re: Sanjay Gupta on CNN says Trump has heart disease

Oh look CptBengal making a big deal out of nothing because they don't understand what's going on


Actually, how many of you are physicians? Really?


There are certain scores which meet diagnostic criteria when if heard you know a diagnosis.
Like if someone has a hemoglobin A1c of 12 I know they have diabetes. I don't have to examine them to know that.

If I see an newborn x-ray with intestines in the chest cavity, I know that kid has a congenital diaphragmatic hernia or diaphragmatic agenesis. I don't have to examine them.

This test score indicates he has "mild coronary disease" which is technically heart disease.


Overall it doesn't mean anything. It likely is clinically insignificant which is likely why Trump's MD didn't comment on it to avoid getting into the weeds on a topic that doesn't matter.

Though Gupta is technically correct, based on this score. Now where it becomes unethical is if Gupta tried to establish a treatment plan on Trump based off of this without examination and establishing of a doctor/patient relationship.


And before someone tries to misrepresent what I've said, this has no relevance on Trump's fitness for president.

quote:

---

No...it becomes unethical when Gupta knowingly misrepresents the significance of the marginal number to a population that he knows will be misled by his comments.

---

Of course that's what he's doing.

Muh health

quote:

---

No...it becomes unethical when Gupta knowingly misrepresents the significance of the marginal number to a population that he knows will be misled by his comments.

---

does Sanjay still have a license to practice? because if not this should ave it revoked.

quote:

---

I love how everyone goes to their little echo chambers for news these days.

---

CNN? Thats your echo chamber

That’s what Gupta just said on CNN. FWIW

ETA: Also explained he asked about it due to the number steadily rising since 2009 (38, 90, 130), the predictive power of the test, and the need to control cholesterol, exercise, lose weight, eat better to slow progression.

Dr Gupta, you are a neurosurgeon.

Stick to your sandbox, a-hole.

Gupta failed to mention that less than 4% of men over 70 have a CC score less than 80. The stress echo that was performed as part of GEOTUS physical is a much better indicator of his overall cardiac risk. But, you gotta feed the audience what they want to hear

(no message)

The girther controversy. He does look a tad rotund for 239.

quote:

---

Gupta failed to mention that less than 4% of men over 70 have a CC score less than 80.

---

It was a few hours ago, but I believe Gupta did say that most men @real's age and even his (Gupta's) own age have some evidence of heart disease per that test.

quote:

---

The stress echo that was performed as part of GEOTUS physical is a much better indicator of his overall cardiac risk.

---

Not a cardiologist, but quickly reviewing what I can google suggests the opposite may be true. For example, here's a 2014 lay article on MedScape by a cardiologist that does reference recent scientific studies:

Calcium Scoring: Justified!

quote:

---

First, we learned from a Houston Methodist Hospital study that testing of asymptomatic individuals really has worth. Nearly 1000 patients deemed low risk by the Framingham calculator and a plain treadmill exam were tracked for seven years. Coronary calcium proved a far better predictor of risk. May then said, "Calcium scores are better predictors than routine exercise evaluation," and Hecht even more emphatically stated, "If you've thought about doing a stress test on someone with no symptoms, do a calcium score first. There is no such thing as a false-positive calcium score. It is 100% accurate for coronary atherosclerosis."

From Los Angeles BioMed at Harbour UCLA Medical Center came a fantastic 20-year study of nearly 5600 subjects. Mortality data was presented on no-, low-, moderate-, and high-calcium scores of those otherwise considered to be at low risk for heart disease. With an average follow-up period of 10 years, even patients with low calcium scores (1–99) were 50% more likely to die than patients with a calcium score of zero. Moderate scores (100–399) were associated with an 80% greater likelihood of dying, and high scores (above 400) were associated with a three-times-greater risk of dying as compared with patients with zero calcium. These patients had zero to one risk factor, including diabetes, hypertension, current smoking, family history, or diabetes. Ten percent of these "low-risk" patients had a severe burden of coronary artery calcium >400.

Again, the panel drove several points home. May said, "The significance of that observation period cannot be overstated. Should they have been tested with stress testing? Coronary artery calcium gives us a real measure of individuals they should be focusing on."

---

quote:

---

But, you gotta feed the audience what they want to hear

---

Like using the fake term "GEOTUS" in this cesspool?