logo
Heart attacks aren't as fatal as they used to be

Heart attacks aren't as fatal as they used to be

Voxa day ago
is a senior editorial director at Vox overseeing the climate teams and the Unexplainable and The Gray Area podcasts. He is also the editor of Vox's Future Perfect section and writes the Good News newsletter. He worked at Time magazine for 15 years as a foreign correspondent in Asia, a climate writer, and an international editor, and he wrote a book on existential risk.
A day before my 47th birthday last month, I took the subway to Manhattan's Upper East Side for a coronary artery calcium scan (CAC).
For those who haven't entered the valley of middle age, a CAC is a specialized CT scan that looks for calcium deposits in the heart and its arteries. Unlike in your bones, having calcium in your coronary arteries is a bad thing, because it indicates the buildup of plaque comprised of cholesterol, fat, and other lovely things. The higher the calcium score, the more plaque that has built up — and with it, the higher the risk of heart disease and even heart attacks.
A couple of hours after the test, I received a ping on my phone. My CAC score was 7, which indicated the presence of a small amount of calcified plaque, which translates to a 'low but non-zero cardiovascular risk.' Put another way, according to one calculator, it means an approximately 2.1 percent chance of a major adverse cardiovascular event over the next 10 years.
2.1 percent doesn't sound high — it's a little higher than the chance of pulling an ace of spades from a card deck — but when it comes to major adverse cardiovascular events, 2.1 percent is approximately 100 percent higher than I'd like. That's how I found myself joining the tens of millions of Americans who are currently on statin drugs, which lower levels of LDL cholesterol (aka the 'bad' cholesterol).
I didn't really want to celebrate my birthday with a numerical reminder of my creeping mortality. But everything about my experience — from the high-tech calcium scan to my doctor's aggressive statin prescription — explains how the US has made amazing progress against one of our biggest health risks: heart disease, and especially, heart attacks.
A dramatic drop in heart attack deaths
A heart attack — which usually occurs when atherosclerotic plaque partially or fully blocks the flow of blood to the heart — used to be close to a death sentence. In 1963, the death rate from coronary heart disease, which includes heart attacks, peaked in the US, with 290 deaths per 100,000 population. As late as 1970, a man over 65 who was hospitalized with a heart attack had only a 60 percent chance of ever leaving that hospital alive.
A sudden cardiac death is the disease equivalent of homicide or a car crash death. It meant someone's father or husband, wife or mother, was suddenly ripped away without warning. Heart attacks were terrifying.
Yet today, that risk is much less. According to a recent study in the Journal of the American Heart Association, the proportion of all deaths attributable to heart attacks plummeted by nearly 90 percent between 1970 and 2022. Over the same period, heart disease as a cause of all adult deaths in the US fell from 41 percent to 24 percent. Today, if a man over 65 is hospitalized with a heart attack, he has a 90 percent chance of leaving the hospital alive.
By my calculations, the improvements in preventing and treating heart attacks between 1970 and 2022 have likely saved tens of millions of lives. So how did we get here?
How to save a life
In 1964, the year after the coronary heart disease death rate peaked, the US surgeon general released a landmark report on the risks of smoking. It marked the start of a decades-long public health campaign against one of the biggest contributing factors to cardiovascular disease.
That campaign has been incredibly successful. In 1970, an estimated 40 percent of Americans smoked. By 2019, that percentage had fallen to 14 percent, and it keeps declining.
The reduction in smoking has helped lower the number of Americans at risk of a heart attack. So did the development and spread in the 1980s of statins like I'm on now, which make it far easier to manage cholesterol and prevent heart disease. By one estimate, statins save nearly 2 million lives globally each year.
When heart attacks do occur, the widespread adoption of CPR and the development of portable defibrillators — which only began to become common in the late 1960s — ensured that more people survived long enough to make it to the hospital. Once there, the development of specialized coronary care units, balloon angioplasty and artery-opening stents made it easier for doctors to rescue a patient suffering an acute cardiac event.
Our changing heart health deaths
Despite this progress in stopping heart attacks, around 700,000 Americans still die of all forms of heart disease every year, equivalent to 1 in 5 deaths overall.
Some of this is the unintended result of our medical success. As more patients survive acute heart attacks and life expectancy has risen as a whole, it means more people are living long enough to become vulnerable to other, more chronic forms of heart disease, like heart failure and pulmonary-related heart conditions. While the decline in smoking has reduced a major risk factor for heart disease, Americans are in many other ways much less healthy than they were 50 years ago. The increasing prevalence of obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and sedentary behavior all raise the risk that more Americans will develop some form of potentially fatal heart disease down the line.
Here, GLP-1 inhibitors like Ozempic hold amazing potential to reduce heart disease's toll. One study found that obese or overweight patients who took a GLP-1 inhibitor for more than three years had a 20 percent lower risk of heart attack, stroke, or death due to cardiovascular disease. Statins have saved millions of lives, yet tens of millions more Americans could likely benefit from taking the cholesterol-lowering drugs, especially women, minorities, and people in rural areas.
Lastly, far more Americans could benefit from the kind of advanced screening I received. Only about 1.5 million Americans received a CAC test in 2017, but clinical guidelines indicate that more than 30 million people could benefit from such scans.
Just as it is with cancer, getting ahead of heart disease is the best way to stay healthy. It's an astounding accomplishment to have reduced deaths from heart attacks by 90 percent over the past 50-plus years. But even better would be preventing more of us from ever getting to the cardiac brink at all.
A version of this story originally appeared in the Good News newsletter. Sign up here!
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Most Americans think Medicare covers long-term care. Are they right?
Most Americans think Medicare covers long-term care. Are they right?

USA Today

time2 hours ago

  • USA Today

Most Americans think Medicare covers long-term care. Are they right?

Most Americans think Medicare covers long-term care, the regimen of daily help that many seniors will eventually require. It does not. That basic misunderstanding has retirement experts worried. It suggests millions of Americans may have no plan to cover the high costs of aging. Long-term care is a range of services for people who need help with everyday activities, such as bathing, dressing or eating. More than 80% of us will need that help at some point, according to a recent study from the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. Americans are badly misinformed about the basics of long-term care, a point driven home in numerous surveys and studies. One of the latest, released in June by Nationwide, found that 58% of U.S. adults wrongly believe Medicare covers long-term care. 'Seventy percent of the people who reach 65 are going to need long-term care,' said Holly Snyder, president of Nationwide Life Insurance. 'And if you get there, people seem to think there are public safety nets that will take care of you.' Long-term care costs can be staggering Many seniors need long-term care for years. Costs can be staggering. The average assisted living facility charges $5,350 a month, according to T. Rowe Price. A typical nursing home charges $9,733. Those prices should alarm older Americans. The problem, according to Snyder and others, is that many people assume Medicare will cover them. 'People just don't distinguish between long-term care and health care,' said Gal Wettstein, a senior research economist at Boston College. Some confusion is natural. Medicare, the federal health insurance program for seniors, does cover some short stays in nursing homes. But Medicare generally does not cover longer stays. The reason: Most long-term care is not considered medical care. 'Someone to make sure Mom eats her food, takes her medicine and, when she wakes up, she doesn't walk out the door: That's custodial care,' said Patrick Simasko, an elder law attorney in Michigan. And here's where things get really confusing: While Medicare doesn't cover most long-term care, Medicaid does. Medicaid, the government health insurance program for Americans of limited means, generally covers long-term care for seniors who spend down their assets. In fact, Medicaid is the nation's largest payer of long-term care. Many Americans 'confuse Medicare and Medicaid,' Simasko said. Why don't more Americans have long-term care insurance? The pervasive belief that Medicare covers long-term care may also help explain why so few Americans own long-term care insurance. Long-term care insurance does just what the name implies: It covers costs of long-term care. Yet, by one industry estimate, only about 4% of older Americans hold policies. Why do so few Americans purchase long-term care insurance? 'Because so many people think Medicare covers it,' Wettstein said. 'They don't want to buy a product that they think they already have.' The notion that Medicare covers long-term care is one of several prevalent misconceptions about the costs of aging. In the Nationwide survey, 41% of respondents said they doubt they will live long enough to use long-term care insurance. In fact, most seniors will eventually need it. The Nationwide survey reached 1,324 adults, ages 29 and up, with household incomes of at least $75,000. Another survey, fielded in 2024 by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), found that only four in 10 workers believed they would need long-term care. In that survey, employees also vastly underestimated the costs of long-term care, with most believing the tab would not exceed $50,000. 'There's been so much focus on saving for retirement, accumulation, but there's not much talk about addressing the risks associated with aging,' said Bridget Bearden, research and development strategist at EBRI. Americans underestimate long-term care as a retirement risk Many older Americans underestimate long-term care as a retirement risk. In one 2024 survey of affluent older Americans, Boston College researchers found, long-term care ranked fifth among financial worries in retirement, behind stock market turbulence, Social Security cuts and other concerns. Many Americans don't grasp the implications of tapping Medicaid to cover long-term care, Wettstein said. To qualify for the benefit, as a rule, you must spend all of your money. 'It's an insurance product that has 'everything you own' as a deductible,' Wettstein said. 'You have to spend everything you own in order to use it.' Medicaid requirements yield a long-term care industry of haves and have-nots, according to Wettstein and others. Only affluent Americans can easily afford long-term care costs out of pocket. And only impoverished Americans get it for free. 'When you get old, you'd better have a lot of money, or you'd better be broke,' Simasko said. 'It's those in-between people who are having a hard time.' If this report has you worried about long-term care, here are a few expert tips. Consider long-term care insurance Many Americans consider long-term care insurance prohibitively expensive, Snyder said. In fact, long-term care policies come in many varieties. Costs rise and fall dramatically according to the dollar amount of the benefit, the length of care covered, and other variables. A typical policy, providing a $165,000 benefit for a single adult of 55, might cost $950 a year for a man, $1,500 for a woman, the National Council on Aging reports. One big drawback to many traditional long-term care policies: You collect no money if you get no care. But the industry is evolving. Under various 'hybrid' policies, if you don't exhaust the long-term care benefits, they go to your beneficiaries when you die. Shop around for long-term care Long-term care costs vary widely depending on where you live. Assisted living costs average $8,093 a month in Albany, N.Y., but only $4,600 in Boulder, Colorado, according to the National Council on Aging. If you live in a high-cost city, look at prices in the suburbs, or in the next county. Consult a cost-of-care calculator. You could buy yourself more years of care. 'Find the best place for the best price,' Simasko said. Meet with a retirement planner Financial planners are trained to help people budget for all the potential costs of retirement, including long-term care. A retirement planner can help you unpack the complexities of long-term care and craft a plan to pay for it. 'It really is about talking to your financial professional,' Snyder said.

Fall Asleep In Five Minutes Or Less With These 8 Surprising Strategies
Fall Asleep In Five Minutes Or Less With These 8 Surprising Strategies

Forbes

time14 hours ago

  • Forbes

Fall Asleep In Five Minutes Or Less With These 8 Surprising Strategies

If you have trouble falling asleep, learn eight tips that experts say can help you to fall asleep in ... More five minutes or less. Sleep is one of those things we often take for granted. Yet it's the foundation for our mental and physical health, job performance and career success. Odds are you're part of the whopping 52% of Americans who say work stress interferes with sleep. If you're having trouble falling asleep or not getting enough, that can spell trouble. Sleep experts suggest eight strategies to fall asleep in five minutes or less when your mind is wide awake but your body has called it quits. 8 Strategies To Fall Asleep In Five Minutes Studies show that if you don't get enough sleep, you're at greater risk of heart attack or stroke, and your risk of death from heart disease more than doubles. Lack of sleep is linked to depression, impaired immune system function, weight gain, hypertension and Type 2 diabetes. Sleep deprivation makes you grumpy and more likely to nod off at your desk. Sleep experts advocate midday power naps at work to reset your brain and recharge your batteries for the remainder of the day. Research shows that a good night's sleep supports brain health, clearing away the plaques--one of the six factors that can prevent cognitive decline. If your mind is still wide awake long after your body has called it quits, Rosie Osmun, certified sleep science coach at Amerisleep, reveals eight unexpected strategies you can use before you hit the hay to catch more z's, claiming some work in less than five minutes. "Breathing patterns play a significant role in our autonomic nervous system," Osmun says, recommending the 4-7-8 breathing method as a highly effective technique: "Place the tip of your tongue against the ridge behind your upper teeth, exhale completely, then inhale through your nose for four counts. Hold your breath for seven counts, and exhale slowly through your mouth for eight counts," she explained. Osmun notes that this method can calm the nervous system in just a few cycles, making it ideal for those looking to fall asleep quickly. Complete darkness is essential for triggering your body's natural sleep response, according to Osmun. "Our ancestors slept in completely dark environments, and our bodies still respond best to these conditions." She recommends removing all sources of light from the bedroom, including electronic devices that emit blue light. "Even small amounts of light from phones or alarm clocks can disrupt melatonin production and make falling asleep much harder," Osmun added. Osmun points to research showing that cooler temperatures significantly improve sleep quality and reduce the time it takes to fall asleep. 'Setting your bedroom temperature between 60-67 degrees Fahrenheit creates ideal conditions for sleep.' She explains that body temperature naturally drops as part of the sleep cycle, and a cooler room helps facilitate this process. 'Taking a warm bath about 30 minutes before bed can amplify this effect, as your body temperature will drop more dramatically afterward.' One surprising technique involves doing the opposite of trying to fall asleep. "When you try too hard to sleep, it often backfires," Osmun points out. 'Instead, try to stay awake with your eyes open while lying comfortably in bed.' She explains that this reduces sleep anxiety and performance pressure that many insomniacs experience. "By removing the pressure to fall asleep, many people find they drift off much faster," she adds. For those whose minds race at bedtime, Osmun recommends purposeful visualization. "Instead of worrying about tomorrow's meetings or replaying today's events, visualize yourself in a peaceful setting like a beach or forest." She adds this technique breaks the cycle of rumination that keeps many people awake. "The key is to focus on sensory details in your imagined scene—the sounds, smells and feelings—to fully engage your mind." Osmun refers to research that consuming simple carbohydrates four hours before bedtime can improve sleep quality. "White rice appears particularly effective at promoting faster sleep onset." But she cautions against eating too close to bedtime when digestive discomfort can counteract any potential sleep benefits. Finding the proper mattress firmness for your specific sleep position can dramatically reduce the time it takes to fall asleep, according to Osmun. "Side sleepers typically need a softer surface to relieve pressure points, while back and stomach sleepers benefit from firmer support." The sleep expert emphasized that becoming fixated on falling asleep quickly often backfires. "The average person needs 15-20 minutes to fall asleep naturally," Osmun says. 'Watching the clock and worrying about not falling asleep fast enough creates a cycle of anxiety that keeps you awake.' She recommends removing timepieces from view and accepting that the process takes time. A Final Wrap On Strategies To Fall Asleep In Five Minutes Sleep deprivation affects millions of Americans, with approximately 70 million people suffering from chronic sleep problems according to health authorities. Consistent sleep habits are the foundation for falling asleep quickly. Going to bed at the same time and getting up at the same time keeps your body regulated and make sit easier to fall asleep. Many sleep experts like brain scientist, Jill Bolte Taylor, recommend sleeping until your brain wants to get up. Taylor told me that if you're not sleeping until your brain wakes you up, then you're not getting enough sleep. 'One of the worst things we can do is have an alarm,' Taylor insists. "A typical sleep cycle runs between 90 and 110 minutes, so if you're forcing yourself to get up in the middle of a cycle, then you just blew a whole cycle of rejuvenation for your brain. Sleep is about rejuvenating the brain." Taylor describes how brain cells are constantly working. They eat and create waste, and sleep is the optimal time for the waste to be cleared out between the cells so they can actually function. 'I compare it to when the garbage collectors go on strike, we know how congested the streets become,' she states. Each night before bedtime, take a chill pill (such as meditation, listening to soft music or reading an inspirational book) instead of a sleeping pill to relax your mind. As you put your mind at ease, your sleep—in the words of William Shakespeare—will mend your raveled sleeve, helping you fall asleep in five minutes.

Beshear on potential White House bid: ‘I'll think about it after next year'
Beshear on potential White House bid: ‘I'll think about it after next year'

The Hill

time15 hours ago

  • The Hill

Beshear on potential White House bid: ‘I'll think about it after next year'

Gov. Andy Beshear (D-Ky.) said he'll consider a 2028 White House bid in an article published Friday while seething over the 'big, beautiful bill' backed by Republicans in Congress. 'Two years ago, I wouldn't have considered [running for president]. But if I'm somebody who could maybe heal and bring the country back together, I'll think about it after next year,' Beshear told Vanity Fair. The Kentucky governor's term ends in 2027 and he's pledged to complete his tenure in office before launching another political bid for a higher office. Fellow party members Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-Pa.) have also been listed as potential contenders for the presidency as Democrats look to claw back the executive branch after their November loss. Political pundits have suggested the GOP-authored spending package will have a significant impact on midterm elections and cycles that follow as Americans grapple with the possibility of losing their healthcare coverage, a top issue for Beshear. 'What the Republican majority is getting wrong is that the American people don't view health care in a partisan way. They want to be able to see their doctor when they need to, and they want their neighbor to be able to see their doctor,' Beshear, Kentucky's former attorney general, said in the interview. 'No state will be able to compensate for the level of devastation that this bill would cause. What they're doing is immoral, and it's certainly not Christian,' he added. The legislation is set to remove millions from Medicaid and introduce stricter work requirements for food stamp benefits and other social services. However, Beshear said in order to break through on the cuts, Democrats will need to help voters conceptualize the ongoing impact of the bill. 'If Democrats say this bill is going to increase food insecurity, their point's not going to get through. If they say people are going to go hungry, it will,' he said. 'And we have to explain not just what we disagree with in this bill, but why. And my why is my faith. The parable of the fishes and the loaves is in every book of the gospel. My faith teaches me that in a country that grows enough food for everyone that no one should starve.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store