TheWellnessLiving Health Tips

Cholesterol: the key to heart disease

In fact, treatment to lower cholesterol in the category of people who have been diagnosed with heart problems who have such symptoms, is extremely beneficial to the health of the individual. Persons who had a heart attack or heart disease are prone to angina pectoris, peripheral arterial problems, abdominal aortic aneurysm or carotid artery disease, or those who had surgery, may be affected 7 times faster than others.

A lot of studies have shown that those already suffering from heart disease are successful in terms of cholesterol-lowering treatment. No matter what method they choose, they will increase their chances of avoiding a heart attack or other diseases.

Indeed, according to a study done in 1999 on the treatment of revascularization suggests that statin-based treatment – used in an aggressive treatment for lowering total LDL – is as effective as angioplasty in helping people to avoid a heart attack, palpitations, sudden stings. In this study, 314 people with diseases of the coronary artery were randomly chosen to make a treatment daily with their medication. After 18 months, those taking statin (inhibitor reducers) no longer needed a surgical intervention.

Following these trials, specialists recommend aggressive treatment for lowering cholesterol for all categories of persons who survived a heart attack, but also those who have LDL levels greater than 100mg/dl. Moreover, experts note that 70mg/dL LDL in people who have heart problems, is not a good. To control cholesterol, besides medicines should follow a healthy lifestyle, which include a diet and exercise.

New researchs revealed that statin therapy has other effects besides lowering cholesterol, such as improving the functioning of blood vessels narrow. Also, other positive effects that statin may be observable over the body after 30 days of treatment.

Despite the records that a treatment to lower cholesterol is safe and effective in people with heart disease, most people who deserve and need to do a treatment, do not do it. This situation arises because some doctors recommend a wrong medicine, and some patients are treated by the ear.

Aspirin and cardiovascular diseases

Aspirin is one of the oldest drugs, which continue nowadays to surprise us. This common product, inexpensive protects the heart of a future attack or even death. Thus, it was found that aspirin help to reduce the number of deaths that occur in less than an hour after a heart attack.

A research has brought to the surface a clear evidence regarding the evaluation of aspirin in preventing heart attacks for men and treating coronary artery disease for both sexes. Dozens of studies involving thousands of people, showed that low doses of aspirin reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease or a heart attack by 25%.

A study reported in 2005 concluded that the records are not very clear on how to prevent heart attacks in women. But except is that you are allergic to aspirin that will trigger other problems, other people should take an aspirin if:

• Have diabetes;
• Have angina;
• Had a cardiovascular attack;
• Had a heart attack or a preinfarct;
• Coronary artery disease;
• Shows a high risk for cardiovascular disease.

Despite the benefits of aspirin, it has some side effects. According to existing records, the risks are higher in men than in women, at least in terms of primary prevention (i.e. avoiding a cardiovascular event).

Aspirin increases the risk of significant gastrointestinal disease. Even people who are treated with aspirin occasional may have problems and go through painful experience if aspirin is administered regularly over a long period of time. Particular, aspirin might not be a good choice for people who have uncontrolled hypertension (the leading cause of bleeding in brain).

Tips – If you’re one of the women who already suffered a heart attack or other cardiovascular events, is recommended to take aspirin to reduce your risk of a second event.

Stem cell treatment for acute myocardial infarction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(4):CD006536 Authors: Martin-Rendon E, Brunskill S, Dorée C, Hyde C, Watt S, Mathur A, Stanworth S BACKGROUND: Stem cell therapy offers a promising approach to the regeneration of damaged vascular and cardiac tissue after myocardial infarction (MI). This has resulted in multiple randomised controlled trials (RCTs) worldwide. OBJECTIVES: To critically evaluate evidence from RCTs on the effectiveness of adult bone marrow-derived stem cells (BMSC) to treat acute MI. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE (1950 to August 2007), EMBASE (1974 to August 2007), The Cochrane Library (Issue 3 2007), and CINAHL (1982 to August 2007) were searched. In addition LILACS, KOREAMED, INMED, Current Controlled Trials Register, the UK National Research Register and other handsearching was undertaken to August 2007. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs comparing autologous stem/progenitor cells with no autologous stem/progenitor cells in patients diagnosed with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently screened all references, assessed trial quality and extracted data. Meta-analyses using a random-effects model were conducted and heterogeneity was explored using sub-group analyses. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs (811 participants) were included. There were insufficient events on clinical outcomes like mortality to draw clear conclusions. Stem/progenitor cell treatment does not appear to be associated with an increase in adverse events but again the data do not allow clear conclusions. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was the outcome with most results and there was marked heterogeneity between trials. There was however a consistent pattern indicating that BMSC treatment generally improves short-term LVEF, with similar trends for left ventricular end systolic and end diastolic volumes (LVESV and LVEDV), infarct size or cardiac wall motion. There was a positive correlation between cell dose infused and the effect on LVEF measured by magnetic resonance imaging. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this systematic review suggest that there is little evidence to assess the clinical effects of this treatment. Larger trials using optimal dosing and more reliable, patient-centred outcomes are required. Several trials are ongoing but is unclear whether these will overcome the limitations of the current evidence base. PMID: 18843721 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]