09-16-2007, 19:17
Mnogo molq nqkoi da mi go prevede .Trqbva mi mngoo !
What about "cardiovascular insufficiency syndrome"?
EDITOR—As a non-clinical researcher currently engaged in a qualitative study of emotions and coping in chronic heart failure, I welcome Lehman et al's editorial debating the label "heart failure."1
At a recent meeting with a group of general practitioners the issues of communication between doctor and patient and the use of the term "heart failure" were the dominant feature. Not only does failure, for patients, mean the end of hope but it also carries pejorative connotations of culpability, particularly against the prevailing public health and health promotion background, which emphasises behaviour and lifestyle in the aetiology of heart disease.
The complexity of heart failure can be viewed in many ways, depending on training and professional experience. Physiologists identify one common component across varieties of heart failure as the inability of the cardiovascular system, as a whole, to maintain an adequate pressure gradient in the circulation. Obviously, many of the causes of this inability lie with the structure and function of the heart itself, but that is not the whole story.
Blame should be deflected away from the heart by using "cardiovascular" as the first element of a revised nomenclature. "Insufficiency" is a suitable generic term for the range of deficits in function of the system currently covered by the label heart failure. The variety and complexity of expressions of this condition indicate that it should be described as a syndrome.
"Cardiovascular insufficiency syndrome" is a fairly accurate description, reasonably comprehensive, and, importantly, can conveniently be abbreviated to a simple acronym, CIS.
J David Mitchell, researcher in health and medical sociology
What about "cardiovascular insufficiency syndrome"?
EDITOR—As a non-clinical researcher currently engaged in a qualitative study of emotions and coping in chronic heart failure, I welcome Lehman et al's editorial debating the label "heart failure."1
At a recent meeting with a group of general practitioners the issues of communication between doctor and patient and the use of the term "heart failure" were the dominant feature. Not only does failure, for patients, mean the end of hope but it also carries pejorative connotations of culpability, particularly against the prevailing public health and health promotion background, which emphasises behaviour and lifestyle in the aetiology of heart disease.
The complexity of heart failure can be viewed in many ways, depending on training and professional experience. Physiologists identify one common component across varieties of heart failure as the inability of the cardiovascular system, as a whole, to maintain an adequate pressure gradient in the circulation. Obviously, many of the causes of this inability lie with the structure and function of the heart itself, but that is not the whole story.
Blame should be deflected away from the heart by using "cardiovascular" as the first element of a revised nomenclature. "Insufficiency" is a suitable generic term for the range of deficits in function of the system currently covered by the label heart failure. The variety and complexity of expressions of this condition indicate that it should be described as a syndrome.
"Cardiovascular insufficiency syndrome" is a fairly accurate description, reasonably comprehensive, and, importantly, can conveniently be abbreviated to a simple acronym, CIS.
J David Mitchell, researcher in health and medical sociology