This 'Super EKG' Could Diagnose Heart Disease in 90 Seconds

iStock
iStock

For many adults, moderate or severe chest pain can have some very sinister connotations. Fearing it's a sign of an imminent cardiac event like a heart attack, sufferers head to the emergency room for a diagnosis. In most cases, the chest pain is not life-threatening, but that's determined only after a series of expensive and time-consuming tests like an EKG, treadmill test, and blood work.

That may soon change, thanks to an enterprising 22-year-old college dropout. Peeyush Shrivastava and his biotech company Genetesis have engineered a body-sized 3D scanner called Faraday that creates a digital composite of the heart. The device looks at the magnetic fields surrounding the organ during normal cardiac activity, a process known as magnetocardiography. Shrivastava says the software, using various algorithms, can determine whether a person is having a cardiac event.

Genetesis says that after a patient submits to the scan—which is noninvasive, has no radiation, and takes roughly 90 seconds—technicians can examine the 3D rendering and be alerted to problems relating to lack of blood flow or coronary artery disease. By the time the results are evaluated, a patient could be discharged within four hours, eliminating the need for an overnight stay.

Chest pain is a leading cause of brief emergency room visits for adults over 45, with only 6 percent of the 8 million visits annually resulting in a diagnosis of heart attack. Reducing the time it takes to process these patients would reduce health care spending, ease patient anxiety, and provide more rapid intervention in the case of a cardiac event.

Genetesis is currently conducting trials of the technology at St. John's Hospital and Medical Center in Detroit. Once that's completed, the company will likely pursue a larger study with the eventual goal of FDA approval. It could be years before the device is in regular use, but if Genetesis's projections are accurate, it will be well worth the wait.

[h/t CNN]

The Surgeon Who Removed His Own Appendix

iStock
iStock

On February 15, 1921, Dr. Evan O’Neill Kane decided to test a theory. At the time, people with heart conditions and other serious ailments could not undergo most basic surgeries because general anesthesia was considered too dangerous. Rather than knocking these patients out, Kane wondered if he could simply give them a local anesthetic.

There was only one way to be sure: Kane decided to give himself an appendectomy.

As the chief surgeon at Kane Summit Hospital in Pennsylvania, Kane could probably perform the procedure blindfolded. The 60-year-old physician had performed more than 4000 appendectomies over his 37-year medical career. (Besides, the timing was right: He had chronic appendicitis and the organ needed to be removed anyway.)

For his experiment, Kane decided to numb the area with novocaine. “Sitting on the operating table propped up by pillows, and with a nurse holding his head forward that he might see, he calmly cut into his abdomen, carefully dissecting the tissues and closing the blood vessels as he worked his way in,” The New York Times reported. “Locating the appendix, he pulled it up, cut [it] off, and bent the stump under.” Finished with the dirty work, he let his assistants tie up the wound.

When a reporter visited a few hours later, Kane declared he was “feeling fine” [PDF].

Overall, he was pleased with the procedure. “I now know exactly how the patient feels when being operated upon under local treatment, and that was one of the objects I had in mind when I determined to perform the operation myself,” Kane later explained to The New York Times [PDF]. “I now fully understand just how to use the anesthesia to best advantage when removing the appendix from a person who has heart or other trouble that prohibits the use of a complete anesthesia.”

This was hardly the beginning—or end—to Kane’s career as his own surgeon. Two years earlier, he had amputated his own infected finger. And 10 years after the self-appendectomy, when he was 70, Kane calmly operated on his own hernia, joking with nurses throughout the whole 50-minute operation. Thirty-six hours later, he was back in the operating room, this time patching up other people.

Kane wouldn't be the last doctor to scoop out his own appendix. In 1961, Leonid Rogozov, the sole physician at the Soviet Union's Antarctic research station, performed an emergency self-appendectomy with the station's meteorologist and mechanic as his assistants [PDF]. More recently, Beirut surgeon Dr. Ira Kahn allegedly removed the organ himself in 1986. Unlike Kane, however, Kahn didn’t put himself under the knife for the sake of a medical experiment: Stuck in a traffic jam and unable to make it to the hospital for emergency surgery, he performed the procedure from the comfort of his car.

Why You Should Be Wary of Prescription Drug Ads on TV

iStock
iStock

In 1997, the Food and Drug Administration permitted prescription drug companies to start publicizing their products directly to consumers in television advertisements. Compelled by the persuasive spots, patients petitioned their physicians for drugs to alleviate mood disorders, cardiovascular issues, and various other chronic conditions. But two studies released this year both came to a sobering conclusion about this direct-to-consumer approach: While advertising is persuasive by nature, drug spots may actually be misleading.

In a report published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, researchers at Yale University looked at 97 drug ads that aired on television in 2015 and the first half of 2016. Most were targeted to people with arthritis, diabetes, and other ailments that require continuous care. None of them offered objective information about the potential risks of the drugs; the focus was instead on relative improvement in quality of life. In 13 percent of the ads, the drug companies suggested that various diabetes medications could be used off-label to reduce weight or lower blood pressure, a violation of FDA policy.

The spots also emphasized positive results of clinical trials. These efficacy statements dominated the narrative, with statements like “most people using [the drug] saw 75 percent clearer skin,” or “my doctor said [the drug] helps my bones get stronger.” The Yale study concluded that these and similar claims were potentially misleading and difficult to analyze objectively.

Another recent study published in the Annals of Family Medicine [PDF] examined the abundance of lifestyle depictions in the spots. Rather than dwell on risk factors, the 61 ads that researchers analyzed were predominantly made up of footage that made a direct connection between using the drug and an improved quality of life. Many of the ads were addressing conditions (like diabetes and depression) that might benefit from therapies other than medication. Roughly 59 percent of ads depicted a person losing control of their life as a result of their condition, while almost 69 percent suggested the advertised drugs enabled a more active and healthy lifestyle.

The FDA is responsible for making sure companies don't mislead consumers, but critics charge that the agency is not doing its part. It doesn't review prescription drug ads in advance, nor does it restrict ad spending. “Everyone on the ads appears healthy, happy, dancing, and they get better,” internist Andy Lazris, M.D. told Health News Review. “So people are led to believe a) the drug will be effective (which is often not the case), and b) that they should replace their old therapy with the newer one because it’s better (again, which is often not the case)."

“And if they give you any numbers at all, they’re almost always the deceptive relative numbers that look really good, not the more realistic absolute numbers," Lazris added. "So the benefits are over-exaggerated, the harms are downplayed or missed, and that’s how patients can get hurt.”

Because the spots are so short—usually 30 to 60 seconds—it’s difficult to communicate the risk-to-benefit ratio clearly. Even when ads go into a laundry list of side effects, it can become white noise compared to the happy, smiling faces appearing onscreen. (Soon, the FDA might even allow companies to shorten that list, based on its own study that found fewer mentioned side effects allow consumers to retain more information about the drug’s risks.)

The one part of the spots most critics agree is accurate? When they urge viewers to talk to their doctor. Weighing the risks and benefits of prescription medication outside of the fictional and persuasive images of drug spots is the only way to be sure a product is right for you.

[h/t Los Angeles Times]

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER