Talk:Cardiovascular disease

This

This article was referred to me as part of the Cleanup Taskforce. I think it may need to be reorganized. I am not certain the standard disorder "template" works well here, since CV disease is so broad. With in-depth main articles, we don't want to duplicate much here, but it may be helpful to briefly summarize the diseases. Any input would be helpful. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cardiovascular Disease merge with Coronary heart disease

I wanted to state that cardiovascular disease encompasses coronary heart disease, but this does not imply that they should be merged. Maybe we could start a title for each disease in which CV encompasses (congentical heart disease, vasculopathy, hypertension,...) and have a small paragraph about the disease with a link to the main article below the title, similar to article about history of for countries. Any feedback on this idea would appreciated. I would like to remove the merge from this page unless any objections are posted.

Semi-protected?

Why is there a template stating that this page is semi-protected to new users? As an anon, I see the "edit this page" at the top of the article page. What is the status of this page? Thanks. 67.169.212.172 21:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Cardiovascular Disease merge with Coronary heart disease

, I agree that this should stay a separate, but relatively short page, and link to other pages which provide more detail about specific issues and areas of focus within the more global topic of cardiovascular disease.

For better understanding by the general public, it is probably better to aim for definitions of global concepts before diving into the details.

In my opinion, these should be merged. Also with ischaemic heart disease. There is redundant and complementary information in the three. It is going to be some work. Miguel Andrade 01:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Suggest that this kept as a separate article mainly for non-cardiac vascular disease, but merge CAD with IHD. Finavon 15:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge them. Sort the details out later. The categories should be merged as well. Or cardiology should be a subcategory of cardiovascular disease. I'm not sure which, and I'm a cardiologist. :-) Ksheka 00:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Ischaemic heart disease is part of (admittedly a large part of, but not 100%) of Coronary heart disease (which also includes coronary artery aneurysms, e.g. Kawasaki disease) in turn these are just a part of the wider cardiovascular disease (includes cardiac valve and aorta disorders). Whilst yes there may be overlap or some duplication, that is merely to invite a cleanup across the articles (with clarification of the differences in the terms obviously needed), but they are not the same thing (even if terms wrongly and loosely used interchangeably for atherosclerotic coronary artery disease by many doctors when talking to their patients) David Ruben ^Talk 01:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Merging would require a very long article on a wide range of related issues. My suggestion is to Clean and improve those articles as a cluster, but not treat it as a singular topic, which it isn't. 87.78.151.16 00:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but consider merging ischemic heart disease with coronary artery disease. CVD is a very big topic, and could well serve as a placeholder that splits off into the relevant subarticles. Stroke, coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease, renovascular disease, retinal artery disease, mesenteric ischaemia are all part of the huge topic. Merging with CAD/IHD is very much over the top. JFW | T@lk 19:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Focus

I'm new here, but it seems to me that this page, as it now reads, IS about IHD/CAD, to the exclusion of the remainder of cardiovascular disease. While it may be true that the term "is usually used to refer to those [diseases] related to atherosclerosis (arterial disease)," I would suggest that this is careless usage, to which this page need not subscribe. So how should the article be structured? I'd say look to the table of contents of a textbook of CV disease for a model, with the change that I would pull out all atherosclerotic vascular disease into its own section, with links in the relevant anatomic regions. Other headings might include Congenital Heart Disease, Valvular Heart Disease, Cardiomyopathies, Dysrhythmias and Conduction Abnormalities, Diseases of the Coronary Arteries, Diseases of the Pericardium, Diseases of the Aorta and Great vessels, Brachiocephalic and Cerebrovascular Disease, Other Peripheral Vascular Disease, Arteritides, Systemic Hypertension, Thrombosis and Embolic Disease, Other Venous System Disease, Diseases of the Pulmonary Vasculature, and Heart Failure and Transplantation. Some discussion of cardiovascular anatomy, physiology,diagnosis, and therapy would also be germane. Although each of these would basically be a definition with a link to its own page, I think the result would be to give the reader a better picture of the vast scope of cardiovascular disease. Moioci 06:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC) UPDATE: What I'm talking about already exists at Cardiology. I propose that Cardiovascular Disease redirect to Cardiology. Moioci 05:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Heart disease

I just wanted to make sure that all of the editors of this article were aware that there's a highly related article at heart disease. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Oral hygiene?

Is there a reason the "See also" section has several links to oral care? If not, I'm not sure it should remain... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.171.143.208 (talk) 10:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move

I propose to move this article to cardiovascular diseases: since it refers to a class of diseases, rather than a single disease, then it should be in the plural. NerdyNSK (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Vote for merging it

It's disorganized and incomplete. Other pages cover the information better. Most importantly it does not seem to get much attention, so things have crept in that are dubious at best - e.g. the low salt study which links to a press release, not a peer reviewed paper. Equally, the biomarkers section seems out of place.