Preston:
The abstract mentioned in message #264, is not fascinating to me. It repeats the findings presented at a featured presentation don last year at the American College of Cardiology Meeting. Excellent abstract, but nothing new, in my view.
This latter abstract will be presented at American College of PHYSICIANS, NOT aht the American College of CARDIOLOGY (also in March!).
I believe that the ACP meeting has less than 6000 participants, while the ACC has over 30,000 participants (counting exibithors). I do not know personally any cardiologist who go to the ACP meetings (unless they present a paper). I'd rather see an abstract presented at the ACC, where the cardiologists are!
We still don't know whether there will be an abstract about counterpulstation at the ACC... however you can count on VASO to have a booth there... how couldn't they!
As mentionned earlier, I am personally looking for some other benefits of EECP.
VASO has focused on angina, but let's not forget congestive heart failure, shock, stroke, ear problems, vascular insuffisiency in legs, possibly renal effect (as documented in the german abstract at the last American Heart Association Meeting)...
A lot still needs to be done, and I expect new abstracts coming out down the line... when? I have NO idea!
Regarding occasional case reports: just note that these marked improvement occurred in the worse kind of patients... we allready know that EECP does not work great in these cases (presumably with all their coronary arteries having some blockages, and only 40% of patients improve)... I think VASO is trying to send the message that even in "worse" patients, there is some hope for great benefit...
After all, if you were so sick, wouldn't you like to try EECP?... even when the success rate is only "40%"? That's quite a bit better than the lottery... I certainly would... and would not mind to send some of my patients if a counterpulsation center was available around where I practice...
There is NO doubt that EECP is allready reimbursed on a case by case basis... afterall, wouldn't a Health Insurance Carrier like better a $ 7000 EECP treatment, rather than one more > $10000 angioplasty (with only 60-70 success rate at 6 months, by the way!) or another >$20000 CABG on these sick folks?... Well, some insurance carriers have already agreed to that. HMOs WILL go for that as well, that is in their line of thoughts: managing patients AND money expenditure.
FHG
|
