Heart Attack Malpractice Lawsuit & News Blog

Failure to Diagnose a Heart Attack

Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:46:50 -0500

A heart attack is also known as acute myocardial infarction, or AMI, and is caused by a rupture, due to plaque, which interrupts the blood supply to a part of the heart. As a result of the oxygen shortage, damage is caused and potential death of a heart tissue. This usually occurs because a blood clot has formed causing the blockage of flow of blood through the part of the blood vessel that feeds blood to the heart muscle. Even though the three main causes of an interruption to the flow of blood to the heart would be a blood clot, atherosclerosis, or coronary artery spasm, there are many important risk factors that may lead to a heart attack such as previous heart disease, men over 40 and women over 50, smoking and alcohol consumption, and several others.

Since previous heart disease can be a contributing factor to heart attacks, sometimes a heart attack can go unnoticed in the first stages of occurrence as about half of people suffering from a heart attack may actually have had signs and symptoms for hours, days, and even weeks in advance. Some of the classic symptoms can include chest pain that may just feel like sharpness radiating to the left arm, shortness of breath, and even nausea and vomiting. Yet, since approximately one third of all heart attacks may not have any chest pain, the heart attack is overlooked because some of the other symptoms are common to other illness, and therefore, may be treated as such if treated at all.

Women over 50, or even women taking some forms of birth control contraceptives, have an increased risk for a heart attack. As women will often experience symptoms that differ from men, such as shortness of breath, weakness, and fatigue, women may be suffering a heart attack and not realize it until it is too late. Another reason a heart attack may have failed to be diagnosed would be that since one of the earliest predictors of a heart attack can be triggered by exertion and relieved by rest, and so a victim will believe that by resting whatever is being experienced will just go away and everything will be alright after that.

As many other contributing factors to heart attack may include smoking and alcohol consumption, it is no wonder that according to the World Health Organization, 12 million people die each year worldwide from cardiovascular disease. This makes a heart attack the leading cause of death in the United States and in the United States alone, it is estimate that approximately 5 million people will suffer from heart attacks each year.

So once a heart attack is suspected, immediate treatment should be conducted through test to confirm it may be a heart attack, receiving oxygen and aspirin, and even medications that are used to break down any blood clots that may be blocking the flow of blood to the heart. Some of the test that may be performed to check for heart or coronary artery disease may include an electrocardiogram, or EKG or ECG, an electron beam computerized tomography, or EBCT, or a stress test or angiogram. Should the medications not be enough, a more drastic form of treatment would be to mechanically restore the blood flow by dilatation or bypass surgery on the blocked artery.

As the goal of treatment for a heart attack would be to restore blood supply that may be blocked, the success of the restoration often depends on timely diagnosis of the heart attack. So if there was a timely failure to diagnose a heart attack, or a heart attack was just not properly treated, then click here to set up a free consultation.

Over 150,000 people at risk for failure to diagnose heart attack

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:33:18 -0500

These figures represent Britain but they could be anywhere. Heart failure affects about 900,000 patients annually and that number is expected to grow in the next 20 years. Thousands of men and women could be at risk of sudden death because of a failure to diagnose their heart failure. An estimated 140,000 to 200,000 could be suffering from the condition right now without realizing it.

Treatment rates vary widely as to life-saving drugs being prescribed to as few as one in ten in some areas.

Heart failure occurs when the heart's ability to pump blood around the body is reduced, often as a result of obesity caused by high blood pressure. If left untreated, heart failure can lead to a heart attack. Forty percent of sufferers die within a year of being diagnosed, a much poorer prognosis than for breast cancer and prostate cancer.

Diagnosing heart failure is difficult because many of the symptoms -- such as tiredness, shortness of breath, and swelling of the ankles and feet, can be confused with conditions such as bronchitis.

Part of the problem is that effective tests are not available, although for those that offered tests waiting times had improved. Even when a patient is diagnosed with heart failure, they often do not receive the best drugs.

Only 33 percent of those with heart failure were on beta-blockers, with some areas only prescribing them to 11 per cent of sufferers. Heart failure is the cause of 5 percent of hospital emergency admissions and readmissions are among the highest for any chronic condition.

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=466513&in_page_id=1774

Kidney Disease Accelerates Heart Failure

Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:37:46 -0500

Toss a coin in the air. Which would you rather have kidney disease or heart disease? Chances are if you have one, then you already have the other. Unfortunately, they go together like salt and pepper.

New research shows kidney disease somehow speeds up heart disease. Doctors have proven that heart disease can trigger kidney destruction. This could all be circumvented with urine and blood tests that cost less than $25.

Chronic kidney disease or CKD is a quiet epidemic: Many of the 19 million Americans estimated to have it don't know they do. The kidneys lose their ability to filter waste out of the bloodstream so slowly that symptoms aren't obvious until the organs are totally damaged. End-stage kidney failure is rising fast, with 400,000 people requiring dialysis or a transplant to survive, a toll that has doubled in each of the last two decades.

Source: http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_6228379

Does Antidepressant Venlafaxine Cause Heart Failure?

Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:38:34 -0500

With venlafaxine and venlafaxine extended release (XR), patients' pulse rates increased by an average of 4 bpm (beats per minute); with placebo, the average increase was 1 bpm. Heart attacks occurred in at least 2 percent of patients taking venlafaxine XR.
Venlafaxine should be used with caution, particularly in dosages higher than 200 mg/d, patients with elevated pulse rates, and medical conditions causing elevated pulse rates.

The effect of venlafaxine in cardiac morbidity and mortality is a complex and controversial issue.

In patients without preexisting cardiac disease, venlafaxine has few cardiovascular effects and no effects on ECGs.

Specific case studies also describe cardiac morbidity associated with the administration of venlafaxine. Venlafaxine was strongly related and attributed to two cases of heart failure and interstitial pneumonia.

Physicians should obtain baseline blood pressure readings and check blood pressure regularly in patients taking any form of venlafaxine, particularly in those taking 225 mg/d or more. Increased blood pressure occurs most commonly within the first two months of stabilization with venlafaxine.

Source: http://www.abkhazia.com/content/view/526/67/

Diabetic Drug Avandia Caused Man's Heart Attack

Tue, 3 Jul 2007 14:39:42 -0500

On the very day that headlines vibrated all around the world that the diabetes drug Avandia causes heart attacks - a 60-year-old Texas man died from an Avandia fatal heart attack.

Avandia, the brand name for Rosiglitazone, first gained approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in May 1999. In 2006, doctors wrote 13 million prescriptions for Avandia and sales totaled $2.2 billion.

Since the New England Journal of Medicine study was published, Avandia's share of new prescriptions has dropped. At the same time, investors have filed a class-action lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline, claiming the company failed to adequately disclose information linking use of Avandia to an elevated risk of heart trouble.

Source: http://sev.prnewswire.com/health-care-hospitals/20070620/LAW09420062007-1.html

Estrogen and Heart Disease: New Study Claims Estrogen Safe - You Be the Judge

Sun, 24 Jun 2007 14:35:31 -0500

Almost five years ago, women received the bad news that estrogen replacement therapy (ERT) increased their risks of heart attack and stroke. Today researchers have reversed their position.

My question is: Who paid for this study and were there conflicts of interests with the researchers? Of course, none of that information is readily available so we recommend that you read between the lines.

Researchers say that those women who take the hormones shortly after menopause may benefit. (The keyword here is "may"). This leaves the door open to broad interpretation. My second question is: What about those women who take hormones shortly after menopause who may not benefit? Should they still take the drug because big pharma says so?

Continuing analysis of the original data indicates that the researchers raised a false alarm for most women and that, if women begin taking the hormones shortly after menopause, the drugs do not raise the risk of heart disease and might even lower the risk for heart disease.

The latest findings, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, show that taking estrogen for seven years or more after menopause reduces calcification of the arteries - a key indicator of atherosclerosis - by as much as 60 percent. High levels of calcification are generally considered a predictor of increased heart attack risk.

The researchers now claim that the only group of women who are at significant risk from the drugs are those who delay taking them for at least 10 years after menopause. The research is based on the Women's Health Initiative, a federal study launched in the 1990s. (Has the WHI received any big grants or funding from big pharma lately?)

All the researchers agree that women should not fear using estrogen replacement therapy to mitigate menopausal symptoms. The current debate is over how long they may safely continue to do so.

Not so fast -- there is still an increased risk of breast cancer with age for estrogen when combined with progestin and it is not clear whether the risk outweighs the benefits.

It came as a shock in 2002 when researchers from the Women's Health Initiative reported that ERT actually increased risks of heart attack and stroke. Within a year of the report, the number of new prescriptions for estrogen fell by 68 percent as both physicians and patients shied away from the drugs.

The new study involved a subset of 1,064 women in the Women's Health Initiative study who were ages 50 to 59 and had undergone surgically induced menopause through a hysterectomy. Half were randomized to receive a Wyeth-produced estrogen called Premarin (made inhumanely from horse urine) and half a placebo.

The women were on the drugs for an average of 7 1/2 years. About a year after the study was stopped, physicians used CT scans to measure the buildup of calcium deposits, or atherosclerotic plaque, in their blood vessels.

Overall, they found, women taking estrogen had 42 percent less calcification of their arteries. Women who had taken at least 80 percent of their daily doses of the drug had 61 percent less calcification.

There is no mention of increased breast cancer risk to these 1,064 women as guinea pigs.

Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-estrogen21jun21,1,2029685.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&track=crosspromo

Bad Medicine: Supposed heart drug helper causes more heart attacks

Sun, 17 Jun 2007 14:41:02 -0500

Bad Medicine: Supposed heart drug helper causes more heart attacks - http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-06-17-heart-drug_N.htm

In December 2006, Pfizer, the world's largest drug company, put the kibosh on a 15,000 patient trial of a hopeful drug seen as the next blockbuster treatment for coronary artery disease.

A preliminary peek at the data by outside experts revealed that torceptrapib had a dark side. Reviewers found 60 percent more deaths had occurred among patients taking torceptrapib with Lipitor, a best-selling, cholesterol-lowering statin, than among those taking Lipitor alone.

The finding left the company no choice. It notified federal drug regulators, investors and the public and shelved the drug. (But what happened to the people who died during the drug study?)

Doctors are now trying to determine what made torceptrapib so deadly - and whether those risks extend to similar experimental drugs that raise high-density lipoprotein, or HDL, the so-called good cholesterol. The episode also leaves doctors groping for new drugs that, when paired with statins, can further reduce a patient's risk of heart attack and stroke.

How to exploit HDL and avoid its pitfalls are among the hottest questions in heart research: Studies show that people with lots of good cholesterol and low levels of bad cholesterol are less likely to have heart attacks and strokes. Steven Nissen of the Cleveland Clinic reported in 2003 that a super HDL, derived from human blood and dripped into arteries, actually reversed coronary artery disease within six weeks. Nissen likened the substance, Apo-A1 Milano, to Drano for arteries.
Pfizer hoped that torceptrapib in pill form, could achieve similar success. The firm was so confident that it staked $800 million on development.

But good cholesterol is more complicated than bad cholesterol. Reduce your blood levels of bad cholesterol, and you inevitably reduce your risk of heart disease. But good cholesterol comes in different forms. Some may be helpful; some not.
For instance, one of HDL's beneficial properties is to combat artery inflammation. Inflammation can worsen artery fat deposits and cause them to rupture, the deadly prelude to a heart attack. But some forms of HDL appear to worsen inflammation.
According to researchers, what makes torceptrapib's failure so frustrating is that the drug did everything its developers asked it to do:

Raised the blood's supply of good cholesterol
Reduced levels of bad cholesterol or low-density lipoproteins (LDL) that carry fats into arteries, where it can build up and block blood vessels.

But an early hint of trouble appeared in preliminary studies showing that torceptrapib can increase blood pressure. More bad news emerged in March showed that even though torceptrapib raises HDL, the resulting HDL lacks the muscle to scrub arteries.
What researchers are trying to figure out is whether torceptrapib is uniquely dangerous or poses risks that are common to all experimental drugs in this class. Doctors say torceptrapib's power to raise blood pressure may be a sign that the toxicity may be limited to the one drug. None of the other HDL boosters raise blood pressure.