Noninvasive Radiation Therapy Halts Deadly Heart Rhythm (nytimes.com) 28
schwit1 shares a report from The New York Times (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source): The patients were gravely ill, their hearts scarred by infections or heart attacks. In each, the electrical system that maintains a regular heartbeat had been short-circuited. They suffered frequent bursts of rapid heartbeats, which can end in sudden death. The condition kills an estimated 325,000 Americans each year, the most common cause of death in this country. And these people had exhausted all conventional treatments. So researchers at Washington University in St. Louis offered the patients something experimental: short bursts of radiation aimed at their hearts in an effort to obliterate the cells that were causing the electrical malfunctions. Results in the first five patients were published on Thursday in the New England Journal of Medicine, and the experiment seems to have worked -- offering hope to similar patients everywhere who have had no alternatives except a heart transplant. The treatment requires weeks to take full effect, so it cannot be used for cardiac patients who need immediate help. And the method must be studied in larger groups of patients over longer times, an effort that has already begun.
Re: (Score:1)
I think you're an idiot with typical idiot ignorance of the world as it is.
Tachycardia is treated primarily, with Metroprolol Tartate. This has been the case since the ancient greeks. You go on to contradict your own premise by implying it would cause (costly) cancer. This is a net win by big pharma in every way you can look at it. Who do you think funded the research? Please stay in your basement, moron. The adults might have something to talk about here.
A spot-radiation treatment is a much more costly and
Re:Big pharma to shut this down (Score:5, Informative)
"A spot-radiation treatment is a much more costly and risky procedure than a (remaining) lifetime of beta blockers? Probably."
It is more costly initially because there are so few Centers offering it. This is not your Daddy's Radiotherapy, done with Electron Linacs delivering X-Rays, or 60Co Sources delivering Gammas. Unfortunately the Delivery System is barely mentioned; they just say "Radiation" and mention a dose of 25Gy. But the pinpoint precision mentioned and the lack of damage to surrounding tissue implies Bragg Peak Radiotherapy using Ions. (Typically Protons, but Alphas and Heavy Ions have been used as well.)
BPR is quick, not surgically invasive, and utterly painless. First developed at the 184" Cyclotron decades back, BPR depends on an obscure property of Accelerated Ions; they give up most of their Energy at the end of their paths in Matter. So Ions can go through tissue, slow down a bit, and BANG! right where they are needed, at the Bragg Peak. Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy uses Real-Time Imaging and multiple Ports to zap just the Lesions or Tumors on such things as a beating Heart, or an AVM in the Brain.
I am not up on the recent advances here; when I was involved in Beam Delivery years back, our Subjects were already Terminal. To put it bluntly, they were Guinea Pigs. (I frankly couldn't take the pressure, and went back into Spectroscopy instead.)
Scale this up, and may almost be an Assembly Line affair, somewhat like LASIK is now.
Re:Big pharma to shut this down (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
The article clearly stipulates what radiation and device was used.
It is a standard Trubeam linac (Varian, Palo Alto) with Cone beam CT. Which is currently the most installed linac in American RT centers. So not extremely expensive and part of the standard machinery. So no bragg peaks in sight. I would think twice of doing this with a proton machine. (BTW I am a medical physicist and do this for a living for the last 28 years.). So a single treatment which depending on the country is between $5,000 to $25,00
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Done with a CT scanner that's synchronized to the heart beat, it gives the reader the opportunity to examine the coronary arteries for calcium deposits and give an to give an estimate of the risk of a heart attack.
Why isn't this widely adopted, instead of cholesterol and blood pressure examinations?
Because it predicts a bit too well.
Unnecessary statins and stent procedures are way too profitable to let go...
Re:Big pharma to shut this down (Score:5, Interesting)
That's plumbing, this is electricity. Good predictor for arrythmias: being alive. You are either born with it, or you get old enough to develop it. Sure, there are factors that correlate with getting it sooner, but you still get something eventually whether it's SVT or VT.
Re: Big pharma to shut this down (Score:3)
There is no conspiracy, only cost. A CT scan sets the insurance back anywhere from $700-2500 and scheduling it is rather limited and requires at least 3-5 people to be involved. Reading your blood pressure costs $50, a blood test perhaps $150 in the high end and is rather routine can be done by a trained monkey.
How do you map non-invasively? (Score:1)
I work for a medical device company and make 3D electro-anatomical maps for electrophysiologists. I'm really curious how you can map a heart without actually touching the endocardium.
Re: (Score:1)
You may use magnetocardiography, measuring the magnetic field distribution of the heart with an array of SQUID magnetometers. The magnetic field distribution can be used to identify abnormal current pathways in the heart muscle if the measurement is done during an arrhythmia event. The technique is noninvasive.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
A lab down the hall from where I used to work used SQUIDs for some mapping of nerves in organs. It was pretty cool work and reasonably detailed (I don't remember quantitatively what the resolution was). But the SQUIDs are super sensitive. They had a Faraday cage much sturdier than what I've seen used near high power pulsed experiments, and on top of that was a bunch of mu metal shielding to block lower frequency noises. Test subjects had to remove any metal jewelry, no metal instruments were used inside
Re:How do you map non-invasively? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm really curious how you can map a heart without actually touching the endocardium.
Just off the top of my head:
There are a number of non-invasive imaging technologies that can be "strobed" in synchronization with the heart's motion to produce a series of 3-D images which, together, amount to a moving picture of the cyclic activity, complete with various annotation (such as blood velocity maps, electro-chemical activity, etc.).
One stock device for cardiologists is synthetic-aperture doppler ultrasound sonar imaging. A wide hand-held probe, with the junction to the skin joined by a slimy jelly with about the same speed-of-sound as soft tissue, connected to a high-end laptop running appropriate software, can construct such mappings in real-time, in sessions lasting minutes, annotated with blood flow information.
Other possibilities include magnetic resonance imaging (the functional version if you want to visualize the cyclic electrochemical activity) and computer aided tomography scanning.
And that's just for starters.
Re: (Score:2)
One stock device for cardiologists is synthetic-aperture doppler ultrasound sonar imaging
Alias "echocardiogram". I get a couple of these per year just for screening:
- One resting.
- A couple more as a "stress echo" - one just before and one just after a session on a treadmill (or an injection of a drug if my leg joints are acting up) to pump up the heart rate and dilate the vessels.
I also get (using the same or a similar system) occasional measurements of blood flow in various vessels, such
Re: How do you map non-invasively? (Score:2)
MRI these days is fast enough to take full images of a beating heart and resolves 3D as well (unlike echocardiogram)
Re: (Score:1)
But what's the long-term prognosis? (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, the last sentence hints that this was a short-term study. I'm a little skeptical that a long-term study will be nearly as positive.
Cardiac ablation techniques have been used for treating atrial fibrillation for many years now. The problem is that after a few years, the heart finds new ways to route those bad signals through itself, and the fibrillation comes right back. I kind of expect the same thing to happen with ablation for v-tach.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I believe your estimation of the futility of cardiac ablation is a decade out of date. Particularly those with paroxysmal afib the outcomes are much better than that.
Re: (Score:2)
That's quite possible; the people I know who have had the procedure with only short-term success did have it a decade or so back. Then again, at any given point in time, you can look at it and say that it is working for the recent patients... until it no longer is... hence my cynical skepticism. :-)
Re:But what's the long-term prognosis? (Score:4, Informative)