Lack of Cards Research!?

[Snichols]

---

Members do not see this ad.

"Since cardiovascular disease leads to more deaths in this country than the next several causes combined, why is so little research funding devoted to it?". Quote from an interviewer @ Case. Any input on the topic?
I stumbled through this question like a complete idiot!!!

 

[McDoctor]

"Since cardiovascular disease leads to more deaths in this country than the next several causes combined, why is so little research funding devoted to it?". Quote from an interviewer @ Case. Any input on the topic?
I stumbled through this question like a complete idiot!!!

Huh? Cardiovascular is funded to the gills in research. There is so much data out there on lipid profiles, lipoproteins, biomarkers of increased cardiovascular risk to even begin to realistically sort out. We have data on outcomes for CAD on a variety of antihypertensives, coronary revascularization with and without drug eluting stents vs. CABG vs. medical therapy alone. there are studies comparing clopidogrel plus aspirin vs. aspirin alone vs. clopidogrel alone for prevention of secondary events vs. prevention of primary events vs. etc....

The only people who think cardiovascular research is underfunded are disenfranchised cardiologists at second tier university hospitals who end up sitting on admission commitees because they are unable to obtain a research grant. That is how you should have answered the question.

 

[tibor75]

"Since cardiovascular disease leads to more deaths in this country than the next several causes combined, why is so little research funding devoted to it?". Quote from an interviewer @ Case. Any input on the topic?
I stumbled through this question like a complete idiot!!!

I love it when the clueless in the media report about CV disease being the number 1 killer, blah blah blah.

Well, it's true. But who cares? If an 80 year old dies suddenly from an MI, is that really a big deal? Hey, we all have to go sometime, and I'd rather go by the MI than by cancer.

A better way to look at it would be the leading cause of death in those under 70. ONce you hit 70, you don't have much to go anyway.

 

[tibor75]

Huh? Cardiovascular is funded to the gills in research. There is so much data out there on lipid profiles, lipoproteins, biomarkers of increased cardiovascular risk to even begin to realistically sort out. We have data on outcomes for CAD on a variety of antihypertensives, coronary revascularization with and without drug eluting stents vs. CABG vs. medical therapy alone. there are studies comparing clopidogrel plus aspirin vs. aspirin alone vs. clopidogrel alone for prevention of secondary events vs. prevention of primary events vs. etc....

The only people who think cardiovascular research is underfunded are disenfranchised cardiologists at second tier university hospitals who end up sitting on admission commitees because they are unable to obtain a research grant. That is how you should have answered the question.

Since the questioner was at Case, a good response might have been.

"Hmm...dont' know. Maybe Cleveland Clinic is getting your funding"

 

[Thomasss]

what research is really lacking is real comprehensive quality of life research. i agree with PART of the sentiment of the 80 year old dying. mainly, that in health research the number one measure stick is mortality. there is a "productive years lost" measure, but thats rarely used. while this might devalue the years of life lost for those not deemed "productive" it still might be a better measure since typically if one is considered "productive" one has a better quality of life.
there is little mental health research beyond pills. i may get arguments about this one, but i maintain it to be true that there is little research about how to better the mental health of the general population involving lifestyles, environment, behavior.