease as coronary heart disease... keep it as that

Nivanovic 10:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge it!!! unless u say out the differences, causes and actual symptoms of the diseases.Because when you merge them, yes they are sometimes called the same, but what the person is diagnosed with, isn't necessarily as severe or about the same body part because one is a disease of the heart and one is of the artery... =]

65.10.207.219 15:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Tay =][reply]

Prevention

"advised to avoid fats that are readily oxidized (e.g., saturated fats and trans-fats)," I started to write that this is simply dead wrong. Then I thought to say instead that it is hopelessly ambiguous. The term, "readily oxidized," might refer to oxidation during storage, prior to consumption, or to oxidation during metabolism after consumption. Oxidation prior to storage results in rancidity. Fats are hydrogenated to protect against rancidity. The result of hydrogenation is saturated fats and trans fats. These are the fats that are not readily oxidized during storage. (Naturally occurring saturated fats, such as many animal fats and vegetable fats such as coconut oil also resist rancidity and are not hydrogenated.) But the text recommends avoiding fats that are readily oxidized: it must mean fats that are readily oxidized before consumption. So it is dead wrong. I'd like to see a lipid expert correct this glaring error. --user:joaquin Joaquin

The statement on Vitamin C caught my eye. I have never seen a cardiologist recommend vitamin C. The site http://www.emedicine.com/pmr/topic165.htm states that preliminary evidence supporting Vitamin C usage was not born out in later studies. It should be dropped. There are later sections in this article that are pushing Vitamin C. I believe that these will need to be modified. Kd4ttc 03:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section on preventive diets in this article is similar to the section on preventive diets in the Diet and heart disease article. The neutrality of that article is disputed. That section caught my eye in particular. There is no explanation of why the Cretan diet works; in fact, it seems to go against all consensus dietary recommendations. Could a knowlegable, neutral person please address this? --Skylights76 20:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IHD vs. CAD

Is there any difference between "ischaemic heart disease" and "coronary artery disease"? If not, why are they in different articles? If yes, why is it not yet explained?

I believe "coronary artery disease" is the broader term and is used to define accumulation inside an artery that may not have a tremendous bearing on the heart while "ischaemic heart disease" is where one starts to see symptoms as the CAD is severe enough to impact the heart.

merger with cardiovascular disease

oppose merger Both are huge topics and deserve an article on their own. Cardiovascular disease is a broader topic and certainly not the same as CAD, but a superset. Anlace 18:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - See talk:cardiovascular_disease for arguments similar to the above by Anlace. 87.78.151.16 00:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I AGREE!!! Nivanovic 10:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding citations

Ok, I don't want to mess up the page, and because I'm new to how to edit articles, I won't add it in myself.

I found this, which could be used as a citation for the "single cause of sudden death".

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/007115.htm

"Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the leading cause of death in the United States for men and women."

Is that something that could be used? Calvin 09:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed a promotion

I removed the sentence about fish oil for primary prevention as it seemed to be a promotion to a newsletter at http://www.newsmax.com/blaylock/. The newsletters that I saw were unreferenced and not balanced. Please restore this sentence if someone disagrees.Badgettrg 03:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]