Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.
Go to Blogger edit html and find these sentences.Now replace these sentences with your own descriptions.
View the original article here
Too much radiation can increase the risk of developing some cancers, although the benefits of such tests typically outweigh the risks when it comes to diagnosing and treating heart attacks. The cancer risk associated with an angioplasty or with a CT scan—which delivers about 500 times more radiation than an X-ray—is hard to measure.
Prashant Kaul, MD, the lead study author and a cardiovascular fellow at Duke University Medical Center, in Durham, N.C., stresses that many cardiac tests that use radiation are necessary and appropriate.
"We’re not saying those should be withheld," he says. "We're just trying to increase awareness so that when physicians are ordering tests, they bear in mind the indications.”
The study, which was conducted over three and a half years, included nearly 65,000 heart attack hospitalizations at 49 academic hospitals across the United States. The researchers estimated radiation doses by looking at hospital records; they didn’t measure exposure directly.
A single radiation-delivering test generally poses little cancer risk, but the heart attack patients in the study averaged about four such tests during their hospital stay, potentially multiplying the risk.
Angioplasty (also known as percutaneous coronary intervention, or PCI), a procedure in which a balloon-tipped catheter is used to open a blocked artery, delivers a dose of radiation about 750 times greater than an X-ray, but that doesn’t mean doctors shouldn't perform it, says Dr. Kaul.
“No one would argue that you shouldn’t do that—it’s a lifesaving procedure,” he says.
Thomas C. Gerber, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine and radiology at the Mayo Clinic’s College of Medicine, in Jacksonville, Fla., says "it’s difficult to assess the health risk of ionizing radiation.”
It’s unclear if there’s a risk associated with a radiation dose less than 100 millisieverts, which is an amount of radiation about seven times greater than the average dose seen in the study, says Dr. Gerber.
“If there's an increased risk of cancer, it’s small, and nobody’s been able to show it,” says Dr. Gerber, who has studied radiation safety in medical testing but was not involved in the study.
The patients in the study were exposed to about 14.5 millisieverts, a dose roughly five times greater than the amount of exposure from so-called background radiation in the environment.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has estimated that the amount of radiation absorbed by the body during a CT scan increases the lifetime risk of dying of cancer by a factor of 1 in 2000. The natural risk of dying from cancer is about 1 in 5, so the added risk posed by the radiation is very small.
According to the FDA, the benefits of a CT scan generally outweigh the risks for those with a medical need, but not for symptomless people who are considering a CT scan only for screening purposes.
According to Dr. Kaul, physicians should take into account a patient's total radiation exposure during a hospital stay, rather than the dose from one individual test.
Exposure to radiation during occasional tests is safer than a relatively large dose in a short period of time, experts say.
“Having 17 millisieverts in January and another 17 millisieverts in October isn’t the same as having 34 millisieverts all at the same time,” says Dr. Gerber. “Small amounts of radiation in certain increments don’t mean the same as one large dose of radiation at the same time.”
Patients shouldn’t be afraid to ask their doctor if a test is truly necessary, he says. “There's nothing wrong with patients asking their doctor, ‘How will this test change what you do for me?’ If it doesn’t, that test may not be necessary.”
Heart attack patients shouldn't forgo a test simply because of concerns about radiation, says Dr. Kaul. Doing so could prevent doctors from diagnosing a dangerous problem or treating a patient to the best of their ability.
“We don’t want to scare people into thinking they’re going into the hospital and their risk of cancer’s going to suddenly increase,” says Dr. Kaul. “It’s a balance between the hypothetical risk of cancer with the risks of not performing an imaging study."
Keep your ticker in tip–top shape and fight diabetes with the latest news, recipes, and advice for maintaining a healthy lifestyle.
FRIDAY, Sept. 7 (HealthDay News) -- Patients with atrial fibrillation -- a heart rhythm disorder -- are increasingly aware of the link between their condition and the increased risk of stroke, according to a recent survey.
Atrial fibrillation is a quivering or irregular heartbeat that affects about 2.7 million people in the United States.
A 2011 survey of more than 500 people with atrial fibrillation found that half of them were unaware they had a fivefold increased risk of suffering a stroke. But the more recent American Heart Association/American Stroke Association 2012 poll of 500 people with atrial fibrillation found that 64 percent knew about this level of increased stroke risk.
The improved awareness "is a great step in the right direction," association spokesperson Dr. Patrick Ellinor, associate professor at Harvard Medical School and a cardiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, said in an AHA/ASA news release.
"The American Heart Association/American Stroke Association works to provide health care providers, patients and caregivers the educational tools and resources they need on this very important topic," Ellinor added. "We hope to report a higher percentage annually until we reach 100 percent."
The 2012 survey also found that 82 percent of respondents believe having atrial fibrillation increases their stroke risk, compared with 75 percent in the 2011 survey.
Many atrial fibrillation patients rely on their health care providers for information about their condition and education about its health risks, the release noted. The recent survey found that two-thirds of patients have discussed their risk for stroke with their health care provider, but only about one-third were told they are at high risk for stroke.
-- Robert Preidt 
Copyright © 2012 HealthDay. All rights reserved. SOURCE: American Heart Association, news release, Sept. 5, 2012
Angelo Volandes, MD, a physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, wrote an opinion piece published in the Boston Globe today. He tells the story of a patient dying of cancer, with whom he brought up the topic of end-of-life care options:
“For the next hour I introduced a vocabulary as foreign to her as spondee and trochee were to me. Life-prolonging treatment and CPR, ventilators and intubation, DNR and DNI — terms that she would need to learn quickly. Unfortunately, I was trying to teach her a new lexicon in the midst of the haze of nausea and hospitalization.
Dazed and confused, they looked at me blankly. Words often fail us in medicine. How could I explain these abstract ideas and treatments? Most patients think hospitals and medical interventions look like what they see on television where most survive CPR beautifully; the truth is most people with advanced incurable cancer do not do well with these interventions and often suffer at the end of life.
Finally, I tried a different approach. “Do you mind if we take a walk through the ICU?” I said.
If words failed me, perhaps seeing the intensive care unit would help. Seated in a wheelchair …Helen got a tour of the ICU, where she saw an intubated patient on a ventilator and a patient having a large intravenous line placed. Her decision-making would be informed by what she saw, instead of having to imagine what my terms really meant.
When we arrived back at her room, she looked at me and said, “Words, words, words. . . Angelo, I understood every word that you said — CPR and breathing machines, but I had no idea that is what you meant.”
I was reprimanded by the ICU staff for bringing Helen and her husband on that tour, but I was quickly forgiven. Evidently, many felt, like me, that patients deserve to be educated in order to make informed decisions about end-of-life choices.”
That was years ago when he was a medical resident.
Today, he goes on to explain, he and others use video decision aids to help people think about care options.
Angelo Volandes, MD, a physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, wrote an opinion piece published in the Boston Globe today. He tells the story of a patient dying of cancer, with whom he brought up the topic of end-of-life care options:
“For the next hour I introduced a vocabulary as foreign to her as spondee and trochee were to me. Life-prolonging treatment and CPR, ventilators and intubation, DNR and DNI — terms that she would need to learn quickly. Unfortunately, I was trying to teach her a new lexicon in the midst of the haze of nausea and hospitalization.
Dazed and confused, they looked at me blankly. Words often fail us in medicine. How could I explain these abstract ideas and treatments? Most patients think hospitals and medical interventions look like what they see on television where most survive CPR beautifully; the truth is most people with advanced incurable cancer do not do well with these interventions and often suffer at the end of life.
Finally, I tried a different approach. “Do you mind if we take a walk through the ICU?” I said.
If words failed me, perhaps seeing the intensive care unit would help. Seated in a wheelchair …Helen got a tour of the ICU, where she saw an intubated patient on a ventilator and a patient having a large intravenous line placed. Her decision-making would be informed by what she saw, instead of having to imagine what my terms really meant.
When we arrived back at her room, she looked at me and said, “Words, words, words. . . Angelo, I understood every word that you said — CPR and breathing machines, but I had no idea that is what you meant.”
I was reprimanded by the ICU staff for bringing Helen and her husband on that tour, but I was quickly forgiven. Evidently, many felt, like me, that patients deserve to be educated in order to make informed decisions about end-of-life choices.”
That was years ago when he was a medical resident.
Today, he goes on to explain, he and others use video decision aids to help people think about care options.
Table 1. Methodological characteristics and results of the experimental studies on memory consolidation during sleep in patients with chronic sleep disorders.
Abbreviations: DM = declarative memory; NC = narcolepsy with cataplexy; NDM = non declarative memory; OSA = obstructive sleep apnoea; PI = primary insomnia; REM = rapid eye movement (sleep); REMD = REM density; SE = sleep efficiency; SWS = slow wave sleep; SPT = sleep period time; SFI = sleep fragmentation index; SOA= stimulus onset asynchrony; TST = total sleep time; WASO = wake after sleep onset.View Within ArticleCopyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Table 1. Methodological characteristics and results of the experimental studies on memory consolidation during sleep in patients with chronic sleep disorders.
Abbreviations: DM = declarative memory; NC = narcolepsy with cataplexy; NDM = non declarative memory; OSA = obstructive sleep apnoea; PI = primary insomnia; REM = rapid eye movement (sleep); REMD = REM density; SE = sleep efficiency; SWS = slow wave sleep; SPT = sleep period time; SFI = sleep fragmentation index; SOA= stimulus onset asynchrony; TST = total sleep time; WASO = wake after sleep onset.View Within ArticleCopyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Note to users: Corrected proofs are Articles in Press that contain the authors' corrections. Final citation details, e.g., volume/issue number, publication year and page numbers, still need to be added and the text might change before final publication.
Although corrected proofs do not have all bibliographic details available yet, they can already be cited using the year of online publication and the DOI , as follows: author(s), article title, journal (year), DOI. Please consult the journal's reference style for the exact appearance of these elements, abbreviation of journal names and use of punctuation.
When the final article is assigned to an issue of the journal, the Article in Press version will be removed and the final version will appear in the associated published issue of the journal. The date the article was first made available online will be carried over.
Note to users: Corrected proofs are Articles in Press that contain the authors' corrections. Final citation details, e.g., volume/issue number, publication year and page numbers, still need to be added and the text might change before final publication.
Although corrected proofs do not have all bibliographic details available yet, they can already be cited using the year of online publication and the DOI , as follows: author(s), article title, journal (year), DOI. Please consult the journal's reference style for the exact appearance of these elements, abbreviation of journal names and use of punctuation.
When the final article is assigned to an issue of the journal, the Article in Press version will be removed and the final version will appear in the associated published issue of the journal. The date the article was first made available online will be carried over.
There are no established guidelines on which genetic variants should be presented to the doctors as incidental findings from the whole genome sequencing. A recent study has shown that genetic specialists agreed that disease-causing mutations to genetic conditions 21 should be reported by patients.
For adult patients
APC-associated polyposis
Fabry disease
Familial Hypercholesterolemia
Galactosemia
Gaucher disease
Glycogen storage disease type IA
Hereditary Breast and ovarian cancer
Homocystinuria
Li-Fraumeni syndrome
Lynch syndrome
Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1
Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2
MYH-associated polyposis
Phenylketonuria
Disease of pompe
PTEN Hamartoma tumor syndrome
Retinoblastoma
Romano-Ward (long QT syndrome)
Tyrosinemia type 1
Von Hippel-Lindau disease
Wilson's disease
For pediatric patients (child)
PTEN Hamartoma tumor syndrome
Retinoblastoma
Romano-Ward (long QT syndrome)
Von Hippel-Lindau disease
Family history collection predicts cancer risk better than 23andMe genetic testing, according to a recent study by the Cleveland Clinic:
References
Concordance and discordance exploration for return of accidental discoveries to clinical sequencing. Green RC, JS, Berry, Biesecker LG GT Dimmock DP, Evans, JP, WW, MR. Grody, Kalia S Hegde, BR, Korf Krantz I, AL McGuire, Miller, DT, Murray MF, Nussbaum RL, Plon IF Rehm HL, Jacob HJ. Genet med. Apr 2012; 4: 405-10. DOI: 10.1038/2012.21. gim. Epub 15 Mar 2012.
Genome sequencing to add new twist to doctor-patient discussions. The American Medical Association, 2012.
How to talk to patients http://goo.gl/kkW4m genetic testing
There are no established guidelines on which genetic variants should be presented to the doctors as incidental findings from the whole genome sequencing. A recent study has shown that genetic specialists agreed that disease-causing mutations to genetic conditions 21 should be reported by patients.
For adult patients
APC-associated polyposis
Fabry disease
Familial Hypercholesterolemia
Galactosemia
Gaucher disease
Glycogen storage disease type IA
Hereditary Breast and ovarian cancer
Homocystinuria
Li-Fraumeni syndrome
Lynch syndrome
Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1
Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2
MYH-associated polyposis
Phenylketonuria
Disease of pompe
PTEN Hamartoma tumor syndrome
Retinoblastoma
Romano-Ward (long QT syndrome)
Tyrosinemia type 1
Von Hippel-Lindau disease
Wilson's disease
For pediatric patients (child)
PTEN Hamartoma tumor syndrome
Retinoblastoma
Romano-Ward (long QT syndrome)
Von Hippel-Lindau disease
Family history collection predicts cancer risk better than 23andMe genetic testing, according to a recent study by the Cleveland Clinic:
References
Concordance and discordance exploration for return of accidental discoveries to clinical sequencing. Green RC, JS, Berry, Biesecker LG GT Dimmock DP, Evans, JP, WW, MR. Grody, Kalia S Hegde, BR, Korf Krantz I, AL McGuire, Miller, DT, Murray MF, Nussbaum RL, Plon IF Rehm HL, Jacob HJ. Genet med. Apr 2012; 4: 405-10. DOI: 10.1038/2012.21. gim. Epub 15 Mar 2012.
Genome sequencing to add new twist to doctor-patient discussions. The American Medical Association, 2012.
How to talk to patients http://goo.gl/kkW4m genetic testing
There are no established guidelines on which genetic variants should be presented to the doctors as incidental findings from the whole genome sequencing. A recent study has shown that genetic specialists agreed that disease-causing mutations to genetic conditions 21 should be reported by patients.
For adult patients
APC-associated polyposis
Fabry disease
Familial Hypercholesterolemia
Galactosemia
Gaucher disease
Glycogen storage disease type IA
Hereditary Breast and ovarian cancer
Homocystinuria
Li-Fraumeni syndrome
Lynch syndrome
Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1
Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2
MYH-associated polyposis
Phenylketonuria
Disease of pompe
PTEN Hamartoma tumor syndrome
Retinoblastoma
Romano-Ward (long QT syndrome)
Tyrosinemia type 1
Von Hippel-Lindau disease
Wilson's disease
For pediatric patients (child)
PTEN Hamartoma tumor syndrome
Retinoblastoma
Romano-Ward (long QT syndrome)
Von Hippel-Lindau disease
Family history collection predicts cancer risk better than 23andMe genetic testing, according to a recent study by the Cleveland Clinic:
References
Concordance and discordance exploration for return of accidental discoveries to clinical sequencing. Green RC, JS, Berry, Biesecker LG GT Dimmock DP, Evans, JP, WW, MR. Grody, Kalia S Hegde, BR, Korf Krantz I, AL McGuire, Miller, DT, Murray MF, Nussbaum RL, Plon IF Rehm HL, Jacob HJ. Genet med. Apr 2012; 4: 405-10. DOI: 10.1038/2012.21. gim. Epub 15 Mar 2012.
Genome sequencing to add new twist to doctor-patient discussions. The American Medical Association, 2012.
How to talk to patients http://goo.gl/kkW4m genetic testing
information online. Almost 20% of internet users have also gone online to look for others with similar medical problems.
Sixty percent of internet users for medical information think the information is either the same or better than the information received from their own doctor. Interesting enough, of those folks using the internet for health information, almost 60% of them did not discuss this information with their doctor.
What are patients looking at exactly? First and foremost they are looking at information related to their own condition around the web. This may include diagnostic options, treatment side effects, and for second opinions. Also, they may be looking up their doctor and his/her practice specifically for reputation.
Keep in mind that any person with a computer and a website or blog may place health information on the internet. It's not extremely difficult. What can be very difficult, however, is for the average consumer to delineate fact from fiction when reading through all of this material.
Additionally, there is no standard grading reference to ensure information online is of the highest integrity.
Regardless of this possibility, the fact that so much health information is available online allows consumers to become much more educated in their condition(s). They can participate more fully in treatment decisions and become actively engaged in their outcomes, After all, knowledge is power.
Health information from national medical societies can generally be trusted, such as the American Medical Association, American Cancer Society, etc. These are safe. However, if one is looking for medical information on groundbreaking technologies such as regenerative medicine, those sites are typically conservative.
Most medical journals are available online now, however to get full text one typically needs a subscription. Abstracts, which are concise summaries of research, are readily available online so if that's all that is necessary they are everywhere.
Most practices have a website these days and the better ones will have a blog or an educational component to them. Some have animated videos or narrated ones which can provide valuable information. Most procedures are widely discussed on the internet and one may see information from doctors along with patient experiences.
Patients more and more are seeking knowledge online, and the new reality is doctors can either contribute and embrace this phenomenon, or resist and have their pateints pass them by.
information online. Almost 20% of internet users have also gone online to look for others with similar medical problems.
Sixty percent of internet users for medical information think the information is either the same or better than the information received from their own doctor. Interesting enough, of those folks using the internet for health information, almost 60% of them did not discuss this information with their doctor.
What are patients looking at exactly? First and foremost they are looking at information related to their own condition around the web. This may include diagnostic options, treatment side effects, and for second opinions. Also, they may be looking up their doctor and his/her practice specifically for reputation.
Keep in mind that any person with a computer and a website or blog may place health information on the internet. It's not extremely difficult. What can be very difficult, however, is for the average consumer to delineate fact from fiction when reading through all of this material.
Additionally, there is no standard grading reference to ensure information online is of the highest integrity.
Regardless of this possibility, the fact that so much health information is available online allows consumers to become much more educated in their condition(s). They can participate more fully in treatment decisions and become actively engaged in their outcomes, After all, knowledge is power.
Health information from national medical societies can generally be trusted, such as the American Medical Association, American Cancer Society, etc. These are safe. However, if one is looking for medical information on groundbreaking technologies such as regenerative medicine, those sites are typically conservative.
Most medical journals are available online now, however to get full text one typically needs a subscription. Abstracts, which are concise summaries of research, are readily available online so if that's all that is necessary they are everywhere.
Most practices have a website these days and the better ones will have a blog or an educational component to them. Some have animated videos or narrated ones which can provide valuable information. Most procedures are widely discussed on the internet and one may see information from doctors along with patient experiences.
Patients more and more are seeking knowledge online, and the new reality is doctors can either contribute and embrace this phenomenon, or resist and have their pateints pass them by.
information online. Almost 20% of internet users have also gone online to look for others with similar medical problems.
Sixty percent of internet users for medical information think the information is either the same or better than the information received from their own doctor. Interesting enough, of those folks using the internet for health information, almost 60% of them did not discuss this information with their doctor.
What are patients looking at exactly? First and foremost they are looking at information related to their own condition around the web. This may include diagnostic options, treatment side effects, and for second opinions. Also, they may be looking up their doctor and his/her practice specifically for reputation.
Keep in mind that any person with a computer and a website or blog may place health information on the internet. It's not extremely difficult. What can be very difficult, however, is for the average consumer to delineate fact from fiction when reading through all of this material.
Additionally, there is no standard grading reference to ensure information online is of the highest integrity.
Regardless of this possibility, the fact that so much health information is available online allows consumers to become much more educated in their condition(s). They can participate more fully in treatment decisions and become actively engaged in their outcomes, After all, knowledge is power.
Health information from national medical societies can generally be trusted, such as the American Medical Association, American Cancer Society, etc. These are safe. However, if one is looking for medical information on groundbreaking technologies such as regenerative medicine, those sites are typically conservative.
Most medical journals are available online now, however to get full text one typically needs a subscription. Abstracts, which are concise summaries of research, are readily available online so if that's all that is necessary they are everywhere.
Most practices have a website these days and the better ones will have a blog or an educational component to them. Some have animated videos or narrated ones which can provide valuable information. Most procedures are widely discussed on the internet and one may see information from doctors along with patient experiences.
Patients more and more are seeking knowledge online, and the new reality is doctors can either contribute and embrace this phenomenon, or resist and have their pateints pass them by.
