English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Intervention following a heart attack or stroke is the least effective and the most expensive way to provide help to a cardiovascular disease patient. Is this true or false

2007-02-08 13:30:14 · 3 answers · asked by Martini 1 in Health Diseases & Conditions Heart Diseases

3 answers

I think that it depends on the situation. It is probably true as far as it would be more effective (both treatment and financially speaking) if the intervention could occur in a preventative manner. However, the problem would seem to be that many cardiovascular patients aren't identified as such until after the stroke or heart attack have occurred. You might be able to identify some "potential" individuals who have risk factors, but it's difficult to say whether these people would have had heart attacks or strokes without receiving preventative treatment.

2007-02-08 14:51:21 · answer #1 · answered by ambr123 5 · 0 0

True. The most effective, least expensive way to treat cardiovascular illness (and most other diseases) is through early diagnosis, risk reduction, and early interventions.

2007-02-08 14:49:03 · answer #2 · answered by Brad 4 · 0 0

No intervention and they may become incapacitated or die. Of course before the fact, prevention such as life style changes (healthy diet, exercise, no smoking etc...)would be the best and in the long run most cost effective.

2007-02-08 16:56:53 · answer #3 · answered by ? 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers