Health News and Scoops

Open heart surgery is the royal procedure; just saying it out loud sounds terrifying yet incredibly exciting. Ever since it was pioneered medical students have held their breath hoping for the opportunity to gaze into an open chest and view the most sacred of organs, the heart. Those who unfortunately have to undergo the procedure face the fear of their heart being exposed to the air, and the months of recovery that follow.

Surgery is a traumatic experience for the body. It is often forgotten that during surgery, your skin is cut with a scalpel, your inner fascia is cut away, and muscles are cut and moved out of the way. Opening up a chest is no gently matter, especially when you have seen how much swelling is caused by other, far more simple procedures. As you might expect, the body has to be able to tolerate the damage that will ensue, and the injury of the surgery must be more beneficial than the illness. For many Americans, open heart surgery is not an option because their body cannot tolerate the surgery, and they have no other options for treating valve disease.

This week at Columbia-Presbyterian Hospital in New York, the 100^th heart valve replacement was performed, without using the open-heart method. The surgeons have been conducting a clinical trial involving the replacement of a diseased heart valve using a catheter approach. The specialized valve is created from cow pericardial tissue (the pericardium is the membrane surrounding the heart). This tissue piece is then sewn onto a metal casing, and brought to the heart through the femoral artery or by directly placing it into the left ventricle after a small incision near the heart. The valve is then placed in the correct position, while the heart continues to beat. No bypass operation is necessary. The catheter procedure takes approximately an hour and a half, whereas open heart surgery can take up to six hours to complete. Overall, the surgery takes less time, calls for a better and shorter recovery period, and does not require stopping the heart (always a good thing). This is a remarkable achievement, and may likely be the future of valve replacement surgery.

A buzz has begun in response to research released this week about the benefits of organic food. The study showed that organic food does not actually contain more nutrients than non-organically grown food. Measurements for nutritional benefit were based on the amount of compounds such as phosphorous, zinc, copper, and Vitamin C. Acidity content and nitrogenous compound content were other factors measured in the comparison. It was found that between organically grown foods and those that aren’t organically grown, the only difference is nitrogen content and relative acidity. These results were not taken lightly by the food administration, which claimed the study has no foundation; they say that the researchers used data from as far back as 1958, used outdated techniques, and failed to explain why nearly all other studies comparing organically grown versus non-organically grown food showed significantly more nutrients in organic food.

This is an interesting study, and one that to me sounds like the researchers were set out to prove a point rather than to execute a well-thought out research project. As others have claimed in response to this study, the compounds that were measured were not compounds that the food administration has ever argued are more present in organic foods. Organic foods have more antioxidants, and other beneficial compounds, than non-organically grown foods, and having more antioxidants is significantly more important than having more or less zinc or copper.

In my opinion, the most important caveat to this study is that the whole idea of eating organic foods is to avoid the chemicals. Sure, it’s sometimes advertised that organic foods have more nutrients, but in most cases the advertising is telling you that organic food is more nutritious. Key difference. More nutritious meaning there are no pesticides, antibiotics, and various other chemicals that have been swimming around in our food for so long. They missed the point. Multiple studies to date have showed significant evidence that organic foods have far less chemicals than non-organic food; and thus, don’t be deterred by this “data.” Eat those organic foods, but at the same time, don’t pay $6 for an orange either.

A study released today in the public health journal Health Affairs detailed the financial impact of obesity on the United States health care system from 1998 to 2006.  The buzz of health care reform has led many to try and figure out where the money could come from.  Taxing? Hopefully not. Getting rid of insurance fraud and abuse? Potentially, but that would only be about a 3% savings.  Decreasing physician salaries and hospital budgets? Counterproductive.  Ah ha!  Reseachers discovered that obesity since 1998 has led to nearly $40 billion dollars in health care spending.  This includes perscription drug costs, which topped out at $7 billion.  The group estimates that with the incidence of obesity rising, costs will most likely have reached $147 billion dollars by 2008 (these studies have to be done in retrospect, as the data analysis is not possible until the year is over, and trends are typically seen over more than one year).
The most disconcerting part of their paper is when they show that in 1998, half of the $78.5 billion of medical spending due to obesity was paid for by Medicaid and Medicare.  If that is the case, then the researchers are correct in pointing out that a key to health care reform is going to have to focus on obesity.  It is calculated in this study that in the years between 1998 and 2006, the rate of obesity in the United States increased by 37%.  That’s 25.1% of our population.
The analysis found in this paper is not an attempt to attack obese people, but to illuminate how the medical problems caused by obesity are draining our health care system of its money.  Obesity is associated with some of the most expensive medical conditions possible: type 2 diabetes, stroke, heart disease, and cancer.  Obesity is not just a problem of weight gain; it is a problem of causing the body to divert to its worst state of being, often leading to more than one if not all of those conditions mentioned.  We must avoid playing the blame game, and treat this issue as one of general concern both for the health care of our population, and the economic welfare of our population.  This study tells me that obesity has to be a center of change in our country.  Employers should provide incentives for losing weight and staying healthy, and obesity must be treated early in childhood.  I don’t know about you, but next time you think that obesity is a topic that can’t be addressed because of stigma, remember this: $147 billion dollars in 2008.

It is official: tanning beds cause cancer.  The World Health Organization has released a report claiming that tanning beds are officially “carcinogenic to humans” rather than “probably” carcinogenic to humans.  Recent data from scientific laboratories has shown a correlation between exposure to tanning beds/sun lamps and melanoma (skin cancer).  The research found momentum when large numbers of young females began developing melanoma, and the behavioral common denominator was fake tanning.  Of course, direct sun exposure is said to also play a role, but it is not directly investigated in the study.
I’m sure that by now, most of you have realized that more than one form of ultraviolet rays exists.  There are three types, to be thorough, named Ultraviolet A, B, and C.  All three of these forms have been shown to cause cancer in laboratory studies involving animals.  What does this mean for you?  Tanning salons will often tell you that they use more A than B, and that A is more harmful than B so you are fine.  That is incorrect.  Exposure to all three, whether simultaneously or individually, has been associated with the occurrence of cancer.  Tanning with Ultraviolet A rays alone will not prevent the harmful effects.
Still not convinced?  The study found that if you are under the age of 30, using a tanning bed will increase your risk of melanoma by 75%.  That’s no joke, and as you age, that probability is likely to increase.  Since looking tan has become a sign of health and style, the prevalence of melanoma in young women has increased threefold in the time between 1973 and 2004.  The moral of this story is this: you are always invincible until you are not.  Don’t trick yourself into thinking that you are not one of those people who will be fine and continue to tan frequently, whether indoors or outdoors.  Use suntan lotion, limit your exposure to direct sunlight and tanning beds, and use common sense.  The data is out, and you do not want to test your luck.  The next time one of your friends tells you that tanning won’t cause cancer, “they use A-rays,” refer them to this article.

A lawsuit was filed against Denny’s this week by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a nonprofit organization that serves as “a strong advocate for nutrition and health, food safety, alcohol policy, and sound science.” The organization has sued Denny’s for extreme sodium levels found in the food.  Although Denny’s management argues that anyone can simply go to their website to find the nutrition facts about their food, the CSPI wants more.  The lawsuit is calling for Denny’s to display the sodium content right on the menu, along with warnings to the customers about the effects of high sodium.  Unfortunately for the circulatory systems of many frequent Denny’s customers, Denny’s has refused these changes and asks that they be allowed to lower the sodium amounts in the food themselves.  Or in other words, Denny’s wants to take as long as possible to do anything about the situation.

The Center for Disease Control warns adults not to exceed 1,500mg of sodium each day.  To give you an idea of where the CSPI is coming from, on particular Denny’s dish called “Moons Over My Hammy” contains 2,580mg of sodium (item seen in picture on the right).  This item is not one of those extreme “lumberjack” breakfasts that you might have seen before; it is just a ham, egg, and cheese sandwich.  Customers who were interviewed about the Denny’s food, and who were told about the amount of sodium they were eating, unanimously agreed that they would not have ordered those dishes if they had known about the amount of sodium.

Denny’s is not backing down, however, and in response to the CSPI action the chain has relased the following statement:

“Denny’s believes the lawsuit filed by CSPI is frivolous and without merit, and the company will fight it aggressively in court. With hundreds of items on the menu, Denny’s offers a wide variety of choices for consumers with different lifestyles, understanding that many have special dietary needs. In June 2009, the company launched Better for You items, allowing guests to replace favorites with lower-sodium and fat alternatives. Additionally, earlier this month, Denny’s launched a Better for You kids menu. All nutrition information is available online at www.dennys.com.”

This story could go either way.  For one, we should all be educated enough to know that eating at any restaurant chain is not good for your health.  Denny’s does not make any promises to consumers that their dishes are healthy; they just promise that they taste great.  On the other hand, I think that people are going to eat there regardless of sodium content, so they should display the sodium content on their menus if anything to avoid liability.  After someone eats the food, the damage is done.  Consulting the website will not help at that point.  No one is telling Denny’s to get rid of any food options, and I believe that many people will still eat them no matter what, but at least they are keeping their customers informed.  The moral of the story? Eat breakfast at home. Save your money, save your arteries.