By: Roberta

Roberta — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:56:55 +0000

There should be NO ROOM FOR adverse interpretation regarding the practices of a cardiologist, ever. His medical protocols and practices should stand up to the strictest scrutiny. If he is using stents when not indicated, he needs to justify his medical position with peer reviewed research evidence before a medical board BEFORE he places them in a living patient; otherwise, it is guinea pig less-than-a-clinical trial setting.
I had a heart attack and angiogram, but the cardiologist didn’t allow me to view the actual test on screen and tried to knock me out with drugs when I was asking questions. I had not verbally consented to a stent; rather, I wanted to wait until I had seen the angiogram results before deciding. However, I was told I had signed the consent papers without an advocate present while being prepped for the angio. I knew I wanted angioplasty vs stent since there are problems with stents and my body has bad reaction to metals (ears lobes swell and bleed to any other metal except gold, had terrible dizziness and tinnitus for 1 1 /2 yrs due to nickel in an upper back molar crown. I figured any metal in my body would cause inflammation, so I wanted angioplasty. The doctor didn’t know this and I don’t think he cared to know. Stent placed without my knowledge and I was later shown a 95% blockage image. I am wondering if the blockage was from the propofol invisible stainless steel particles since I was given propofol as an anesthetic before a colonoscopy. I also have talked to other stent recipients who claim they, too, wanted angioplasty and these stents were foisted off on them. I believe that cardiologists owe a duty of utmost care to patients who have to trust them and rely on them and need medical decisions that are in the best interest of the patient and not the pocket of the cardiologist. I think financial interests should be absolutely banned by anyone practicing medicine in any medical device, product or procedure that is used by them and violation should be a prosecutable offense. A cardiac patient fears imminent death unless he/she does what the doctor recommends including taking powerful drugs that can have devastating side effects. I don’t think anyone NEEDS a stent – angioplasty is an alternative and while the track record is not great, neither is the stent track record. Autopsies of cardiac stent patients show an inflammatory reaction in the coronary arteries – resulting in death or more stents, then angioplasty of the stents, and then bypass is necessary. Beforehand, I was not told I would have to take numerous drugs afterward and have gained 1-2 lbs a week because I was so lethargic and weak. This is counter to the principles of cardic rehab.

By: John

John — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 20:15:17 +0000

Lying, cheating, ambulance chasers need to leave Mark alone. I count 4 people dead today given no chance at survival that Mark would have given hope to. Hope you need a stent soon with no Mark around to do it.

Comments on: St. Joseph Stent Letter Sent to 169 More Patients of Dr. Mark Midei

By: Roberta

By: John