Tuesday, March 9, 2010
 With the chronic shortage of kidneys for transplantation, more and more people are turning to family members, friends or other living donors. In fact, the number of live donor kidney transplants in the United States has nearly doubled over the last 15 years--from about 3,000 to nearly 6,000. But the question that has always accompanied the trend is whether people who donate one of their kidneys are putting their own health at risk over the long-term.
People who donate one of their kidneys are likely to live just as long as someone with two healthy kidneys, assuming they survive the initial somewhat riskier period. Dorry Segev of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and colleagues studied 80,347 people who donated a kidney around the United States between April 1, 1994 and March 21, 2009, there were 25 deaths in the first 90 days after donation surgery during the 15-year period. That translates into a risk of 3.1 per 10,000 cases, which is lower than the risk from gallbladder removal. But more importantly, the overall risk of death between the donors and a similar group of 9,364 people who did not donate a kidney was essentially identical within a year of the surgery and for the 12-year follow-up period. That indicates that people do not put themselves at increased risk of shortening their lives by agreeing to give up one of their kidneys. "Whatever happens when people donate kidneys, on average, it doesn't affect the rest of their lives and that has never been proven in a study and scope."
posted by emedinfo
@9:45 PM
permanent link |
|
0
comments
Monday, March 8, 2010
 Nutritional supplements and alternative therapies are becoming increasingly popular for both the prevention and treatment of many types of cancer. However, many patients tend to use dietary supplements without discussing them as an overall treatment plan in addition to medical therapies. In the case of some cancer treatments, certain supplements are not advised because they interfere with therapies such as radiation. In the case of prostate cancer, supplements are marketed to men who have had unpleasant side effects associated with treatment such as impotence. Researchers from William Beaumont Hospital published a study in the March issue of the International Journal of Radiation Oncology discouraging the practice. Other studies have found that these may have negative effects for some tumor sites after the use of chemotherapy, but the interaction with radiation therapy was not well-known, although preliminary studies indicate an interference with the treatment. The researchers found that radiosensitivity the susceptibility of the cell to respond to radiation - of the malignant cells were not affected; however two of the supplements inhibited the growth rate of the normal prostate cell lines. This can lead to complications in the normal prostate tissue. The third supplement increased cellular radiosensitivity of some normal cell lines by inhibiting DNA repair. Although doctors are concerned about men with prostate cancer who take extremely high doses of nutrition supplements and its potential for negative effects on treatment, it appears that taking a standard multivitamin may be okay to take with the physician's approval. A small study on 52 men presented at the American Society for Radiation Oncology in November 2009 did not find harmful effects of normal levels of vitamin or antioxidant supplementation on radiation therapy for prostate cancer; however they also did not find a significant benefit in the treatment. Men who took a standard multivitamin had no difference in PSA response than those not taking supplements.  Men taking supplements marketed specifically for prostate health may inadvertently be getting hormonal therapy. Some dietary supplements may contain phytoestrogens or synthetic hormones which may stimulate the growth of the cancer cells. "Cancer patients turn to supplements to aid in their treatments for a variety of reasons, but this study proves that what some patients believe is helping them may actually be harming them. It is very important for all patients to discuss any type of supplement they may be taking with their physician and especially important for prostate cancer patients receiving radiation therapy as this study shows that it may be negatively affecting the effectiveness of their treatments."
posted by emedinfo
@9:55 PM
permanent link |
|
0
comments
Sunday, March 7, 2010
 A new study has just revealed that coffee is indeed heart healthy. The study has showed that a cup of coffee a day can help with the prevention of irregular heartbeats. The final conclusion of the study showed that if a person drank four or more cups a coffee a day that they can could decrease their chances of irregular heartbeats by nearly 20 percent.
The study has said that while coffee has not been proven as a preventive measure for arrythmia, the medical term for irregular heartbeat, there is no concrete evidence to show that caffeine is a catalyst for irregular heartbeat. The study was conducted by the Kaiser Permanente Division of Research in Oakland, California. The study has drawn some criticism due to the fact that it had been always said that previous studies showed coffee triggered some kind of heart papiltation and that the main ingredient of caffeine was main cause.
The study was unveiled on Friday, March 5, 2010, at the American Heart Association’s 50th Annual Conference on Cardiovascular Disease, Epidiomology, and Prevention in San Francisco, California. The study involved 130,054 men and women. The study also showed that people in the study who drank one to three cups a day showed a nearly 10 percent reduced risk.
posted by emedinfo
@9:22 PM
permanent link |
|
0
comments
Thursday, March 4, 2010
 The common cold is arguably the most common illness in humans. The common cold is probably the most common illness in humans and this is caused by viral infection. A lot of different types of virus can cause colds and we know that over 200 types of virus can lead to symptoms of colds. Colds are spread from person to person through tiny droplets of mucous that enter the air from the nasal passages of people who are infected. What are the symptoms of the common cold?Symptoms of the common cold include nasal stuffiness or drainage, sore or scratchy throat, sneezing, hoarseness, cough, and perhaps a fever and headache. Many people with a cold feel tired and achy. These symptoms will typically last anywhere from three to 10 days. How is the common cold spread?The common cold is usually spread by direct hand-to-hand contact with infected secretions or from contaminated surfaces. For example, if a person with a cold blows or touches their nose and then touches someone else, that person can subsequently become infected with the virus. Additionally, a cold virus can live on objects such as pens, books, telephones, computer keyboards, and coffee cups for several hours and can thus be acquired from contact with these objects. What is the difference between the common cold and influenza (the flu)?Many people confuse the common cold with influenza (the flu). Influenza is caused by the influenza virus, while the common cold generally is not. While some of the symptoms of the common cold and influenza may be similar, patients with the common cold typically have a milder illness. Patients with influenza are usually sicker and have a more abrupt onset of illness with fever, chills, headache, body aches, dry cough, and extreme weakness. Though differentiating between the common cold and influenza can be difficult, there is laboratory testing available to confirm the diagnoses of influenza.  What is the treatment for the common cold?There is no cure for the common cold. Home treatment is directed at alleviating the symptoms associated with the common cold and allowing this self-limiting illness to run its course. Supportive measures for the common cold include rest and drinking plenty of fluids. Over-the-counter medications such as throat lozenges, throat sprays, cough drops, and cough syrups may also help bring relief. Decongestants such as pseudoephedrine (Sudafed) or antihistamines may be used for nasal symptoms. Saline sprays and a humidifier may also be beneficial. Acetaminophen (Tylenol and others) and ibuprofen (Advil and others) can help with fever, sore throat, and body aches.
posted by emedinfo
@9:04 PM
permanent link |
|
0
comments
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
 Computed tomography (CT) is highly accurate in detecting adrenal masses and should be used as the first diagnostic modality to define and localize them, investigators concluded. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration unveiled a plan Tuesday to reduce radiation exposure from three types of increasingly widespread imaging procedures: computed tomography (CT), nuclear medicine studies and fluoroscopy. These three imaging techniques are the largest contributors to total radiation exposure among Americans. They use much higher radiation doses than other imaging procedures, such as standard X-rays, dental X-rays and mammography, potentially increasing the lifetime risk of cancer. Some practitioners also believe that CT is easier to perform than ultrasound because it is fewer operators dependent and requires less personnel and time than ultrasound. Computed tomographic scans are rapid volume scans that can provide multiplanar reconstruction, whereas ultrasound has always been a 2-dimensional modality.In addition to the cancer risk, accidental radiation exposure can result in injuries, such as burns, hair loss and cataracts. "The amount of radiation Americans are exposed to from medical imaging has dramatically increased over the past 20 years." "The goal of FDA's initiative is to support the benefits associated with medical imaging while minimizing the risks."While the extent of the cancer risk is a topic of debate, most experts agree that exposure to unnecessary radiation from these devices should be reduced. For example, the radiation from a CT scan of the abdomen is the equivalent of about 400 chest X-rays and a dental X-ray has about half the radiation of chest X-ray. "Early diagnosis of disease, improved treatment planning, and image-guided therapies that helps save lives every day."
posted by emedinfo
@9:17 PM
permanent link |
|
0
comments
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
 "An aspirin a day" has become a staple of conventional heart-health wisdom. But for millions, this deceptively powerful regimen could be causing irreparable harm. Are you one of the 40 million Americans who take a low-dose aspirin every day (or every other day) to prevent a heart attack or stroke? Who gave you that idea? Your spouse, a friend, or maybe a TV or magazine ad telling you that aspirin protects your heart by "keeps your blood flowing freely?" Aspirin, that familiar, inexpensive little white pill, has long been known to carry cardiovascular benefits in addition to its powers as an anti-inflammatory painkiller. Who is Aspirin for?Identifying the exact groups of patients who will gain the most benefit from aspirin in relation to the risks the drug brings a higher risk of bleeding, including in the brain, and possible gastrointestinal problems is a bit more difficult than one might think. Suggests that older folks with no clinical cardiovascular disease who were flagged as being at increased risk identified by a simple test that compares blood pressure in the ankle with that in the arm and can indicate peripheral artery disease might not gain any protection from that daily aspirin, even though PAD is a form of cardiovascular disease.  Who should not use Aspirin?If it wasn't your doctor, and you're a generally healthy person who is taking aspirin because you hope it will keep a heart attack or stroke at bay, you should probably stop. Mounting evidence, reported recently in a number of leading medical journals, suggests doing so is a bad idea if you're healthy and not at significant risk for a heart attack. Furthermore, these studies now show that the potential risk of cerebral hemorrhage, serious gastrointestinal bleeding, and ulcers anywhere from your mouth to your anus outweighs any heart benefits the aspirin might provide. The study, led by researchers at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, tested whether people identified by the comparative blood pressure test known as the Ankle Brachial Index as being at higher risk for cardiovascular trouble would benefit from aspirin therapy. The study subjects were people ages 50 to 75 who were identified as being at greater risk by the ABI test. Compared with those who took a placebo, subjects who took a coated, 100-mg aspirin daily did not benefit in any significant way measured by any difference in fatal or nonfatal coronary events and death from any cause. Subjects were followed for an average of eight years. Of 3,350 participants, 20 taking the panacea had a hemorrhage that required a hospital stay, compared with 34 taking the aspirin.
posted by emedinfo
@9:15 PM
permanent link |
|
0
comments
Monday, March 1, 2010
 A new study has suggested that efforts to prevent childhood obesity should begin far earlier than currently thought-perhaps even before birth. To reach the conclusion, boffins tracked 1,826 women from pregnancy through their children's first five years of life. It's never too late for parents and doctors to help children who are overweight or obese to lose weight. But obesity research is pointing more and more to a pivotal time of life when the parameters for future weight appear to be established. And that time period is before conception to age 2. Most obesity prevention programs target kids age 8 and older. Scientists at the Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute's Department of Population Medicine, an affiliate of Harvard edical School, now say that factors that place children at higher risk for obesity begin at infancy, and in some cases, during pregnancy. Their research also suggests that risk factors such as poor feeding practices; insufficient sleep and televisions in bedrooms are more prevalent among minority children than white children. "This early life period-prenatal, infancy, to age 5-is a key period for childhood obesity prevention, especially for minority children," says Elsie Taveras, lead author of the study and an assistant professor of population medicine at Harvard Medical School, as well as the director of the One Step Ahead Program at Children's Hospital Boston. "Almost every single risk factor in that period before age 2, including in the prenatal period, was disproportionately higher among minority children."For the study, which appears online March 1 in the journal Pediatrics, researchers interviewed 1,343 white, 355 black and 128 Hispanic pregnant women at the end of the first and second trimesters, in the first few days following delivery, and when the children were 6 months and 3 years of age. The women also completed questionnaires when the children were 1, 2 and 4 years old.  When compared to Caucasian women, the researchers found that minority women were more likely to be overweight when they became pregnant and Hispanic women had a higher rate of gestational diabetes, both risk factors for childhood obesity. Although the prevalence of two other risk factors-smoking and depression-during pregnancy was higher among African-American and Hispanic women, those rates dropped considerably when the researchers adjusted for socioeconomic status, suggesting that at least those two risk factors may be impacted by income and education levels. When researchers looked at other risk factors during children's first five years, they found that African-American and Hispanic infants are more likely than their Caucasian counterparts to be born small, gain excess weight after birth, begin eating solid foods before 4 months of age and sleep less. During their preschool years, the study suggests, minority children eat more fast food, drink more sugar-sweetened beverages and are more likely to have televisions in their rooms than Caucasian children.
posted by emedinfo
@8:59 PM
permanent link |
|
0
comments
|
Previous Posts
|
