Stopped taking statins

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2660801/Aspirin-wrong-drug-200-000-heart-patients-NHS-guidelines-say-sufferers-swapped-different-treatment.html

Sharon-I just joined this forum. I'm actually a physician, but have had 3 separate stents put in over 11 months at age 55, although I actually avoided a heart attack. Your post was written 3 years ago. I'd be interested to see how you're doing these days.

Me getting stents at age 55 was actually somewhat unusual for someone with my health background and no family history of early heart attacks or strokes.

I myself have concerns about statins, but I think you are right in medical personnel just checking off boxes, etc., especially people in emergency rooms.

But I think what can help you is to understand what each medication is for. It seems like this wasn't explained to you very well, which would not surprise me at all.

As someone whose life has been radically changed by my heart stents, despite avoiding heart attacks, which means I had no actual permanent heart cell death, statins are something I've really researched as best as possible because it is indeed cholesterol plaques getting larger over time that narrow down the arteries enough eventually that you start having symptoms. A cholesterol plaque breaking off and going downstream in the artery until it lodges in a smaller area, coupled with the reaction by platelets to want to make a clot where this damage occurred, cuts off the blood past the blockage and causes the permanent cell death. Such cell death is called an infarction. In the heart, such permanent cell death is called a myocardial infarction. Medical personnel just call it "an MI." Everyone generally calls this "a heart attack."

Knowing this, let me say that probably the biggest benefit of statins is the reduce what is often called invisible inflammation. That's what is generally believed to make a cholesterol plaque rupture. The statins also reduce plaque growing bigger.

Here's something that has generally been learned by this time. Lower dosages of statins cause less side effects in general than higher doses. What is unusual about this is that this has generally meant that some of the strongest or most potent statins at lower doses cause less side effects than weaker ones at higher doses required to match equivalence in potency.

Thus, on the whole, crestor, the strongest statin, at low dosage amounts, actually causes less side effects than simvistatin at much higher equivalent dosages.

Some of this may be due to the fact that Crestor was specifically designed to be more specific in how it works in the liver on cholesterol. Therefore, it doesn't affect certain other areas involving cholesterol, such as skin cells nearly as much as others.

But that's just an idea as to how you might be able to tolerate statins by using a lower dose that could be beneficial because you are very young and have had a heart attack, and the statins indeed have been proven to reduce future heart attacks. And cholesterol buildup is only one part of how the how to tax work. For me, I have unfortunately had rapid cholesterol buildup over a short period of time, so I kind of regret not immediately going on the statins because I was just as concerned as everyone else about their side effects. I actually do not practice medicine in an area where I treat primary care type situations, so I don't prescribe them.

What you need to realize, which is irritated as well, is that most of the complaints that many people have made, true or not, have been about trying to give statins to people who don't show any signs of heart disease. It's argued that this is just a way for pharmacy companies to make money and that they have lots of bad side effects. Unfortunately, if you have a heart attack or stents put in and you do have heart disease, the statins are probably good for you, but yet you still read all of these terrible things on the Internet and become very confused by them. They bother me even as a doctor.

Beta blockers seem to be just an automatic thing given because they make your heart beat slower so it won't work too hard, so it can't be stressed that much. Wow beta blockers do reduce blood pressure, the real reason it is given after a heart attack is to add on to reducing stress placed on my heart. I don't know the current standards and don't pretend to recommend not taking them, but I would assume they are a good idea in the beginning after a heart attack to help avoid more acute injury. But after a period of time, I'm sure some people will get very depressed because one big side effect of that slowed down heart rate is a very depressed feeling in many people.

What you have to remember is that doctors like cardiologist often treat patients as if their whole body is just a heart. So they want to do everything possible to preserve the heart, which includes lowering blood pressure, lowering risk of cholesterol buildup and invisible inflammation, and not allowing the heart to be stressed very much. But when you look at the patient as a whole person, some of those things have to be balanced out with how bad they can make someone feel. You would be surprised to think of the logic that many doctors use on the internet who oppose the use of stents and say that they don't extend peoples lives and that medical therapy with all of these medications you just mentioned is just as effective.

Well, who knows where they got this information from or made it up that stents don't extend peoples lives or not. But for sure, if people have narrowed arteries or have had a heart attack, if you put a stent in, it makes them feel a whole lot better instantaneously. I don't know what happens five years down the road, but instantaneously, I prefer to have my symptoms treated, rather than just wait for death having too many symptoms. And this argument that too many stents are put in just to make money, is probably not very accurate, and is just like saying that some people who borrow money never intended to pay it back from the moment they got it. That is fraud, and it happens, but it's not the norm. And there are specific standards for putting in stance using very specific measurements inside the arteries, that make the idea of most doctors putting in too many stents only for money not very plausible. Insurance companies, on the whole, are not going to pay if those standards are not generally met. And if someone has had a heart attack, there's usually little question they need a stent.

Finally, just a little bit of information about clopidogrel (plavix). Plavix and aspirin both work to decrease the ability of platelets to clot together if they try to repair an area for a plaque has broken off and caused a heart attack. Without question it has been proven that is extremely important to take these medications after a heart attack religiously. The risk of the platelets causing a problem is too great.

But there is a significant amount of research being done and some disagreement about how long someone should continue to take Plavix and aspirin after a heart attack. This is called "dual anti-platelet" therapy. I think once going to ultimately occur very soon is that a standard is going to be set for a particular stent in a particular person that may be 3 to 6 months and some people or up to two years and other people, or I'm sure there are going to be some people that may need to take it for life, but there will also be some cardiologist who will just be some ultra conservative cardiologists who say take them both for life. The statistics are that within the first 72 hours through the first 30 days, there is a very high risk of having a platelet type clot come into a stented area. This is often fatal. And the general recommendation is that Plavix and aspirin be given for a year to 18 months. But while the time. May be reduced in some future recommendations, there are always going to be some people who will still get a clot that is platelet mediated around the stent several years down the road. That's why some doctors don't want you to be that particular person that continuing both medications might have prevented that

But most people do not like Plavix. And aspirin is very bad on people's stomach. Over a very short period of time, it reduces the amount of mucus produced that protects the lining of the stomach from the acid in the stomach. This causes many people to get on various types of medications that reduce stomach acid, and those in themselves have their own side effects if used for long periods of time.

But no one is going to tell you to stop taking the aspirin unless you have a severe allergy to it. But even a low-dose aspirin every day for a few days can cause some people to bleed very bad.

I think the best thing to do is to research things as best you can and be sure and ask your doctors questions, and if they don't want to answer them, find doctors who will. In general, people who act like they know everything are not very good at answering questions. They would only have their minds changed if they had the problem that you do.

I apologize for this long post three years later, but I was looking through things myself about statins and thought I could offer some input. FYI- even my doctors now tell me these things. I have to do my own research and then talk to them about it and sometimes make my own decisions, and sometimes find out that I now know more than they do about a given specific topic. That's because it affects me, and I don't like going around wondering when I'm going to drop dead. So don't feel like you're alone in being resisted by doctors. I've never treated my patients like that, but there are many doctors who do.

 Hi, I don't know if Sharon will see your letter but I did and I thank you for  all the information.  I had a stent put in fortunately not due to a heart attack and they put me on Brilinta and aspirin and of course Crestor. After six weeks I feel really bad and I am rarely sick and I believe it's the Crestor doing it....muscle pain nausea etc.  I drastically changed my diet after my stent and I'm on the B vitamins, D etc. but I am vegan now and I eat well I don't think I need cholesterol pills at this point  if they're going to make me sick. 

 I wanted to wean myself off these pills even if it was only six weeks but I really don't want this poison in my body at all but I'm still afraid to do additional damage and I've been searching online for info about going cold turkey which is not easy to find.  It was very nice finding your letter you really explained a lot of things thanks again 

Anyway, thanks for the in-depth info.

After a minor MI (which was worrying enough) I was put on Brilinta, aspirin, Bisoprol and Statin in the hospital.  I was out the next day.  After seeing side effects on my Mother of Statins and Bisoprolol there was no way I was going to take them.  I researched  (and still do to keep up to date) and totally understand the need for antiplatelet medication for a certain period (6 months on brilinta and aspirin for life).  However as I mentioned in another post here the medical fraternity are unsure of how long they should be administered for.  Everyone is biochemically very different and the one size fits all does not sit well - this is why I believe some people end up having a stroke on this medication - the dosage is too high for them.  I believe in USA you can have this medication personalised, why is this not happening here?  At present all I can repeat is do your own research, listen to your body and make sensible decision as far as you can.  You know more about your body's reactions than any doctor.  I am amazed that there is no scan follow up schedule here (NHS cuts?).  There is currently some interesting research going on re the role of vitamin K2 and its role in removing calcium from the artery wall (and blood) and ensuring it goes where it should- to the bones etc. Heart disease and osteoporosis are often seen together - two sides of the same coin you might say - check it out online and make sure you look at the studies and not the 'let me sell you something' websites

I'm totally against statins for the worried well and being given willy nilly to everyone.  

I started to take a mini aspirin in the mid 1980's when it was first written on and doctors were starting to take them. I took them right up to my AVR when I was put on warfarin after going into AF. When that was sorted I went against the cardiologist and resumed aspirin until another medical prodedure put me back into AF.

I think the irrelevence will not apply to persons who have narrowed arteries due to plaque build up. A lot of people need more and more stents fitted as time goes bye and I would want to avoid that. I have met people with 10, 12 and even 16 stents a badge some seem to wear with pride:-)

I agree. I had a heart attack (also the widowmaker artery) 4 years ago, leading to two stents, but otherwise had enjoyed an illness-free life up to that point. Since then I've been on baby aspirin, statins (10g atorvastatin daily) and a beta blocker (bisoprolol fumarate 1.25 daily). Even though the beta blocker is a comparatively low dose it is still a heavy duty drug and I've never understood why I'm taking it - I never had high blood pressure. The statin I have already halved myself to just 5g daily. Having done a lot of reading around I don't believe my slightly high cholesterol level had anything to do with my MI, but I'm OK with a small dose because of its anti-coagulatory side effect. Recently I've discovered that taking beta blockers for 4 years and counting is very dubious in terms of efficacy and I've decided to start tapering off them. Currently I've reduced my daily dose to about 1g and will chip a bit more off next week, reducing to zero over a month or so. I know that if I don't do this myself the young doctors I see every 9 months (in HK) will simply keep giving me repeat prescriptions.

The trouble is that medics follow the drug company 'researched' regime of one size fits all approach but heart disease is a hugely complex issue. It is known that some people have a naturally high blood pressure which is normal and healthy for them.  It is also known that there is a higher rate of all cause death in those with low cholesterol than those with high cholesterol.  So the main thing is that everyone advised to take these medications for whatever reason research it thoroughly and make informed decisions on what is right for them.  There is no consensus on duration for heart med duration - some taking drugs for as little as one month or as long as a year and this will be decided on your consultant dependant on his own experience with patients hopefully rather than any advise from 'research'.  If you want to inform yourself on heart disease and factors around treatment a good place to start would be dr Malcolm Kendrick an Edinburgh GP who has made this a personal speciality- enlightening and balanced.