Category Archives: heart attack

The Ornish Low Fat Vegetarian Diet, does it work?

Leave a reply

Dr. Dean Ornish has done wonderful research in the area of cardiovascular disease and lifestyle intervention. His study on comprehensive lifestyle intervention (1) is often quoted to support a low fat vegetarian diet as treatment for cardiovascular disease. But his “Intensive lifestyle changes for reversal of coronary heart disease” included several components that would be expected to improve health and decrease cardiovascular risk independent of a vegetarian diet as will be discussed below.

Let’s review what this study did.

48 patients with diagnosed moderate to severe coronary artery disease were randomized to one of two treatment groups, an “intensive lifestyle change” (ILC) group or a “usual-care” (UC) control group. 28 patients were allocated randomly to the ILC group and 20 were allocated to the UC group. Out of 48 patients starting the study only 35 completed the study,   20 out of 28 in the ILC group completed the study and 15 out of 20 in the UC group completed the study.

The intensive lifestyle change group followed this program:

  • 10% fat whole foods vegetarian diet
  • daily aerobic exercise
  • stress management training (training in and daily performance of meditation and/or yoga)
  • smoke cessation (they quit smoking)
  • group psychosocial support (3 hour group therapy sessions)

At the start of the study only one patient in the ILC group was smoking and she quit. We do not know how many smokers were in the UC group or how many quit. (I consider that a deficiency of this study. Because smoking is such a significant determinant of cardiovascular outcome, details of smoking at start and end of the study for both groups should have been reported)

At the end of five years the intensive lifestyle change group demonstrated an average 3.1% absolute reduction in the coronary artery blockage as measured by coronary arteriograms (or to put it another way, the diameter of the blocked coronary arteries increased by 3.1%). The usual care group (receiving cholesterol lowering statin drugs) showed an average 2.3% absolute increase in the coronary artery blockage (2.3% reduction in diameter). These are not huge changes or differences but they were measurable and statistically significant.

Twenty five total  “cardiac events” occurred in the 28 patients randomized to the intensive lifestyle change group over the five years and 45 cardiac events occurred in the 20 patients randomized to the “usual care” group (receiving cholesterol lowering statin drugs). But this was due to differences in the number of hospitalizations and angioplasties. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of deaths, heart attacks or coronary artery bypass surgeries.

By the end of the study 2 patients in the ILC group had died compared to 1 death in the usual care group but as mentioned above, this difference was not statistically significant.  We do not know how many deaths occurred in the 8 patients who dropped out of the treatment group or in the 5 patients who dropped out of the usual care group, nor do we know any of the other outcomes for the drop-out patients.

So there were no lives saved by the intensive lifestyle change program and no reduction in the number of heart attacks. In fact the ILC group had 2 deaths compared to 1 in the usual care group.

What does this all mean and why has the Ornish Diet attracted so much attention.?

First, I would suggest that the demonstrated benefits (reductions in the number of angioplasties and hospitalizations) are likely explained by the following parts of the lifestyle changes.

  1. stress reduction training and implementation (meditation and yoga)
  2. elimination of manufactured trans-fats from the diet
  3. elimination of unhealthy pro-inflammatory excess omega six fats (vegetable oils) from the diet
  4. elimination/reduction of processed carbohydrates and sugar.

Although the intensive lifestyle intervention included regular exercise the data show no significant difference in times per week or hours per week of exercise at the end of the study between the two groups.

The big difference was in stress management. The ILC group averaged practicing meditation and/or yoga 5 times per week (48 minutes per day) versus less that once per week (8 minutes per day) in the usual care group.

Stress reduction is a major issue in any disease and in particular in cardiovascular disease.

Several studies have demonstrated that the daily practice of meditation  improves immune function, increases telomerase activity, reduces inflammatory markers, and reduces circulating stress hormones (cortisol and epinephrine) independent of dietary changes.
Meditation has also been observed to improve “endothelial function”, the ability of the cells that line arteries to respond to changes in demand. (2,3,4,5,6,7)

Here is a press release from the American Heart Association 13 November 2012. (8)

“African Americans with heart disease who practiced Transcendental Meditation regularly were 48 percent less likely to have a heart attack, stroke or die from all causes compared with African Americans who attended a health education class over more than five years, according to new research published in the American Heart Association journal Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.

Those practicing meditation also lowered their blood pressure and reported less stress and anger. And the more regularly patients meditated, the greater their survival, said researchers who conducted the study at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.”

I believe the major benefit of the interventional program was from the stress reduction and the elimination of three major dietary sources of trouble (trans-fats, excess omega 6 fats from processed-refined vegetable oils, and refined carbohydrates-sugar)

I have already discussed in other posts the problems associated with excess omega 6 fats and refined carbohydrates-sugar relative to cardiovascular risk. (9,10,11)

There is little controversy that elimination/reduction in trans-fats produces benefit. (12,13,14)

All three of these changes were essential to the whole foods approach of the intervention group.

I have also discussed the lack of data to support the contention that saturated fat from animal sources of protein contributes to cardiovascular disease. (15, 16))

I remain a strong proponent of a whole foods diet that includes a variety and abundance of organic vegetables and fruits, nuts, pastured grass-fed meat, fresh wild seafood, free-range organic poultry and eggs from that kind of poultry.  This diet represents the foods we have evolved to eat, free from added sugar, hormones, antibiotics, pesticides. This dietary approach also produces a healthy balance of omega 6 to omega 3 fatty acid as well as a significant improvement in the ratio of potassium to sodium.

Stress reduction should be an essential part of our lives and data on this aspect of health will be discussed in future posts. References for this discussion appear below.

Peace,

BOB Hansen MD

REFERENCES:

1. JAMA Network | JAMA | Intensive Lifestyle Changes for Reversal of Coronary Heart Disease

2. Intensive meditation training, immune cell telomerase activity, and psychological mediators.

3. Can meditation slow rate of cellular aging? Cognitive stress, mindfulness, and telomeres.

4. A pilot study of yogic meditation for family dementia caregivers with depressive symptoms: effects on mental health, cognition, and telomerase activity.

5. Meditation Improves Endothelial Function in Metabolic Syndrome, American Psychosomatic Society (APS) 69th Annual Scientific Meeting: Abstract 1639. Presented March 10, 2011.

6. Alterations in brain and immune function produced by mindfulness meditation.

7. Adrenocortical activity during meditation.

8. Meditation may reduce death, heart attack and stroke in heart patients | American Heart Association

9. Polyunsaturated fat, Saturated fat and the AHA

10, Lose weight, control blood sugar, reduce inflammation

11. Sugar, a serious addiction

12. The negative effects of hydrogenated trans fats and what to do about them.

13. Trans fats in America: a review of their use… [J Am Diet Assoc. 2010] – PubMed – NCBI

14. FDA to Ban Trans Fats in Foods – US News and World Report

15. saturated fat | Practical Evolutionary Health

16. Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease.

Unnecessary Cardiac Stents and Angioplasty Procedures

1 Reply

Acute Coronary Syndrome is a very dangerous situation. If a patient with this problem reaches a well-equipped and well-staffed hospital on time, a balloon angioplasty,  placement of a coronary stent or emergency bypass surgery can prevent a death, limit the size of heart muscle damage, and reduce complications of a heart attack. But what if a person is found to have some coronary artery disease (blockages in the arteries that supply blood and oxygen to the heart muscle and heart valves) but is considered “stable”.

Multiple studies have demonstrated that such stable patients do not benefit from having an angioplasty or having one or more stents placed in heart arteries that have partial blockages from plaque.  Despite the fact that over one dozen studies have demonstrated that stents placed in coronary arteries for patients with stable coronary artery disease do not prevent deaths, heart attacks or other problems associated with atherosclerosis, an estimated 50% of the 700,000 coronary stents placed each year in the US are placed in patients who have stable disease. Deaths Linked to Cardiac Stents Rise as Overuse Seen – Bloomberg

By 2012 the excessive utilization of angioplasty and stents had become such a large problem that Bill Boden MD, a cardiologist on the faculty of SUNY wrote an editorial in Archives of Internal Medicine titled Mounting Evidence for Lack of PCI Benefit in Stable Ischemic Heart Disease:What More Will It Take to Turn the Tide of Treatment?:  Comment on “Initial Coronary Stent Implantation With Medical Therapy vs Medical Therapy Alone for Stable Coronary Artery Disease”

In this editorial Dr. Boden explains that while angioplasty and/or placement of stents (Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) is beneficial for acute coronary syndrome, it has never been demonstrated to benefit patients with stable coronary artery disease compared with standard medical management.

Since that editorial was published a more recent review of the medical literature draws the same conclusion.

Cardiologists are paid an average $1,000 (range about $600 to $2500) for this procedure and hospitals and surgery centers receive about $25,000 for this procedure. If only half of the stents placed in patients with stable coronary disease are unnecessary the cost for the procedure alone amounts to $26,000 times 150,000 procedures per year in the US for stent placement. That is $390 million dollars a year in the US. If all of the stents placed in stable patients are unnecessary the direct cost totals $780 million per year.

But there is more cost than that. Patients who receive a stent must take potent blood thinning agents such as Plavix

Use of drugs like Plavix can result in costly and life threatening complications such as gastrointestinal bleeding (2% annually), cerebral hemorrhage resulting in stroke (0.1 to 0.4 % annually) severe drop in infection fighting white blood cells (1/2000) and other complications.

The placement of a coronary stent or performance of an angioplasty in a stable patient is also associated with complications that can result in death. What Are the Risks of Having a Stent? – NHLBI, NIH

So if you are not in the middle of a heart attack, what options are available to treat or prevent the complications of coronary artery disease? Optimal nutrition, exercise,  stress reduction and medications. This combination approach offers as much benefit with much less risk than having a coronary artery stent placed or an angioplasty performed.

Peace

Bob Hansen MD

Lose weight, control blood sugar, reduce inflammation

1 Reply

The Duke University Lifestyle Medicine Clinic prescribes a nutritional program based upon a very simple concept, limit carbohydrate intake and multiple problems improve. This approach is so powerful in controlling blood sugar that diabetic patients must reduce their medication  before adopting the nutritional program in order to avoid very low blood sugars.

Compared to a low-fat diet weight loss approach, it is better or equal on every measurement studied. Here is what happens on the carbohydrate restricted program when compared to a low fat diet (American Heart Association diet). The carbohydrate restricted diet results in

  • Greater reduction in weight and body fat
  • Greater reduction in fasting blood sugar
  • Reduction in the amount of saturated fat circulating in the blood despite a higher intake than a low fat diet
  • Greater reduction in insulin with improved insulin sensitivity
  • Reduction in small LDL (low fat diets increase small LDL which is considered to be associated with more heart attacks and strokes)
  • Increase in HDL (low fat diets decrease HDL, decreased HDL is associated with increased risk of heart attack and stroke)
  • Greater reduction in Triglycerides
  • Reduction in the ApoB/ApoA-1 ratio (low fat diets do the opposite, and the opposite is considered to increase risk of heart attack and stroke).
  • Reduction in multiple markers of inflammation
  • Spontaneous reduction in caloric consumption without counting or restricting calories (people automatically eat less as a result of restricting carbohydrates, low-fat diets require counting and restricting calories in order to lose weight)
  • Increased consumption of non-starchy vegetables

All of these beneficial effects are accepted by the medical community as reducing cardiovascular risk .

The improved metabolic outcome can occur even without weight loss simply by substituting fat for carbohydrate.

“The key principle is that carbohydrate, directly or indirectly through the effect of insulin, controls the disposition of excess dietary nutrients. Dietary carbohydrate modulates lipolysis, lipoprotein assembly and processing and affects the relation between dietary intake of saturated fat intake and circulating levels.” see here

Yet despite these proven effects, the proponents of low-fat diets refer to the carbohydrate restriction approach as a “fad diet”. In his excellent discussion of this term, Richard Feinman points out that historically, a carbohydrate restriction approach is actually the longest standing and proven approach to the treatment of obesity compared to a low-fat diet which is a relative newcomer. He describes how a low-fat diet more closely meets the dictionary’s definition of a “fad”.

Multiple Studies have compared carbohydrate restriction to low fat diet approaches and the results are consistent. In addition to the advantages cited above, carbohydrate restricted approaches when compared to low-fat diets reveal that symptoms of  “negative affect and hunger improved to a greater degree” compared with those following a low fat diet”. (see here)

When one analyzes the carbohydrate restricted diet (CRD) approach employed by many centers, including the Duke Interventional Medicine Clinic, one finds great similarity to a paleolithic diet.

They both eliminate or dramatically reduce

  • sugar-sweetened foods and beverages,
  • grains, flour foods and cereal foods
  • legumes (paleo completely, CRD to a large extent)
  • processed-refined vegetable oils
  • dairy (paleo completely, CRD to a large extent)

Fruits under a CRD are limited to small amounts of berries initially and this is liberalized over time as weight loss is achieved and metabolic parameters are improved. This is consistent with a paleolithic approach that recognizes that fruits and vegetables grown today have been bred to provide much higher sugar and starch content compared to the pre-agricultural  fruits and vegetables that early hominids consumed for hundreds of thousands of years.

A carbohydrate restricted nutritional approach to treat obesity, diabetes, or metabolic syndrome appears to be a valid and arguably superior remedy to a growing problem in the developed world. Yet despite this strong and convincing scientific data, dietary fat-phobia has impaired the utilization of this proven therapeutic modality.

Peace,

Bob Hansen M.D.

Number Needed to Treat (NNT) website and Statin Drugs

2 Replies

My 85 year old mother-in-law was placed on a statin drug two years ago by her primary care physician. She had no risk factors for coronary disease other than age, she had a prior completely normal cardiac catheterization (coronary angiogram) and was totally without symptoms before being placed on the statin. Within weeks she developed muscle pain and weakness, suffered fatigue and overall felt poorly. I convinced her to stop the statin and within a few weeks she felt great. I see similar scenarios frequently in the pain clinic. I personally suffered severe statin induced myopathy pain from two different statins (in the days before enlightenment) and gratefully recovered when I stopped the drug each time. I have since learned more about coronary artery disease, cholesterol metabolism, statins, and related topics.

There is a great website that analyzes data from multiple studies to estimate the number of patients needed to treat in order to help and/or harm a patient. Two such analyses on this website are the NNT with statin drugs for five years to achieve certain results. They analyze data  in patients without known coronary artery disease (primary prophylaxis) and in patients with known coronary artery disease (secondary prophylaxis).

Here is the website:

TheNNT

Here is the page for primary prophylaxis:

Statins for Heart Disease Prevention (Without Prior Heart Disease) | TheNNT

Here is the link to the page on secondary prophylaxis:

Statins for Heart Disease Prevention (With Known Heart Disease) | TheNNT

Here are the results for primary prophylaxis.

“In Summary, for those who took the statin for 5 years:

  • 98% saw no benefit
  • 0% were helped by being saved from death
  • 1.6% were helped by preventing a heart attack
  • 0.4% were helped by preventing a stroke
  • 1.5% were harmed by developing diabetes*
  • 10% were harmed by muscle damage

In Other Words:

  • None were helped (life saved)
  • 1 in 60 were helped (preventing heart attack)
  • 1 in 268 were helped (preventing stroke)
  • 1 in 67 were harmed (develop diabetes*)
  • 1 in 10 were harmed (muscle damage)”

Here are the results for secondary prophylaxis.

“In Summary, for those who took the statin for 5 years:

  • 96% saw no benefit
  • 1.2% were helped by being saved from death
  • 2.6% were helped by preventing a repeat heart attack
  • 0.8% were helped by preventing a stroke
  • 0.6% were harmed by developing diabetes*

In Other Words:

  • 1 in 83 were helped (life saved)
  • 1 in 39 were helped (preventing non-fatal heart attack)
  • 1 in 125 were helped (preventing stroke)
  • 1 in 167 were harmed (develop diabetes*)”

If anything, the side effects (harm) are understated and the authors acknowledge this because many of the studies do not adequately report side effects and complications. (The studies were funded in part or in totality by the pharmaceutical company that makes the drug and that is a problem as discussed below)

Association of funding and conclusions in randomized dr… [JAMA. 2003] – PubMed – NCBI

It is rare that this sort of analysis would be presented to a patient in the physician’s office to help a patient decide whether the risks and benefits are acceptable. (I provide patients with this data on a multi-page handout with significant narrative and explanation when I diagnose statin myopathy.)

The obsession that American physicians have with cholesterol (another topic to be addressed in future posts) creates a knee-jerk reaction to a lab value that results too often in muscle damage and pain and sometimes cognitive impairment.

My experience in the pain clinic has been that the % of elderly with statin induced muscle damage and/or muscle pain is much higher. When I suggest that the patient stop the statin drug because they are suffering disabling pain and possibly permanent muscle damage they often return at the next visit to tell me they were started on a different statin drug. Most patients who suffer this complication will have a repeat of the same complication when placed on a different statin drug. This complication can cause permanent damage.

In the medical literature, many studies presented as “primary prophylaxis” are not truly primary prophylaxis because there are some patients included that have known diagnosed coronary disease. This tainted data is then presented as if it were a true primary prophylaxis study.

A more recent study purported to demonstrate once and for all that statins in primary prophylaxis can save lives. Unfortunately, there were problems with this study as well. Here is an excerpt from a commentary in the publishing journal:

“There are reasons to be cautious about the findings of the meta-analysis by Taylor and colleagues. As the authors note, all but 1 of the trials were partly or fully funded by pharmaceutical companies. Trials funded by for-profit organizations are more likely to recommend the experimental drug than are trials funded by nonprofit organizations (4). Further, adverse event reporting in the original trials was poor, with few details about type or severity, and quality of life was rarely assessed. Some adverse events, such as cognitive impairment, are rarer and not assessed.”

Disappointingly, the commentary failed to point out that the study data again included some patients with diagnosed coronary artery disease. (up to 10%).

Here are the authors own words.

“We included randomized controlled trials of statins versus placebo or usual care control with minimum treatment duration of one year and follow-up of six months, in adults with no restrictions on total, low density lipoprotein (LDL) or high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels, and where 10% or less had a history of CVD.”

Once again we have a “primary prophylaxis” meta-analysis that is not really a primary prophylaxis study. It never seems to end.

When drug companies fund studies the conclusions often overstate the benefit and understate the risks. If you do not look for a side effect or complication, you will not find one. Here is an excerpt from a large study that look at the issue of bias in drug company sponsored research.

“CONTEXT:

Previous studies indicate that industry-sponsored trials tend to draw proindustry conclusions.

OBJECTIVE:

To explore whether the association between funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials reflects treatment effects or adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS:

Conclusions in trials funded by for-profit organizations may be more positive due to biased interpretation of trial results. Readers should carefully evaluate whether conclusions in randomized trials are supported by data.”

Association of funding and conclusions in randomized dr… [JAMA. 2003] – PubMed – NCBI

There are many ways that authors can present data to give the appearance of success. A more recent study published in Lancet alleged to demonstrate benefit (death prevention) for statins in primary prophylaxis.

Here it is.

The effects of lowering LDL cholesterol with statin therapy in people at low risk of vascular disease: meta-analysis of individual data from 27 randomised trials : The Lancet

But when you drill down into the data you  discover a mechanism of deception. The benefits reported in the paper applied only to patients whose cholesterol dropped significantly. Looking at all patients in the study who took the statin did not result in decreased death rates. Selecting those whose cholesterol dropped 40 points did show death prevention benefit. They presented risk reduction per unit of cholesterol reduction. From a scientific point of view this is less than honest. The authors simply demonstrated that patients who responded to the drug benefited.

DUH***All previous studies that simply compared patients on statins vs. those not on statins (primary prophylaxis) showed no prevention of death. This is an important distinction, The cost implications of putting low risk individuals on statins are enormous. Statins also rarely can cause death (from rhabdomyalysis) and frequently caused harm.  One comment about this studies’ conclusions was titled “Statins for all by the age of 50 years?” That frightens me.

The mechanism of statin drug benefits are likely related to many known potentially beneficial physiologic effects, not from a reduction of cholesterol. As you will learn in future posts, cholesterol reduction in and of itself is almost meaningless. The amount of circulating cholesterol in your blood is not the problem. The problem is much more complex and relates in part to the oxidation of LDL particles, which has little to do with the amount of cholesterol carried in those particles. Other important factors include systemic inflammation and the response of the innate immune system to factors such as circulating LPS which in turn reflects intestinal permeability. I apologize for the sudden onslaught of abbreviations and medical terms but stay tuned and you will learn what they all mean.

Finally, in the secondary prophylaxis group, the benefits of statin drug use are equivalent to the benefits achieved with exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation following a heart attack. Cardiac rehab offers many benefits in addition to saving lives, produces no significant negative side effects, and improves quality of life and sense of well-being. Many patients on statins feel lousy.

Efficacy of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation… [Am Heart J. 2011] – PubMed – NCBI

In my next post I will discuss saturated fat  and coronary artery disease. This issue represents the crux of controversy in the heart-healthy diet debate which most physicians and the AHA consider clarified (eat less saturated fat). You already know generally what I have to say about that if you have read my Manifesto page. The next post will expand on the saturated fat section in the Manifesto. Subsequent posts will discuss cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, LDL particle number, oxidized LDL and glycated LDL (the last two are referred to as modified LDL)

Bob Hansen MD