Tag Archives: stent

Is An Unneeded Beta-Blocker Making You Feel Logy?

The skeptical cardiologist saw a patient recently who  had undergone stenting of a 95% blocked right coronary artery. Mr Jones had presented  a year ago to our ER 2 days after he first began experiencing a light pressure-type discomfort in his left shoulder and scapular region. This pain persisted, waxing and waning, without a clear relationship to exertion or position or movement of his shoulder.

Upon arrival in the ER, his ECG was normal but his cardiac enzymes were slightly elevated (troponin peaking 0.92), thus he was diagnosed with a non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (MI).

He’s done great since the stent procedure fixed the coronary blockage that caused his infarct and chest pain, but during our office visit he related that since his hospitalization he had been feeling “logy.” 

Being a lover of words, my ears perked up at this new-to-me adjective, and I asked him to describe what he meant by logy. For him, loginess was a feeling of fatigue or lacking energy.

Indeed, the online Merriam-Webster dictionary defines logy as sluggish or groggy. It is pronounced usually with a long o and a hard g.

The origin is unclear but has nothing to do with rum:

Based on surface resemblance, you might guess that “logy” (also sometimes spelled “loggy”) is related to “groggy,” but that’s not the case. “Groggy” ultimately comes from “Old Grog,” the nickname of an English admiral who was notorious for his cloak made of a fabric called grogram – and for adding water to his crew’s rum. The sailors called the rum mixture “grog” after the admiral. Because of the effect of grog, “groggy” came to mean “weak and unsteady on the feet or in action.” No one is really sure about the origin of “logy,” but experts speculate that it comes from the Dutch word log, meaning “heavy.” Its first recorded use in English, from an 1847 London newspaper, refers to a “loggy stroke” in rowing.

Fatigue is a common, nonspecific symptom that we all feel at times. It is more common as we age and it can be challenging for both patients and physicians to sort out when it needs to be further evaluated.

Occasionally, fatigue is the only symptom of a significant cardiac condition, but more frequently in the patient population I see it is either noncardiac (low thyroid, anemia, etc.) or iatrogenic

When a patient tells me they are feeling fatigued I immediately scan their med list for potential logigenic drugs.

In this case, my patient had been started on a low dosage of the beta-blocker carvedilol (brand name Coreg) after his stent, and I suspected this was why he had felt logy for the past year.

In cardiology, we utilize beta-blockers in many situations-arrhythmias, heart failure, and heart attacks to name a few, and they are well-known to have fatigue as a common side effect. There was a really good chance that Mr. Jones’s loginess was due to the carvedilol.

It’s important to review all medications at each patient visit to check for side effects, interactions and benefits, and in the case of Mr. Jones’ carvedilol, loginess.

Do All Patients Post-Revascularization or Post-MI Need To Take Beta-Blockers

Beta-blockers (BBs) are frequently started in patients after a stenting procedure or coronary bypass surgery, and continued indefinitely. However, the evidence for their benefit in such  patients with normal LV function long term is lacking.

If any post-revascularization population benefits from BBs, it is those, like Mr. Jones who have had a myocardial infarction (MI, heart attack) prior to the procedure, however the smaller the infarct, the less the benefits.

And with the widespread use of early stenting to treat MI, infarcts are much smaller and dysfunction of the left ventricle (LV) less likely.

In those patients with minimal damage and normal LV function, the benefits appear minimal. For this reason in the last 5 to 10 years I’ve been stopping BBs in this population if there are any significant side effects.

An “Expert Analysis” published in JACC in 2017 noted that:

A 2015 meta-analysis of 10 observational acute MI studies including more than 40,000 patients showed that beta-blockers reduced the risk of all-cause death  However, the benefit of these agents was not found in all subgroups and seemed confined to the patients with reduced LVEF, with low use of other secondary prevention drugs, or NSTEMI.

In a study of almost 180,000 patients post MI with normal LV systolic function in the UK between 2007 and 2013 there was no difference in mortality at one year in patients discharged with or without beta-blockers.

The only way to answer this question definitely would be with a randomized controlled trial and, to my surprise and delight, such a study (CAPITAL-RCT (Carvedilol Post-Intervention Long-Term Administration in Large-scale Randomized Controlled Trial) was published in PLOS One in August of 2018.

I’ll save readers the details, but the bottom line is that patients treated with optimal contemporary therapy for acute MI, whose LV function was not significantly impaired, did not benefit in any way from treatment with carvedilol, the beta-blocker my patient was taking.

It’s rare that we get such definitive evidence for a change in treatment that reverses what is in current guidelines. This has the potential to affect tens of thousands of patients and improve their quality of life. It should be trumpeted far and wide. The cynic in me suspects that if it were a study demonstrating the benefits of a new drug, physicians would be bombarded with the new information.

Helping Patients Feel Less Logy

We will be ordering an echocardiogram on Mr. Jones, and if his LV function is normal we will stop his carvedilol and see if he feels significantly better.  

I feel like stopping a drug that is not beneficial and that is causing a lifetime of loginess is an incredibly important intervention a cardiologist can make. It’s not as life-saving as stenting for acute MI, but saving quality of life is something this non-invasive cardiologist can do every day for every patient.

Skeptically Yours,


N.B. The summary of the recent CAPITAL-RCT:

STEMI patients with successful primary PCI within 24 hours from the onset and with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥40% were randomly assigned in a 1-to-1 fashion either to the carvedilol group or to the no beta-blocker group within 7 days after primary PCI. The primary endpoint is a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, hospitalization for heart failure, and hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome. Between August 2010 and May 2014, 801 patients were randomly assigned to the carvedilol group (N = 399) or the no beta-blocker group (N = 402) at 67 centers in Japan. The carvedilol dose was up-titrated from 3.4±2.1 mg at baseline to 6.3±4.3 mg at 1-year. During median follow-up of 3.9 years with 96.4% follow-up, the cumulative 3-year incidences of both the primary endpoint and any coronary revascularization were not significantly different between the carvedilol and no beta-blocker groups (6.8% and 7.9%, P = 0.20, and 20.3% and 17.7%, P = 0.65, respectively). There also was no significant difference in LVEF at 1-year between the 2 groups (60.9±8.4% and 59.6±8.8%, P = 0.06).





More Incredibly Bad Science From Dr. Esselstyn’s Plant-Based (Vegan) Diet Study

A while back the skeptical cardiologist exposed “The incredibly bad science behind Dr. Esselstyn’s plant-based diet.

The diet has the catchy slogan “eat nothing with a face or a mother” and Esselstyn was featured in the vegan propaganda film “Forks Over Knives.”

After detailing the lack of science I concluded:

Any patients who were not intensely motivated to radically change their diet would have avoided this crazy "study" like the plague.

This "study" is merely a collection of 18 anecdotes, none of which would be worthy of publication in any current legitimate medical journal.

Three of the 18 patients have died, one from pulmonary fibrosis, one presumably from a GI bleed, and one from depression. Could these deaths be related to the diet in some way? We can't know because there is no comparison group.

The post garned little attention initially but in the last few months several hundred visitors per day apparently read it and Essesltyn followers have started leaving me testimonials to the diet along with nasty comments.

Here’s are some typical ones (with my comments in red)

“If your (sic) not backed by some meat industry or cardiac bypass group I would be much surprised.”

I am completely free of bias. Nobody is paying me anything to do the research and writing I do. My only purpose is to find the truth about diet in order to educate my patients properly. I have  saved many more patients from bypass surgery than I have referred for the procedure.

“it is so arrogant to think the only science could come from clinical studies which may be funded by an interested party.”

Doctors like randomized (and preferably blinded) clinical studies because they minimize the bias introduced by interested parties like patients and zealous investigators (like Dr. E)  motivated to see positive outcomes. Small, non-randomized studies can only generate ideas and hypotheses which larger, randomized studies can prove with a greater degree of certainty.

“the entire nentire western medical system is skewed due to the big pharma influence…unfortunately western medicine believes the only science is the pen and the scalpel..whereas …history is the best teacher of all…”

By pen I assume you mean medications. If we examine history as  you suggest we see that life expectancy was 50 years in 1945  but today in developed countries it is around 80 years. This advance corresponds to (among other things) advances in vaccines, antibiotics, anti-cancer drugs, cardiac and blood pressure medications and surgery: the pen and the scalpel. It does not correspond to following a vegan diet.

“Your foolishness is the embarrassment.”

Thank you for this insightful comment! I’m considering it as my epitaph.

One man felt that changing to the Esselstyn diet dramatically improved his cardiac situation and commented:

“Nothing like bashing something that works just because you want to eat meat. .”

I do enjoy meat in moderation but I also really enjoy vegetables, nuts, fish, legumes, olive oil and avocados. I looked into Esselstyn’s diet in detail because it stands out as particularly misguided in banning nuts, avocados, fish and olive oil to heart patients.

..”.So sicking (sic) to see people talk trash about something that works so well… It saved my life…”

I’m happy you are doing well with your cardiac condition but it is impossible to know what would have happened to you on a more reasonable diet such as the Mediterranean diet (which actually has legitimate scientific studies supporting it). And again criticizing Esselstyn’s ideas and “study” can hardly be considered trash talk.

“I personally have followed dr. esselstyn’s program for what will be 5 years in 11/17 and have made tremendous gains in my cardio pulmonary function….my cardiologist looks at me in wonder…why are you here? and often says , if everyone did what you have…Id be out of business…so…isnt that telling and sad?”

I’m glad you’re doing well with the program, most patients can’t follow this kind of diet for more than a few months.  But perhaps we shouldn’t judge its effectiveness until  we make sure you don’t suffer a heart attack next week. Your cardiologist is wrong: see what I wrote about “dealing with the cardiovascular cards you’ve been dealt.” Some individuals inherit genes that guarantee progressive and accelerated atherosclerosis that will kill them at an early age despite the best lifestyle.

“…the phrase “follow the money” comes to mind…and since theres no big money to be made….science will attempt to dispell the results and thousands of years of history that proves this dietary system works…”

Using a scientific approach to analyze Esselstyn’s diet (which tries to claim a scientific basis) seemed appropriate to me but I wasn’t motivated by money. I’m looking for what is best for my patients, pure and simple.

The Plural of Anecdote Is Not Data

One man wrote:

“But since this is only anecdotal evidence – it must be junk science…”

Esseslstyn devotees like to post what their personal experience is with the diet but as skeptical medicine has pointed out “the plural of anecdote is not data.” 

One woman described in detail a good response her husband had after starting the diet following a heart attack:

I’m concerned about the skeptical cardiologist going after the person of dr. Esselstyn versus the science, such as quoting how you States dr. Esselstyn came up with the diet. So there may be a personal bias there. I’m sure there are more people out there on the esselstyn diet that are not noted in the study years ago. I hope there is another book coming out

I’ve reviewed in detail my comments about how Esselstyn came up with the diet but I am at a loss to find any ad hominem attack.

This woman went on to say

We will keep you posted, as my husband is willing to get another cardiac Cath and 12 months to visually see the difference after the diet.

I have to point out that if his cardiologist performs a cardiac cath (which carries risks of stroke, heart attack and death) for the sole purpose of checking the effect of the diet he is engaging in unethical medical behavior and likely insurance fraud. By the way, I hope that your husband is on a statin like most of Dr. Esselstyn’s are!:)

and a man wrote

Calling Essylstein ilk shows a little too much biased hatred on your part

Please note the definition of ilk “a type of people or things similar to those already referred to.” No pejorative there. And no ad hominem attack.  I wrote:

 It is possible that the type of vegan/ultra-low fat diets espoused by Esselstyn and his ilk have some beneficial effects on preventing CAD, but there is nothing in the scientific literature which proves it.

I should be able to criticize the methods and ideas of Dr. E without it being considered an attack on his person

Completely wrong. Esselstyn has saved my life. His book explains it all, how the endothelium cells get ruined, inflammation … heart attack proof (his words). One does not continue as head of the Cleveland Wellness Center if one is a quack.

Words are easy to come by on the interweb but Dr. E’s are not supported by science and as for the “Cleveland Wellness Center” it is probably not wise to get me started. Dr. E ‘s program is listed as being part of the Cleveland Clinic Wellness Center which is an attempt to capitalize on the market for pseudoscientific enterprises. He is not the director. The director recently came under intense criticism for promoting anti vaccine quackery. (See here).

The Wellness Center promotes so-called functional, integrative, complementary and alternative approaches. (Functional medicine is fake medicine!) These are approaches that have not been proven to work and could arguably be called quackery. (Let me be clear, however, I am not calling Dr. Esselstyn a quack but the fact that he is part of the Wellness Center does not add any scientific validity to his work.)

“I’m sure there are more people out there on the esselstyn diet that are not noted in the study years ago. I hope there is another book coming out”

Fake News, Fake Science

As a matter of fact, Dr. E has been hard at work over the last 30 years and has added a grand total of 176 patients who are considered “adherent” to the diet: about 6 per year. The “original research” was published in The Journal of Family Practice in 2014. Unfortunately the bad science present in the original publication has only been amplified.

In addition to any randomization or suitable control group for comparison, the data collection techniques are unacceptable:

“In 2011 and 2012 we contacted all participants by telephone to gather data. If a participant had died, we obtained follow-up medical and dietary information from the spouse, sibling, off-spring or responsible representative.”

In other words, there was no actual systematic review of medical records, autopsies or death certificates, just word of mouth from whomever answered the phone.

“Patients who avoided all meat, fish, dairy, and knowingly, any added oils throughout the program were considered adherent.”

Imagine, if you will, that your husband died 10 years ago and you received a call from Dr. E’s office or perhaps Dr. E himself and he asks you if your husband “avoided all meat, fish, dairy and added oils.”  For one thing, it would be very difficult for you to answer that question with any degree of accuracy: was your husband cheating on Dr. E’s diet when you weren’t looking, do you remember his entire diet from 10 years ago?

For another thing, you know that the caller has an agenda. If your husband died of a heart problem the caller is not going to be happy until he/she gets you to admit that your husband had some guacamole on Cinco de Mayo in 2002. If he’s alive and doing well, the caller is likely to be satisfied with a simple answer that , yes, he’s following the diet.

Yes, we have more data from Dr. E but it turns out to be even more incredibly bad than the first lot.

Let the anecdotes and ad hominem attacks begin!