Talk:Cardiovascular disease

This

This article was referred to me part of the Cleanup Taskforce. I think it may need to be reorganized. I am not certain the standard disorder "template" works well here, since CV disease is so broad. With in-depth main articles, we don't want to duplicate much here, but it may be helpful to briefly summarize the diseases. Any input would be helpful. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VITAMIN C

As someone who doesn't often contribute to Wikipedia and struggles with the coding, protocols, etc involved in editing, it takes me quite sometime to make even a small contribition to an article, with the citations taking the most time to complete as accurately and comprehensively as possible. I recently spent a lot of time with this aspect of adding some info on Vitamin C's involvment in heart disease without first "asking permission" on this talk page. To my amazement every last contributution was removed the very next day (today) and the only mistake I may have made was not including the page number, and volume of the journal that published the study that I used for my citation, since it was taken fromn their website of the National Institute of Health and I do not have access to the journal in which it appeared. I don't believe I violated any copyright law as only part of the article was quoted. My citation appeared in the edit screen as follows (I hope this comes out exactly as I typed it in the edit screen of the article) :

I used this citation for a reference to various sections of the article that I contributed to such as the section Risk Factors adding: high inflammation levels, after: high serum cholesterol levels, etc. I added the same citation above to the section on screening, specifically the existing bullet point second last on the list (inflammation as measured by C-reactive protein) I wrote the following under the section Diet and added it to the second paragraph : Vitamin C is one of the nutrients found in a diet high in fruits and vegetables and has been shown in a study to have a statistically significant effect when analysis is restricted to those deemed by the CDC/AHA to be at elevated cardiovascular risk. Those at risk typically include those with elevated levels of the inflammation marker C-reactive protein (CRP) amongst other markers. This particular study concluded that "...Among persons with baseline CRP ≥ 1.0 mg/L, treatment with 1000 mg/day vitamin C for two months was associated with a 16.7% within-group change, p<0.05. Compared to subjects in Placebo, allocation to vitamin C was associated with a 25.27% reduction in median CRP concentrations, p=0.02. Significant differences between the vitamin C and Placebo group was also seen in parametric analysis, despite the very conservative approach of assuming that those with missing data had zero change. Treatment with 800 IU/day vitamin E was also associated with some reduction in CRP, but the treatment effect did not achieve statistical significance..."

I would like to know who found this so offensive and why.--197.65.11.16 (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Cardiovascular Disease merge with Coronary heart disease

I wanted to state that cardiovascular disease encompasses coronary heart disease, but this does not imply that they should be merged. Maybe we could start a title for each disease in which CV encompasses (congentical heart disease, vasculopathy, hypertension,...) and have a small paragraph about the disease with a link to the main article below the title, similar to article about history of for countries. Any feedback on this idea would appreciated. I would like to remove the merge from this page unless any objections are posted.

I just wanted to add that both are totally and directly related to the ability of our cardiovascular system to circulate! ProArgi-9 due to research from the noble prize in 1998, has turned lives around in hours days and weeks! ProArgi-9 is the greatest health breakthrough of the 21st century using the miracle molecule called nitric oxide! Any cardiovascular related symptom or disease is no match for ProArgi-9! Watch these amazing videos by clicking HERE! Donvance (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected?

Why is there a template stating that this page is semi-protected to new users? As an anon, I see the "edit this page" at the top of the article page. What is the status of this page? Thanks. 67.169.212.172 21:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Cardiovascular Disease merge with Coronary heart disease

, I agree that this should stay a separate, but relatively short page, and link to other pages which provide more detail about specific issues and areas of focus within the more global topic of cardiovascular disease.

For better understanding by the general public, it is probably better to aim for definitions of global concepts before diving into the details.

In my opinion, these should be merged. Also with ischaemic heart disease. There is redundant and complementary information in the three. It is going to be some work. Miguel Andrade 01:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Suggest that this kept as a separate article mainly for non-cardiac vascular disease, but merge CAD with IHD. Finavon 15:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge them. Sort the details out later. The categories should be merged as well. Or cardiology should be a subcategory of cardiovascular disease. I'm not sure which, and I'm a cardiologist. :-) Ksheka 00:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Ischaemic heart disease is part of (admittedly a large part of, but not 100%) of Coronary heart disease (which also includes coronary artery aneurysms, e.g. Kawasaki disease) in turn these are just a part of the wider cardiovascular disease (includes cardiac valve and aorta disorders). Whilst yes there may be overlap or some duplication, that is merely to invite a cleanup across the articles (with clarification of the differences in the terms obviously needed), but they are not the same thing (even if terms wrongly and loosely used interchangeably for atherosclerotic coronary artery disease by many doctors when talking to their patients) David Ruben ^Talk 01:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Merging would require a very long article on a wide range of related issues. My suggestion is to Clean and improve those articles as a cluster, but not treat it as a singular topic, which it isn't. 87.78.151.16 00:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but consider merging ischemic heart disease with coronary artery disease. CVD is a very big topic, and could well serve as a placeholder that splits off into the relevant subarticles. Stroke, coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease, renovascular disease, retinal artery disease, mesenteric ischaemia are all part of the huge topic. Merging with CAD/IHD is very much over the top. JFW | T@lk 19:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Focus

I'm new here, but it seems to me that this page, as it now reads, IS about IHD/CAD, to the exclusion of the remainder of cardiovascular disease. While it may be true that the term "is usually used to refer to those [diseases] related to atherosclerosis (arterial disease)," I would suggest that this is careless usage, to which this page need not subscribe. So how should the article be structured? I'd say look to the table of contents of a textbook of CV disease for a model, with the change that I would pull out all atherosclerotic vascular disease into its own section, with links in the relevant anatomic regions. Other headings might include Congenital Heart Disease, Valvular Heart Disease, Cardiomyopathies, Dysrhythmias and Conduction Abnormalities, Diseases of the Coronary Arteries, Diseases of the Pericardium, Diseases of the Aorta and Great vessels, Brachiocephalic and Cerebrovascular Disease, Other Peripheral Vascular Disease, Arteritides, Systemic Hypertension, Thrombosis and Embolic Disease, Other Venous System Disease, Diseases of the Pulmonary Vasculature, and Heart Failure and Transplantation. Some discussion of cardiovascular anatomy, physiology,diagnosis, and therapy would also be germane. Although each of these would basically be a definition with a link to its own page, I think the result would be to give the reader a better picture of the vast scope of cardiovascular disease. Moioci 06:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC) UPDATE: suck cocktalking about already exists at Cardiology. I propose that Cardiovascular Disease redirect to Cardiology. Moioci 05:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Heart disease

I just wanted to make sure that all of the editors of this article were aware that there's a highly related article at heart disease. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Oral hygiene?

Is there a reason the "See also" section has several links to oral care? If not, I'm not sure it should remain... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.171.143.208 (talk) 10:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move

I propose to move this article to cardiovascular diseases: since it refers to a class of diseases, rather than a single disease, then it should be in the plural. NerdyNSK (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Vote for merging it

It's disorganized and incomplete. Other pages cover the information better. Most importantly it does not seem to get much attention, so things have crept in that are dubious at best - e.g. the low salt study which links to a press release, not a peer reviewed paper. Equally, the biomarkers section seems out of place.

Needs more expert commentary

Not a lot of objective information here, though a fine introduction to the concept.

The random paragraph about Dean Ornish studies should probably be removed - doesn't reflect the uncertainties about those data or the fact that a dozen different diets are apparently equally protective against CVD. The line about virtually all CVD' can be eliminated... has some truth to it but is misleading as written.

Needs a more organized review of the role of lifestyle in prevention to replace this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.174.14.55 (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Prevention sources

The link between CV disease and secondhand smoke/emotional stress is a currently contentious topic. The other items on the list of "risk factors" seem sensible but the entire list really should be sourced with medical research rather than advocacy group websites which are themselves unsourced. Miraculouschaos (talk) 02:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Should discuss recent research showing over-consumption of fructose is primary cause of metabolic syndrome

Most of the commonly cited diet research prior to the 1990s was seriously flawed, the 1980 Ancel Keys "Seven Countries Study" in particular. A "low fat" diet per recommendations by medical and government leaders led to a large increase in fructose-containing caloric sweeteners such as sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup in virtually all packaged and restaurant prepared food. This trend is very likely the direct cause of the subsequent increase in the rate of obesity in America from 15% to 70% of the population and the corresponding increases in the prevalence of metabolic syndrome along with the associated increase in heart disease and possibly cancer. Discussed at length with numerous citations in the 2009 lecture "Sugar The Bitter Truth" by Robert Lustig M.D. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM A discussion and survey of current research and thinking is "Fructose, insulin resistance, and metabolic dyslipidemia" http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/2/1/5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Binnacle (talk • contribs) 22:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I have added some citations and text to cover this, though not restricted to fructose, but to refined carbohydrates (or sometimes referred to as food with a high glycaemic index) that the WHO meta-study refers to as "free sugars". The fructose discussions can be misleading since they refer to refined fructose, and are comparitors with other carbohydrates, so should be part of the carbohydrate links (though I agree they should be there, with the appropriate text to ensure understanding). Since different types of carbohydrates can either be viewed (in some cases) as beneficial while others have negative impacts, it is important to ensure that this distinction is clear for readers who may otherwise miss such a distinction.--Ged Sparrowhawk (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Reference Links

I added in the same citation multiple times, but I am not sure how to get the text to refer to it only once. I hope someone is able to fix it, please. Thanks. --Ged Sparrowhawk (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Merger

We already call this part heart disease in the lead. And these terms are frequently used interchangeable thus I think they should be merged.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Reviews

• Caplan, LR (2009 Mar). "Cerebrovascular disease". The Medical clinics of North America. 93 (2): 353–69, viii. PMID 19272513. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
• Banerjee, A (2012 May). "Diagnostic accuracy of exercise stress testing for coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies". International journal of clinical practice. 66 (5): 477–92. PMID 22512607. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Gender/Sex question

Would it be proper to change all "gender" to "sex" in section Risk factors and subsection Sex?

Can I re-add the formatting that was reverted without getting it trouble? I see there is a bit of an IP storm going on there at the moment; I do not want to get wet. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes thanks for posting here. I would be happy if you changed "gender" to "sex". As mentioned on your talk page "gender" is more psychological while "sex" is more genetic and thus typically the correct term. Might be best to wait until this IP issue is dealt with first though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 18:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable source supporting this nonsense jmh649? Last time I looked at the dictionary, gender is a synonym of sex, and gender is not a verb, which sex is. Since I saw your edit history, it is obvious that you just look for an excuse to revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.196.246 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 20 July 2012‎

See Gender, and the sources there. As for James reverting all the time; I'm afraid 60 to 80% of all changes to Wikipedia medical articles need to be reverted or significantly amended due to inaccuracies, vandalism, irrelevance, etc. That's just the way it is. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Just reading Wikitionary supports not using "gender" in the article, although I did not know that with my first edit. Something new I learned today, right up there with how to call a brand. Thank you, Doc (for the word, not the livestock).

With the umbrella over the article, I will check back tomorrow. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yea, right. Don't believe anything you see in the weaktionary. Search google for gender:

gen·der noun /ˈjendər/ genders, plural

1. (in languages such as Latin, Greek, Russian, and German) Each of the classes (typically masculine, feminine, common, neuter) of nouns and pronouns distinguished by the different inflections that they have and require in words syntactically associated with them. Grammatical gender is only very loosely associated with natural distinctions of sex
2. The property (in nouns and related words) of belonging to such a class - adjectives usually agree with the noun in gender and number
3. The state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones) - traditional concepts of gender - gender roles
4. The members of one or other sex - differences between the genders are encouraged from an early age

Definition #4 is adequate. jmh649 is just looking for an excuse, and try to piggy back other edits on that excuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.213.139 (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

2013 statistics update

May be useful: http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/127/1/e6.full Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)