The Cholesterol Paradox



D

Diarmid Logan

Guest
http://www.healthcentral.com/news/NewsFullText.cfm?id=516315

The Cholesterol Paradox

A study finds higher levels may actually benefit people with heart
failure.

By Andrew Conaway

HealthDay Reporter

TUESDAY, Dec. 2 (HealthDayNews) -- A new study turns common sense on its
head by suggesting high cholesterol levels may actually help people with
heart failure.

Despite the fact that high blood cholesterol has been linked to
increased risk for ailments such as coronary vascular disease and
blocked arteries, especially in combination with other risk factors, the
finding that higher levels may help this group have researchers
scratching their heads.

"On the face of it, the result seems quite surprising, given the strong
association between cholesterol and vascular disease. However, we have
been developing for some time the notion that heart failure is a
metabolically stressful illness," says Dr. Andrew L. Clark of Castle
Hill Hospital and the University of Hull in England. Clark is co-author
of the study, which appears in the Dec. 3 issue of the Journal of the
American College of Cardiology.

"A high cholesterol level can be seen as good in that it indicates a
greater reserve to deal with metabolic stresses. And this is supported
by some of the other studies. . . showing a greater survival with
increasing body weight in heart failure and following heart surgery,"
Clark adds.

Researchers from Castle Hill Hospital, along with colleagues in London
and Berlin, studied 417 patients with chronic heart failure and found
the chance of survival increased 25 percent for each
39-milligram-per-deciliter (mg/dl) increment in total cholesterol.

On average, patients with a total cholesterol level of 232 mg/dl had a
25 percent higher survival rate than heart failure patients with a total
cholesterol level of 193 mg/dl. Experts say a total cholesterol figure
under 200 mg/dl is desirable.

Although the results of this study go against the usual "lower
cholesterol is better" advice, they reinforce findings in several
previous studies that linked lower cholesterol with poorer prognosis in
heart failure patients, the study says.

Clark says two hypotheses may explain the paradoxical relationship.

"Lipoproteins are good at absorbing bacterial endotoxin. An intriguing
notion is that the reason for the immune system activation seen in heart
failure patients is related to bowel wall edema, allowing bacterial
translocation into the body. It may be that lipoproteins mediate a
beneficial effect by mopping up any bacterial proteins before they cause
immune system activation," he says. "I tend to like the lipoprotein
idea."

But he cautions on the use of cholesterol-lower statins for chronic
heart failure patients.

"If [health professionals] are using cholesterol-lowering statins, they
are doing that without evidence that what they are doing is correct.
What we say to them is get those patients, those with chronic heart
failure, to clinical trials so it can be studied further," Clark says.

However, some caution that lower cholesterol may not necessarily be the
cause of the higher mortality in heart failure patients, but may be a
indicator of other factors that might be linked.

Dr. Robert Doughty, a research fellow at the University of Auckland in
New Zealand, who was not connected with the study but reviewed the data,
emphasized the results cannot determine that low cholesterol was the
cause of worse outcomes in the heart failure patients.

"We have to be careful about this data. Don't get me wrong, and it is
very interesting data," Doughty says. "But we should not automatically
extrapolate this group of patients who may be at the endgame of their
disease, and don't forget -- chronic heart failure patients are at the
end stages of their disease."

"Just because there is association doesn't mean there is causality. This
study is important, but there is more work needed to be done for that
group which has progressed further along with heart failure due to
coronary heart disease," he adds.




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
 
an exerpt from the illustrative reference...
~~
Dr. Robert Doughty, a research fellow at the University of Auckland in New
Zealand, who was not connected with the study but reviewed the data,
emphasized the results cannot determine that low cholesterol was the cause
of worse outcomes in the heart failure patients.

"We have to be careful about this data. Don't get me wrong, and it is very
interesting data," Doughty says. "But we should not automatically
extrapolate this group of patients who may be at the endgame of their
disease, and don't forget -- chronic heart failure patients are at the end
stages of their disease."
~~

I would tend to agree
pb

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 17:49:00 +0000 (UTC), Diarmid Logan
<[email protected]> wrote:

> http://www.healthcentral.com/news/NewsFullText.cfm?id=516315
>
> The Cholesterol Paradox
>
> A study finds higher levels may actually benefit people with heart
> failure.
>
> By Andrew Conaway
>
> HealthDay Reporter
>
> TUESDAY, Dec. 2 (HealthDayNews) -- A new study turns common sense on its
> head by suggesting high cholesterol levels may actually help people with
> heart failure.
>
> Despite the fact that high blood cholesterol has been linked to
> increased risk for ailments such as coronary vascular disease and
> blocked arteries, especially in combination with other risk factors, the
> finding that higher levels may help this group have researchers
> scratching their heads.
>
> "On the face of it, the result seems quite surprising, given the strong
> association between cholesterol and vascular disease. However, we have
> been developing for some time the notion that heart failure is a
> metabolically stressful illness," says Dr. Andrew L. Clark of Castle
> Hill Hospital and the University of Hull in England. Clark is co-author
> of the study, which appears in the Dec. 3 issue of the Journal of the
> American College of Cardiology.
>
> "A high cholesterol level can be seen as good in that it indicates a
> greater reserve to deal with metabolic stresses. And this is supported
> by some of the other studies. . . showing a greater survival with
> increasing body weight in heart failure and following heart surgery,"
> Clark adds.
>
> Researchers from Castle Hill Hospital, along with colleagues in London
> and Berlin, studied 417 patients with chronic heart failure and found
> the chance of survival increased 25 percent for each
> 39-milligram-per-deciliter (mg/dl) increment in total cholesterol.
>
> On average, patients with a total cholesterol level of 232 mg/dl had a
> 25 percent higher survival rate than heart failure patients with a total
> cholesterol level of 193 mg/dl. Experts say a total cholesterol figure
> under 200 mg/dl is desirable.
>
> Although the results of this study go against the usual "lower
> cholesterol is better" advice, they reinforce findings in several
> previous studies that linked lower cholesterol with poorer prognosis in
> heart failure patients, the study says.
>
> Clark says two hypotheses may explain the paradoxical relationship.
>
> "Lipoproteins are good at absorbing bacterial endotoxin. An intriguing
> notion is that the reason for the immune system activation seen in heart
> failure patients is related to bowel wall edema, allowing bacterial
> translocation into the body. It may be that lipoproteins mediate a
> beneficial effect by mopping up any bacterial proteins before they cause
> immune system activation," he says. "I tend to like the lipoprotein
> idea."
>
> But he cautions on the use of cholesterol-lower statins for chronic
> heart failure patients.
>
> "If [health professionals] are using cholesterol-lowering statins, they
> are doing that without evidence that what they are doing is correct.
> What we say to them is get those patients, those with chronic heart
> failure, to clinical trials so it can be studied further," Clark says.
>
> However, some caution that lower cholesterol may not necessarily be the
> cause of the higher mortality in heart failure patients, but may be a
> indicator of other factors that might be linked.
>
> Dr. Robert Doughty, a research fellow at the University of Auckland in
> New Zealand, who was not connected with the study but reviewed the data,
> emphasized the results cannot determine that low cholesterol was the
> cause of worse outcomes in the heart failure patients.
>
> "We have to be careful about this data. Don't get me wrong, and it is
> very interesting data," Doughty says. "But we should not automatically
> extrapolate this group of patients who may be at the endgame of their
> disease, and don't forget -- chronic heart failure patients are at the
> end stages of their disease."
>
> "Just because there is association doesn't mean there is causality. This
> study is important, but there is more work needed to be done for that
> group which has progressed further along with heart failure due to
> coronary heart disease," he adds.
>
>
>
>




--
~~~
Patrick Blanchard, M.D., A.B.F.P.
Board Certified in Family Practice
http://www.familydoctor.org/blanchard
~~~
SonoScore
Winning against heart attack and stroke
http://www.sonoscore.com
 
"Diarmid Logan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://www.healthcentral.com/news/NewsFullText.cfm?id=516315
>
> The Cholesterol Paradox
>
> A study finds higher levels may actually benefit people with heart
> failure.


That's not what the study showed. It showed better outcomes in patients
with higher cholesterol levels. The study did not show that high cholesterol
levels benefit people with heart failure. You are already attaching
causality to it.
I would tend to go along with the notion that sick people in general will
have lower cholesterol and thus the association of poor outcomes in whatever
disease you are studying.
Conversely, people who are eating well are the ones not experiencing a lot
of severe symptoms and you would see higher cholesterol.
Survey paper work research studies in which variables are not manipulated
are of limited use. They only show associations but do nothing to prove
causality.
Cholesterol levels associated with coronary artery disease when used as a
risk factor for CAD is valid only in the younger age group. I don't recall
the cutoff but older individuals who do not have CAD and a high cholesterol
actually are better off. This is another paradox and shows that cholesterol
per say is not the sole factor in determining outcomes or risk factors.
 
"Robert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]


> "Diarmid Logan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > http://www.healthcentral.com/news/NewsFullText.cfm?id=516315


> > The Cholesterol Paradox


> > A study finds higher levels may actually benefit people with heart
> > failure.


> That's not what the study showed. It showed better outcomes in patients
> with higher cholesterol levels. The study did not show that high cholesterol
> levels benefit people with heart failure. You are already attaching
> causality to it.



I am attaching nothing to it. All I did was cut and paste an article. If
you have problems with the article then I suggest that you contact the
author.


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
 
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 11:22:48 -0800, Robert <[email protected]> wrote:


> Cholesterol levels associated with coronary artery disease when used as a
> risk factor for CAD is valid only in the younger age group. I don't
> recall
> the cutoff but older individuals who do not have CAD and a high
> cholesterol
> actually are better off. This is another paradox and shows that
> cholesterol
> per say is not the sole factor in determining outcomes or risk factors.
>
>
>

I certainly agree that cholesterol is not the sole factor for disease.

you must be cautious as to the definition of CAD however, and then ask
yourself how you would prefer to be 'profiled'. many studies use a hard
clinical event like heart attack or stroke as the measured outcome of the
study. some use death. as we all know, these are late consequences of
atherosclerosis and not the prefered 'profile' for ourselves. CAD, or
atherosclerosis, or CVD, or cardiovascular disease, or hardening of the
arteries? how is the disease measured? you can profile someone with risk
assesment and 'suppose' they have atherosclerosis, or you can actually
measure it.

--
~~~
Patrick Blanchard, M.D., A.B.F.P.
Board Certified in Family Practice
http://www.familydoctor.org/blanchard
~~~
SonoScore
Winning against heart attack and stroke
http://www.sonoscore.com
 
"Patrick Blanchard, M.D." wrote:

> an exerpt from the illustrative reference...
> ~~
> Dr. Robert Doughty, a research fellow at the University of Auckland in New
> Zealand, who was not connected with the study but reviewed the data,
> emphasized the results cannot determine that low cholesterol was the cause
> of worse outcomes in the heart failure patients.
>
> "We have to be careful about this data. Don't get me wrong, and it is very
> interesting data," Doughty says. "But we should not automatically
> extrapolate this group of patients who may be at the endgame of their
> disease, and don't forget -- chronic heart failure patients are at the end
> stages of their disease."
> ~~
>
> I would tend to agree
> pb


As would I, Patrick.

Humbly,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
"Patrick Blanchard, M.D." <blanchard@sonoscore_nospam.com> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 11:22:48 -0800, Robert <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> > Cholesterol levels associated with coronary artery disease when used as

a
> > risk factor for CAD is valid only in the younger age group. I don't
> > recall
> > the cutoff but older individuals who do not have CAD and a high
> > cholesterol
> > actually are better off. This is another paradox and shows that
> > cholesterol
> > per say is not the sole factor in determining outcomes or risk factors.
> >
> >
> >

> I certainly agree that cholesterol is not the sole factor for disease.
>
> you must be cautious as to the definition of CAD however, and then ask
> yourself how you would prefer to be 'profiled'. many studies use a hard
> clinical event like heart attack or stroke as the measured outcome of the
> study. some use death. as we all know, these are late consequences of
> atherosclerosis and not the prefered 'profile' for ourselves. CAD, or
> atherosclerosis, or CVD, or cardiovascular disease, or hardening of the
> arteries? how is the disease measured? you can profile someone with risk
> assesment and 'suppose' they have atherosclerosis, or you can actually
> measure it.
>
> --
> ~~~
> Patrick Blanchard, M.D., A.B.F.P.
> Board Certified in Family Practice
> http://www.familydoctor.org/blanchard
> ~~~
> SonoScore
> Winning against heart attack and stroke
> http://www.sonoscore.com


That is the problem that I was actually referring to in terms of sole
determinant as their are a large group of conditions with a diverse group of
contributing factors.
Risk assessment in terms of pre-screening in symptomatic individuals goes on
a very generalized lipid profile. As more is learned especially in the realm
of genetics these individuals will be sorted out better and more specific
modalities can thus be used and developed.
It is always better to attack the initiator of the cascade rather than the
end result.
 
"Diarmid Logan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Robert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
>
> > "Diarmid Logan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > http://www.healthcentral.com/news/NewsFullText.cfm?id=516315

>
> > > The Cholesterol Paradox

>
> > > A study finds higher levels may actually benefit people with heart
> > > failure.

>
> > That's not what the study showed. It showed better outcomes in patients
> > with higher cholesterol levels. The study did not show that high

cholesterol
> > levels benefit people with heart failure. You are already attaching
> > causality to it.

>
>
> I am attaching nothing to it. All I did was cut and paste an article. If
> you have problems with the article then I suggest that you contact the
> author.
>
>
> --
> Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG


I stand corrected. I was commenting on the article which you posted here
and I was responding to it. I don't know why I would contact the author as
he did not post it here.
 
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:22:38 -0800, Robert <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Patrick Blanchard, M.D." <blanchard@sonoscore_nospam.com> wrote in
> message
> news:eek:[email protected]...
>> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 11:22:48 -0800, Robert <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Cholesterol levels associated with coronary artery disease when used

>> as

> a
>> > risk factor for CAD is valid only in the younger age group. I don't
>> > recall
>> > the cutoff but older individuals who do not have CAD and a high
>> > cholesterol
>> > actually are better off. This is another paradox and shows that
>> > cholesterol
>> > per say is not the sole factor in determining outcomes or risk

>> factors.
>> >
>> >
>> >

>> I certainly agree that cholesterol is not the sole factor for disease.
>>
>> you must be cautious as to the definition of CAD however, and then ask
>> yourself how you would prefer to be 'profiled'. many studies use a hard
>> clinical event like heart attack or stroke as the measured outcome of
>> the
>> study. some use death. as we all know, these are late consequences of
>> atherosclerosis and not the prefered 'profile' for ourselves. CAD, or
>> atherosclerosis, or CVD, or cardiovascular disease, or hardening of the
>> arteries? how is the disease measured? you can profile someone with risk
>> assesment and 'suppose' they have atherosclerosis, or you can actually
>> measure it.
>>
>> -- ~~~
>> Patrick Blanchard, M.D., A.B.F.P.
>> Board Certified in Family Practice
>> http://www.familydoctor.org/blanchard
>> ~~~
>> SonoScore
>> Winning against heart attack and stroke
>> http://www.sonoscore.com

>
> That is the problem that I was actually referring to in terms of sole
> determinant as their are a large group of conditions with a diverse group
> of
> contributing factors.
> Risk assessment in terms of pre-screening in symptomatic individuals goes
> on
> a very generalized lipid profile.


yes, a size 9 shoe does not fit everyone. Some do better with a size
7.89523 instead.

this difference is the foundation of risk assesment vs actual measure of
atherosclerosis. even NMR profiling of LDL-C subclasses is still considered
risk assesment and not a measure of the disease itself.

> As more is learned especially in the realm
> of genetics these individuals will be sorted out better and more specific
> modalities can thus be used and developed.
> It is always better to attack the initiator of the cascade rather than
> the
> end result.
>

yes, I think gene therapy will drive treatment for those with advancing
atherosclerosis in the future.


--
~~~
Patrick Blanchard, M.D., A.B.F.P.
Board Certified in Family Practice
http://www.familydoctor.org/blanchard
~~~
SonoScore
Winning against heart attack and stroke
http://www.sonoscore.com
 
"Robert" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Diarmid Logan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Robert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> >
> >
> > > "Diarmid Logan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > http://www.healthcentral.com/news/NewsFullText.cfm?id=516315

>
> > > > The Cholesterol Paradox

>
> > > > A study finds higher levels may actually benefit people with heart
> > > > failure.

>
> > > That's not what the study showed. It showed better outcomes in patients
> > > with higher cholesterol levels. The study did not show that high

> cholesterol
> > > levels benefit people with heart failure. You are already attaching
> > > causality to it.

> >
> >
> > I am attaching nothing to it. All I did was cut and paste an article. If
> > you have problems with the article then I suggest that you contact the
> > author.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

>
> I stand corrected. I was commenting on the article which you posted here
> and I was responding to it. I don't know why I would contact the author as
> he did not post it here.


You would contact the author since you are apparently taking issue
with something that he wrote.
 
"Diarmid Logan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > You would
contact the author since you are apparently taking issue
> with something that he wrote.


So when someone posts an article such as you have then we should not respond
to it here but contact the author privately about any objections.

I wonder if everyone here knows that. Thank you for the clarification.
 
"Robert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

>
> "Diarmid Logan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > You would
> contact the author since you are apparently taking issue
> > with something that he wrote.

>
> So when someone posts an article such as you have then we should not respond
> to it here but contact the author privately about any objections.
>
> I wonder if everyone here knows that. Thank you for the clarification.


*Sigh* Please reread your original post to me. You made the mistake of
thinking that I was saying something about the research when it was the
author who had made the statement.


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Robert" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Diarmid Logan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > You would
> contact the author since you are apparently taking issue
> > with something that he wrote.

>
> So when someone posts an article such as you have then we should not respond
> to it here but contact the author privately about any objections.


No, one should comment in the NG on the article _and_ optionally contact
the author about any objections with the article, but one should not
attribute its objectionable points to the poster of the article when the
poster is clearly not the author.

> I wonder if everyone here knows that.


Perhaps they do now.

Van

--
Van Bagnol / v a n at wco dot com / c r l at bagnol dot com
....enjoys - Theatre / Windsurfing / Skydiving / Mountain Biking
....feels - "Parang lumalakad ako sa loob ng paniginip"
....thinks - "An Error is Not a Mistake ... Unless You Refuse to Correct It"
 
Once upon a time, our fellow Diarmid Logan
rambled on about "Re: The Cholesterol Paradox."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>All I did was cut and paste an article.


Aaackk!

Don't you know that cut & pasting an article is *not* permitted in a
science forum?

Besides, all learned people agree that it is 'cut & copy.'

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
 
"Van Bagnol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Robert" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Diarmid Logan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > You would
> > contact the author since you are apparently taking issue
> > > with something that he wrote.

> >
> > So when someone posts an article such as you have then we should not

respond
> > to it here but contact the author privately about any objections.

>
> No, one should comment in the NG on the article _and_ optionally contact
> the author about any objections with the article, but one should not
> attribute its objectionable points to the poster of the article when the
> poster is clearly not the author.


I mistook the intro to the article as written by the poster. I commented
that I stood corrected on that point and then it got into weidness.
>
> > I wonder if everyone here knows that.

>
> Perhaps they do now.
>
> Van
>
> --
> Van Bagnol / v a n at wco dot com / c r l at bagnol dot com
> ...enjoys - Theatre / Windsurfing / Skydiving / Mountain Biking
> ...feels - "Parang lumalakad ako sa loob ng paniginip"
> ...thinks - "An Error is Not a Mistake ... Unless You Refuse to Correct

It"
 
"Robert" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Van Bagnol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Robert" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Diarmid Logan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > You would
> > > contact the author since you are apparently taking issue
> > > > with something that he wrote.
> > >
> > > So when someone posts an article such as you have then we should not

> respond
> > > to it here but contact the author privately about any objections.

> >
> > No, one should comment in the NG on the article _and_ optionally contact
> > the author about any objections with the article, but one should not
> > attribute its objectionable points to the poster of the article when the
> > poster is clearly not the author.

>
> I mistook the intro to the article as written by the poster. I commented
> that I stood corrected on that point and then it got into weidness.


No, you are the one that made it "weird".
 
John 'the Man' <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Once upon a time, our fellow Diarmid Logan
> rambled on about "Re: The Cholesterol Paradox."
> Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
> >All I did was cut and paste an article.

>
> Aaackk!
>
> Don't you know that cut & pasting an article is *not* permitted in a
> science forum?
>
> Besides, all learned people agree that it is 'cut & copy.'
>
> Ha, ... Hah, Ha!


God, another fool who thinks that he is the Lord of the Internet!
 
[email protected] (Diarmid Logan) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> John 'the Man' <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > Once upon a time, our fellow Diarmid Logan
> > rambled on about "Re: The Cholesterol Paradox."
> > Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
> >
> > >All I did was cut and paste an article.

> >
> > Aaackk!
> >
> > Don't you know that cut & pasting an article is *not* permitted in a
> > science forum?
> >
> > Besides, all learned people agree that it is 'cut & copy.'
> >
> > Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

>
> God, another fool who thinks that he is the Lord of the Internet!


Hey, hey, hey , HEY! He is not a fool. He is a mental defective.

TC
 
Doctors,

You may be interested to check these links.
http://www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/hd.html
http://www.westonaprice.org/know_your_fats/fats_phony.html

I hope that you don't recommend anymore to your patients to eat large
quantity of margarine and to avoid butter. On a nutrition basis, the worst
things for many diseases is hydrogenated vegetable oils, high consumption of
cheap vegetable oils (rich in omega 6 fatty acids) combined with low
consumption of long chain omega 3 fatty acids (EPA and DHA in fish oils
only). The imbalance in the omega6:eek:mega3 ratio is a big problem today for
almost everybody living in industrialised countries.

Serge

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Patrick Blanchard, M.D." wrote:
>
> > an exerpt from the illustrative reference...
> > ~~
> > Dr. Robert Doughty, a research fellow at the University of Auckland in

New
> > Zealand, who was not connected with the study but reviewed the data,
> > emphasized the results cannot determine that low cholesterol was the

cause
> > of worse outcomes in the heart failure patients.
> >
> > "We have to be careful about this data. Don't get me wrong, and it is

very
> > interesting data," Doughty says. "But we should not automatically
> > extrapolate this group of patients who may be at the endgame of their
> > disease, and don't forget -- chronic heart failure patients are at the

end
> > stages of their disease."
> > ~~
> >
> > I would tend to agree
> > pb

>
> As would I, Patrick.
>
> Humbly,
>
> Andrew
>
> --
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Board-Certified Cardiologist
> http://www.heartmdphd.com/
>
>