Carotid artery stenosis and coronary artery disease coincidence

Cerebrovascular event is one of the important causes of death in the world. Carotid artery stenosis is one of main risk factors of cerebrovascular events. Risk factors for atherosclerosis are found in carotid artery stenosis. Thus, coincidence of coronary artery disease and carotid artery stenosis were observed. In an individual with high risk of coronary artery plaque formation, peripheral artery stenosis is imaginable. Histological morphology and plaque formation in coronary artery disease and carotid artery stenosis are similar and they occur together most of the time. Although many similar findings were shown in coronary artery disease and carotid artery stenosis, carotid artery stenosis is associated with more severe stenosis compare with coronary artery disease. Carotid artery stenosis does not have exact similar biological activity with coronary artery disease. Some invasive and non-invasive diagnostic methods are established for carotid artery stenosis detection. Same medical and surgical treatment techniques could be used for carotid artery stenosis management that vary due to patient-to-patient specific conditions

Peripheral arterial stenosis and coronary artery disease coincidence

Atherosclerosis is a chronic slow-developing condition affecting medium-size and large blood vessels. It is the principal underlying pathology of coronary heart disease and stroke. In some countries, coronary artery disease [CAD] is the cause of nearly half [48%] of the deaths and, loss of productivity life. Peripheral arterial disease [PAD] is defined as atherosclerosis in peripheral arteries instead of coronary arteries. CAD and PAD have same risk factors and underlying pathophysiological processes. Therefore, patient with CAD should be considered for PAD. Ankle brachial index [ABI], duplex sonography, and some other non-invasive techniques are recommended for PAD diagnosis in patients with the history of CAD. Pharmacotherapy, endovascular interventions, and surgical management could be chosen according to the patient's situation. Cardiologists and general practitioners should consider PAD in a patient with CAD or DM as a strong correlated disease

Comparison of cost of in-hospital standard heparin therapy with low-molecular weight heparin in an outpatient setting in DVT patients

Deep venous thrombosis [DVT] is a fast-growing disease which is being dedicated significant human and financial resources. The objective of the current study was to compare the cost of current methods of heparin therapy; unfractioned heparin [UFH] and low-molecular weight heparin [LMWH], in the treatment of deep venous thrombosis. This was a cross-sectional study on 146 patients with DVT which was carried out at the cardiology ward between 2002 and 2004. The number of admission days and the total in-patient and out-patient costs of therapy were evaluated. The results revealed that in-patient treatment with standard heparin [UFH] cost US $240. With a mean 8.5 days of hospital stay, while treatment with LMWH [Enoxaparin] cost US $80. Considering all the benefits of LMWH including desired efficacy, greater ease of administration, fewer laboratory monitoring requirements, earlier hospital discharge, feasibility of using LMWH safely on an outpatient basis instead of an in-patient basis, cost-effectiveness and better individual and social activities during the treatment period, it is suggested that LMWH at least be used in low-risk patients instead of intravenous heparin, also sparing them hospital admission

Comparison of cost of standard in-hospital heparin therapy with that of low-molecular weight heparin in an out-patient setting in patients with deep vein thrombosis

Deep venous thrombosis is an increasingly common disorder which consumes remarkable human and financial resources. The objective of the current study is to compare the cost of current methods of heparin therapy; unfractioned heparin [UFH] and low molecular weight heparin [LMWH], in deep venous thrombosis [DVT]. This was a cross-sectional study on 146 patients with DVT which was carried out at our cardiology ward between 2002 and 2004. The number of admission days and the total inpatient and out-patient costs of therapy were estimated. The results revealed that in-patient treatment with standard heparin [UFH] costs U.S. $240.00 with a mean of 8.5 days of hospital stay, while treatment with LMWH [enoxaparin] costs U.S. $80.00. Considering all the benefits of LMWH including desired efficacy, greater ease of administration, fewer laboratory monitoring requirements, earlier hospital discharge, feasibility of using LMWH safely on an outpatient basis instead of an in-patient basis, cost effectiveness and better individual and social activities during the treatment period, it is suggested that LMWH be used at least in low-risk patients instead of intravenous heparin, while also sparing them hospital admission