August 6th, 2013
George W. Bush Gets Stent After Annual Examination
Larry Husten, PHD
Former U.S. President George W. Bush received a stent today at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital. Here is the statement from Bush’s office:
During President George W. Bush’s annual physical examination at the Cooper Clinic in Dallas yesterday, a blockage was discovered in an artery in his heart. At the recommendation of his doctors, President Bush agreed to have a stent placed to open the blockage. The procedure was performed successfully this morning, without complication, at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital. President Bush is in high spirits, eager to return home tomorrow and resume his normal schedule on Thursday. He is grateful to the skilled medical professionals who have cared for him. He thanks his family, friends, and fellow citizens for their prayers and well wishes. And he encourages us all to get our regular check-ups.
A Bush spokesman told USA Today that Bush had not had symptoms before the examination but that “the stent was necessary. His annual physical includes a stress test. EKG changes during the stress test yesterday prompted a CT angiogram, which confirmed a blockage that required opening.”
10 Responses to “George W. Bush Gets Stent After Annual Examination”
NEJM Journal Watch — Recent Cardiology Articles- Strategies and Criteria for the Diagnosis and Management of Myocarditis
- Sex-Based Disparity in CABG Outcomes: Are We Moving Toward Parity?
- Can Genetic and Social Risk Scores Improve Cardiac Risk Prediction?
- Extensive Ablation vs. Pulmonary Vein Isolation in Persistent Atrial Fibrillation
- Can a Novel Stent Design Improve Long-Term Outcomes of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention?
If he indeed had no symptoms, as reported by USA Today, did he “need” a stress test. Patient specific information needs to emerge, but are we not speaking of AUC(Approriate Use Criteria) for testing and treatment?
I agree 100% with Dr. Prida, the steatment infer asymtomatic and single artery disease if this is true they did not follow AUC. This could send a wrong message to the public.
What about “annual physicals”? What about Cor CT angio to elucidate a abnormal stress test followed by conventional angiography to perform PCI? Cascading tests- cascading costs.
If this had happened to a president, you can imagine what is going on in the real world.
Another case of unnecessary scenting in asymptomatic “patient” !!
I just saw a patient who asked ” how do I know whether I have a blocked artery like Bush”. Either poor reporting or inappropriate .
I’m guessing a lot of cardiologists are hearing that this week. I think the reporting has been very poor on this issue. On a positive note, perhaps this is a good teaching opportunity.
I am surprised how judgemental the comments have been, especially without firm knowledge of the specific details.
Could the former president have had high risk imaging findings? Large amount of threatened myocardium? Proximal LAD or Left Main disease? Soft plaques with spotty calcifications?
Furthermore, practically all cardiologists have had cases in which the first manifestation of previously asymptomatic severe CAD was sudden cardiac arrest or a large MI.
Finally, appropriate use guidelines are guidelines, not absolute dictums. Cardiology is not a black and white field. Reality frequently evokes circumstances that do not fit guidelines. I doubt that most cardiologists practice guideline based medicine in every patient. There are also exceptions to practically every guideline.
I always avoid like the plague VIP medicine. Nothing good comes of it for me, or for the patient. There are some physicians (cardiologists especially) who revel in the fact that they take care of ostensibly important people.
If I see a new patient in the office I would rather not know that they are in the public eye or otherwise deemed “important”. I don’t want the temptation to do too much, which appears on the surface what happened to President Bush. Now he’s committed to a lifetime of anti-platelet agents and probably repeated catheterization procedures, “An Anonymous Member’s” comments notwithstanding.
To “Anonymous Member” – judgmental, not, scrutinizing, yes. As stated in my first comment “patient specific information” need be forthcoming(which it has not-? privacy?), but likewise professional organizations should not harvest this occasion as an example to “go get checked”. This is beyond knowing your risk factors and modifying with guidance.
In an evolving epic where “Less Is More”, we should be equitable in care delivery