Is There Too Much Screening for Heart Disease?
The number of these tests has increased significantly over the last 20 to 30 years, and these days screening may involve any of a dozen procedures — some as simple as taking a patient’s blood pressure, some as complicated as CT angiography, an expensive, controversial test that may carry health risks.
But as important as screening is, excessive and inappropriate testing can lead to “a cascade of unnecessary, costly and in some cases risky follow-up tests and treatment,” said Dr. John Santa, director of the health ratings center at Consumer Reports Health.
Full article and tips on heart disease screening.
The answer to your question is: probably yes. But then there is problably too much of everything else in medicine as well.
According to the AHA cardiovascular diseases accounted for 1 of every 2.9 deaths in the US (2006).CT angiography is accurate in detecting blockages of greater than 50 percent, with a sensitivity of 85 percent and a specificity of 90 percent. This means this test is slightly better at ruling out blockages compared to ruling in or diagnosis. It’s expensive, but so are the alternatives.
It is almost amusing how the various recommendations for preventive medicine often contradict each other. As with all preventative medicine, the goal is to only screen those people who actually have the disease and not waste money screening those that don’t! Of course, that is an impossible standard to meet.
An article a few days ago claimed one-quarter of colonoscopies performed on Medicare enrollees are not within guidelines.
I’m guessing the American Heart Association would say there can never be enough heart disease screening.