Connect
Comment receiving replies
I beg to differ @soloact with your simplistic assertion that diastolic dysfunction is just plain heart failure. People who read that might accept it on faith and use it to make judgments about their health care choices and their chances of living on. My cardiologist told me something I believe is quite different. I developed atrial fibulation a few years ago. In a detailed discussion with my cardiologist last year, he told me that "a-fib is a classical definition of diastolic dysfunction." Your advice to @brittalisse to discuss the whole situation with a cardiologist is good advice. Not so with the suggestion that she treat herself with some plant-derived supplements.
Replies to "I beg to differ @soloact with your simplistic assertion that diastolic dysfunction is just plain heart..."
This research report was published in March 2011. The research was based on patient records through 2005. It made no reference to atrial fibrillation, which was not a criterion for selection of patient records to include in the study.
My point was that diastolic dysfunction and atrial fib are not the same thing and that diastolic dysfunction is aka as heart failure and is serious. That was what I'd said that you'd questioned. But let's just drop it, please.
It's important that statements here are capable of being understood by the others who come to read them. What you said before and repeat now is at odds with what my cardiologist declared. To repeat, he said a-fib is the very definition of diastolic dysfunction. You responded by citing a research report that is based on data that are 12+ years old and written over six years ago. Members who read our discussion need to be advised to ask their own cardiologist whether testing and treatment technology has advanced in the last six years and whether their diagnosis of diastolic dysfunction is the equivalent of heart failure as you insist.
Connect