Dr failed to recommend cholesterol Drug

[kelly1258]

I have a question.  My husband 44 was seeing an Doctor.  He had his blood drawn 6 times in 1 1/2 years.  His cholesterol was 306-264 each time.  My husband was concerned and asked about 3 times if he should go on meds.  His answer was it is due to family history and never recommended anything.  Before my husband started seeing the doctor he had an angiogram and had no plaque.  Two years later he ends up having 2 blocked arteries one 95% and a stent put in.  I think it was the doctors resonsiblity to tell my husband to go on meds .  He was of perfect weight and eats healthy and excecises.  To go from no plaque to 95% block makes sense since he was never told to go on drugs.  WHat do you think.  I believe the doctor should be held resposible.

[ed34]

If he has hypercholesterolemia, then diet alone will not reduce his cholesterol nearly enough and he will require medication. Having been diagnosed with this condition, my cholesterol has to be attacked from both angles. Statins to cut down production by the liver, ezeterol to reduce absorption of fat by the gut.

[kelly1258]

His good cholesteral was low and his bad cholesteral was high.

[Mom2four85]

My husband was put on aspirin regimen and fish oil for family history (his dad) of heart disease and high Triglycerides.  His dr also did blood testing, genetic testing for something [can't remember what] and sent him for a cornorary artery calcium scoring test to rule out all possiblites.

Just my opinion, but your husband's doctor should be held responsible if he failed to do anything about your husband, he should have at least explored the possiblities of possible meds when your husband asked or sent him for further testing.

Failure to diagnose & treat is a hard thing to prove though - make sure you do not discuss this with anyone if you're thinking of taking legal action until you talk to an attny.

On the other hand, I had no history of heart disease in my family and great scores for all my bloodtests; except low sodium and I developed malignant heart ryhthms and had to have surgery to correct them - which should have been caught at a drs appt and wasn't due to the dr overlooking my ekg.

Sometimes drs miss things, overlook things or are so busy; they just make mistakes.  There was an article on MSN about this kind of thing and why drs don't admit to mistakes or say they're sorry to patients = liablility and malpractice insurance issues.

There are many competant doctors out there, not meaning your husband's doctor isn't but I would find a doctor who really listens and pays attention to your indiviual needs instead of treating you/him like every other patient....my pcp saved my life by being this kind of dr.

[mammo]

ed34 brought up another good point, aspirin regimen. With a family history of heart disease, I feel he should have been on some kind of treatment.  Always seek a second opinion when in doubt, don't wait to see if you had reason to question it, even if it only gives you peace of mind.

[Flycaster305]

I'm not a health professional, but from someone who has had high cholesterol and a familial connection to Cardiac Artery Disease, I'd either get a second opinion or demand from your present doctor to try a drug like Vytorin to reduce the cholesterol level, and I'd do so pronto.  I'd forget about the culpability and concentrate on the solution to the problem for now.  I agree that it takes a while for cholesterol  to build but it takes a New York Minute for it to erupt and blood clots to form, leading to a blockage.  Keep us informed.

[ed34]

You say that the angiogram two years prior to stenting showed no plaque. Could it be that there was plaque but not enough to require treatment and there was a misunderstanding? or the Cardiologist simplified things to give your husband less worry?
Generally if there are no blockages 70% or above, Cardiologist see the arteries as clear.

With regards to meds, I think that you are correct to assume your husband should be on some kind of medication. You have a two year history to prove this and something needs to be done to slow the disease down, doing nothing is negligent in my opinion.
As Jon states, statins are not for everyone but a simple liver test can be done to ensure things will be ok. He should be on Aspirin also to reduce the possibility of heart attacks and strokes. If your Doctor doesn't listen to your concerns then I would seek a second opinion.

[erijon]

One other thought, do you know the make up of his cholesterol? If his LDL was low (below 130) and his Tri's and HDL were high, there may not have been a reason to go on meds, especially a statin.

Jon

[erijon]

Before you go after the doctor, you should ask some questions as statins are not for everyone. There are some underlying conditions that would make it just as negligent to prescribe a statin. On the surface, I can't imagine why meds were not prescribed but I think you need to assume there was a reason. Also, some will still get plaque build ups while on a statin, everyone is different. Have you asked the doctor recently?

Good luck,

Jon

[mammo]

I totally agree, but heredity also plays a role, and I learned the hard way that the doctors will all cover for each other.  It takes time for plaque to build especially in someone who eats healthy and exercisies.  But to have high cholesterol and not receive treatment such as a statin regimen is negligent.  But I also think I would question his angiogram showing no plaque, only to present with such severe blockages now.  I would get copies of all his records and get a second opinion.