6 janv. 2014

Triathlon and Medicine


We did a test on our triathlete who has been with us for the last 13 years the last month.  There were things to mention that have been recorded before for other sports:
1)   The ECG findings were:
a)   Huge R waves and T waves on V2,V3,V4,V5,V6 compared to controls and meeting criteria for LVH (left Ventricular Hypertrophy); without left atrial enlargement, left axis deviation, ST segment depression, T wave inversion or pathological Q waves.
b)   IRBBB (incomplete right bundle branch block) was seen in aVR and V1.
c)   No ventricular arrhythmia was seen.
2)   His lactate threshold was located at 178 beats per minute at a speed of 16.7 kilometers per hour.
3)   His lab work is below.  It took us several years to accomplish the hematocrit and hemoglobin levels working on nutrition and recovery.  The changes suffered several genetic inductions which most likely are irreversible.  Please see our post:
There is a good article written regarding the athletes changes by ECG, meaning athletes training more than 4 hours a day of training for decades. 

There are very few things like the one I mentioned above observing and testing athletes; they are well done by Medicine.  On the contrary, we have made many mistakes in Medicine that takes a long time to recuperate from.  We have had the Framingham Study for a long time but we continue to believe in consensus instead of looking at the data very closely.  We are afraid of talking clearly because we want to be politically correct:
The Framingham Heart Study is a long-term, ongoing cardiovascular study on residents of the town of Framingham, Massachusetts. The study began in 1948 with 5,209 adult subjects from Framingham, and is now on its third generation of participants.[1] Prior to it almost nothing was known about the "epidemiology of hypertensive or arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease".[2] Much of the now-common knowledge concerning heart disease, such as the effects of diet, exercise, and common medications such as aspirin, is based on this longitudinal study. It is a project of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, in collaboration with (since 1971) Boston University.[3] Various health professionals from the hospitals and universities of Greater Boston staff the project.

The page, www.medscape.com gives information about what we, as physicians, have to work on:
1)   Overtesting and Overtreating
A total of 17 medical societies released a list of almost 90 common but often unnecessary tests and procedures, many of them ordered for asymptomatic patients.[1] Twelve of the guidelines issued as part of the "Choosing Wisely" campaign caution physicians that asymptomatic patients probably do not need a given treatment. Two examples are stress echocardiograms, which are not recommended for asymptomatic patients who meet "low-risk" scoring criteria for coronary disease, and computed tomography, which should not be used to evaluate children's minor head injuries.
Separately, a national summit involving a wide range of medical groups, as well as hospital organizations, and government agencies, issued a policy paper detailing strategies for dealing with 5 overused treatments that can harm patient safety and quality: antibiotics for the common cold, blood transfusions, ear tubes for children, early-scheduled births, and cardiac stents.[2]

2)   DSM-5 Released
After more than a decade of development and more than 2 years of frequently searing controversy, the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) was finally released.[3] Some say that a key change is that expanded diagnostic criteria are based more on consensus rather than on objective laboratory measures. Some are concerned that the "DSM-5 will result in the mislabeling of potentially millions of people who are basically normal. This would turn our current diagnostic inflation into hyperinflation and exacerbate the excessive use of medication in the 'worried well,' " said Allen Frances, MD, chair of the DSM-IV Task Force and one of the new manual's staunchest critics. He advises physicians to use the DSM-5 "cautiously, if at all."[4]

3)   JNC 8 at Last: Updated Hypertension Guidelines
At long last, the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8) in December released its new guidelines on the management of adult hypertension, which contain 2 key departures from JNC 7 that the authors say will simplify care.[6] These include relaxing blood pressure targets and backing away from the recommendation that thiazide-type diuretics should be initial therapy in most patients. The next day, the American Society of Hypertension and the International Society of Hypertension released their own clinical practice guidelines,[7] hinting at the discord among experts that has delayed new recommendations for over a decade.

4)   Obesity Declared a Disease
After much impassioned debate, physicians at the American Medical Association 2013 Annual Meeting in June voted overwhelmingly to label obesity a disease that requires a range of interventions to advance treatment and prevention.[8] The decision could have implications for provider reimbursement, public policy, patient stigma, and International Classification of Diseases coding. Physicians disagree on whether the ruling will change everyday practices and whether obesity fits the typical disease parameters, but all agree the decision has spotlighted the need for resources for a public health crisis that affects a third of the United States and costs the healthcare system $190 billion annually.[9]

5)   HIV Research: Closer to a Cure?
Two exciting studies this year showed promise for a cure in HIV-infected patients. In October, an infant infected with HIV-1 and treated with combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) beginning at 30 hours of age remained healthy and had no detectable signs of HIV RNA at age 30 months, despite having discontinued ART 12 months earlier.[32] And in November, researchers reported for the first time that radioimmunotherapy in conjunction with triple ART can effectively kill HIV-infected cells from patients.[33] In addition, an in vitro model showed that the radiolabeled antibody crosses the blood-brain barrier without disturbing the tight junctions of the cells, which might allow such therapy to reach HIV reservoirs in the brain.

I consider that information given to physicians in the Medscape page should be public; reason why I am posting it.  As you can see, nothing has changed since Framingham Study.  We should continue using medicine “wisely.”

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire