Treating A Blockage With A Stint Vs. Chelation

JDreamer

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2016
Messages
670
My mother just called me a moment ago to ask me if I had read anything regarding chelation for clearing up blockages, as my father likely has one in his heart. Apparently a friend of his is pushing him to do it, but knowing what I know about my dad it doesn't seem like he'd be able to commit to a routine like that.

I've always comes to know of any kind of chelation as naturopathic/hollistic and it requires changes to ones lifetstyle. My father only recently as of couple of months ago FINALLY put down the hard alcohol and has replaced it with Michelob Ultras. He's also been a smoker pretty much all of his life and doesn't have the greatest of eating habits.

Anyone here have any insight? My mother is insistent on going the stint route since she doesn't trust me father with an "alternative" treatment.
 

burtlancast

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
3,263
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
10,501
I don’t think there is any evidence that stents increase survival rates.

Note that PCI = stents in this study

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa070829

BACKGROUND
In patients with stable coronary artery disease, it remains unclear whether an initial management strategy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with intensive pharmacologic therapy and lifestyle intervention (optimal medical therapy) is superior to optimal medical therapy alone in reducing the risk of cardiovascular events.

METHODS
We conducted a randomized trial involving 2287 patients who had objective evidence of myocardial ischemia and significant coronary artery disease at 50 U.S. and Canadian centers. Between 1999 and 2004, we assigned 1149 patients to undergo PCI with optimal medical therapy (PCI group) and 1138 to receive optimal medical therapy alone (medical-therapy group). The primary outcome was death from any cause and nonfatal myocardial infarction during a follow-up period of 2.5 to 7.0 years (median, 4.6).

RESULTS
There were 211 primary events in the PCI group and 202 events in the medical-therapy group. The 4.6-year cumulative primary-event rates were 19.0% in the PCI group and 18.5% in the medical-therapy group (hazard ratio for the PCI group, 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.27; P=0.62). There were no significant differences between the PCI group and the medical-therapy group in the composite of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke (20.0% vs. 19.5%; hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.27; P=0.62); hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome (12.4% vs. 11.8%; hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.37; P=0.56); or myocardial infarction (13.2% vs. 12.3%; hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.43; P=0.33).

CONCLUSIONS
As an initial management strategy in patients with stable coronary artery disease, PCI did not reduce the risk of death, myocardial infarction, or other major cardiovascular events when added to optimal medical therapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00007657.)
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
10,501
Here is another fascinating study somewhat relevant in your investigations...

The Final 10-Year Follow-Up Results From the BARI Randomized Trial - ScienceDirect

Objectives
We sought to compare 10-year clinical outcomes in the BARI (Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation) trial patients who were randomly assigned to percutaneous transluminal coronary balloon angioplasty (PTCA) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

Background
Angioplasty and bypass surgery have been compared in numerous studies, but long-term clinical outcomes are limited.

Methods
Symptomatic patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (n = 1,829) were randomly assigned to initial treatment with PTCA or CABG and followed up for an average of 10.4 years. Analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis.

Results
The 10-year survival was 71.0% for PTCA and 73.5% for CABG (p = 0.18). At 10 years, the PTCA group had substantially higher subsequent revascularization rates than the CABG group (76.8% vs. 20.3%, p < 0.001), but angina rates for the 2 groups were similar. In the subgroup of patients with no treated diabetes, survival rates were nearly identical by randomization (PTCA 77.0% vs. CABG 77.3%, p = 0.59). In the subgroup with treated diabetes, the CABG assigned group had higher survival than the PTCA assigned group (PTCA 45.5% vs. CABG 57.8%, p = 0.025).

Conclusions
There was no significant long-term disadvantage regarding mortality or myocardial infarction associated with an initial strategy of PTCA compared with CABG. Among patients with treated diabetes, CABG conferred long-term survival benefit, whereas the 2 initial strategies were equivalent regarding survival for patients without diabetes.
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
10,501
And one more that may be interesting

Stent Placement in Patients With Atherosclerotic Renal Artery Stenosis and Impaired Renal FunctionA Randomized Trial | Annals of Internal Medicine | American College of Physicians

Background:Little is known about the efficacy and safety of renal artery stenting in patients with atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis (ARAS) and impaired renal function.
Objective:To determine the efficacy and safety of stent placement in patients with ARAS and impaired renal function.
Design:Randomized clinical trial. Randomization was centralized and computer generated, and allocation was assigned by e-mail. Patients, providers, and persons who assessed outcomes were not blinded to treatment assignment.
Setting:10 European medical centers.
Participants:140 patients with creatinine clearance less than 80 mL/min per 1.73 m2and ARAS of 50% or greater.
Intervention:Stent placement and medical treatment (64 patients) or medical treatment only (76 patients). Medical treatment consisted of antihypertensive treatment, a statin, and aspirin.
Measurements:The primary end point was a 20% or greater decrease in creatinine clearance. Secondary end points included safety and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.
Results:Forty-six of 64 patients assigned to stent placement had the procedure. Ten of the 64 patients (16%) in the stent placement group and 16 patients (22%) in the medication group reached the primary end point (hazard ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.33 to 1.61]). Serious complications occurred in the stent group, including 2 procedure-related deaths (3%), 1 late death secondary to an infected hematoma, and 1 patient who required dialysis secondary to cholesterol embolism. The groups did not differ for other secondary end points.
Limitation:Many patients were falsely identified as having renal artery stenosis greater than 50% by noninvasive imaging and did not ultimately require stenting.
Conclusion:Stent placement with medical treatment had no clear effect on progression of impaired renal function but led to a small number of significant procedure-related complications. The study findings favor a conservative approach to patients with ARAS, focused on cardiovascular risk factor management and avoiding stenting.
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
10,501
In my experience, the patient will engage in debate considering alternatives and will always go with the most medical intervention.

Then, “ownership bias” will make them feel good about their decision.

But NOT getting stents, let’s say, puts the person out in the cold, on their own alone, like being thrust onto a tiny cliff in the Arctic by yourself. Very, very few people can do it. The ones who do, fasten onto a guru and Internet group for support, and often are blinded by the doctrines of this guru or group.

I’ve seen this so many times...
 

burtlancast

Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
3,263
OP
J

JDreamer

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2016
Messages
670
In my experience, the patient will engage in debate considering alternatives and will always go with the most medical intervention.

Then, “ownership bias” will make them feel good about their decision.

But NOT getting stents, let’s say, puts the person out in the cold, on their own alone, like being thrust onto a tiny cliff in the Arctic by yourself. Very, very few people can do it. The ones who do, fasten onto a guru and Internet group for support, and often are blinded by the doctrines of this guru or group.

I’ve seen this so many times...

That's the problem. My father isn't that type of guy.
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Messages
10,501
I think stents are a medical scam.

What they supposedly do can be done much better.

But, as you say @JDreamer your father is like 99% of us, and is not going to out on that icy cliff by himself...so it isn't your problem. It's not your business. It's his.

That may seem harsh but it's true.
 
OP
J

JDreamer

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2016
Messages
670
I think stents are a medical scam.

What they supposedly do can be done much better.

But, as you say @JDreamer your father is like 99% of us, and is not going to out on that icy cliff by himself...so it isn't your problem. It's not your business. It's his.

That may seem harsh but it's true.

True. I told my mother the same thing - that it's his decision either way, not ours.
 

Elie

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
815
My mother just called me a moment ago to ask me if I had read anything regarding chelation for clearing up blockages, as my father likely has one in his heart. Apparently a friend of his is pushing him to do it, but knowing what I know about my dad it doesn't seem like he'd be able to commit to a routine like that.

I've always comes to know of any kind of chelation as naturopathic/hollistic and it requires changes to ones lifetstyle. My father only recently as of couple of months ago FINALLY put down the hard alcohol and has replaced it with Michelob Ultras. He's also been a smoker pretty much all of his life and doesn't have the greatest of eating habits.

Anyone here have any insight? My mother is insistent on going the stint route since she doesn't trust me father with an "alternative" treatment.
I helped clients with extensive blockages with this formulation i created - healthy heart plus - nantonnutra.com
At x2-x3 the daily dose angina pain disappears in 1-4 weeks.
It has nutrients to increase the generative energy needed to repair the arteries and for structural repair. Wity repair plaque like a scab on the skin sloughs off.
Chelatuon works for some but doesnt do anything to repair the artery wall. Stents tend to get reclogged.
 

Fractality

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2016
Messages
772
I helped clients with extensive blockages with this formulation i created - healthy heart plus - nantonnutra.com
At x2-x3 the daily dose angina pain disappears in 1-4 weeks.
It has nutrients to increase the generative energy needed to repair the arteries and for structural repair. Wity repair plaque like a scab on the skin sloughs off.
Chelatuon works for some but doesnt do anything to repair the artery wall. Stents tend to get reclogged.

This one? Healthy Heart Plus™ - Nanton Nutraceuticals Canada. Where do you source the vit c and vit e?
 

Elie

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
815
Vit C non GMO corn
Vit E non GMO either sunfliwer or soy.
 

ShotTrue

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2019
Messages
692
In my experience, the patient will engage in debate considering alternatives and will always go with the most medical intervention.

Then, “ownership bias” will make them feel good about their decision.

But NOT getting stents, let’s say, puts the person out in the cold, on their own alone, like being thrust onto a tiny cliff in the Arctic by yourself. Very, very few people can do it. The ones who do, fasten onto a guru and Internet group for support, and often are blinded by the doctrines of this guru or group.

I’ve seen this so many times...
Nice summary/observation
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom