User talk:Ksheka

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Previous content is visible in archive 1. Ksheka 15:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Contents 1 Citing 2 You're back 3 Histopathology-india.net 4 Barnstar 5 myocardial infarction 6 Bisoprolol in MI 7 Image:Intracoronary thrombus.png 8 From MoodyGroove 9 Beware 10 Arrhythmia Alliance 11 Chagovetc et al 12 First ...transvenous 13 Myocardial infarction 14 Staging

[edit] Citing

If one uses a "ref name" that identifies the reference itself, rather than trying to specify its numerical number in the article, then it is much easier to duplicate references. The < reference / > markup at the end generates the reference numbers for one automatcally. For example see the talk page of your example (use Edit to view its mark-up): User talk:Ksheba/Staging where I try to show how your example can be reworked.

I quite agree < ref... > makes viewing the page in edit mode somewhat clumsy, but it is so useful at removing the need to get references or duplicated-references into order, that I am being won over. In particular with an article with a large number of existing references, adding a new one only requires adding the details in the main text where one is adding information - the whole of the rest of the article & its references takes care of itself (eg see this edit for acne where a reference perviously had no mark-up at all). David Ruben ^Talk 12:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You're back

Karthik, please stick around. Your hard work from the past has led to some great articles, and we still need you. I was hoping we'd have your presence at WP:MCOTW. JFW | T@lk 16:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I really want to be back. :-) I just get frustrated at times by the wiki process (People making cosmetic changes to pages without adding real content. I understand the need for editors. I'm talking about those that just seem to want to increase the number of edits under their belts.), and hanging on the website just as I'm in the middle of an edit session. I am also hampered a bit my the crude way references are being handled on the wiki pages. But that seems to be being addressed, at least. I have a lot on my plate at work and home (a pretty busy job, a new house, and a 2 1/2 year old daughter all vieing for time). Maybe I'll eventually submit more. At the very least, I always keep interesting tracings around, ready to scan and add to various pages. Ksheka 12:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Good to see you've agreed to share your contrast media expertise with us! Welcome back. JFW | T@lk 19:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Histopathology-india.net

OK, I've put the link back in the cardiology article - I thought just reverting my own edit was the easiest way to go about it. I was a bit worried about histopathology-india.net because it claims to be written by just one author, and I can't believe a single person could write so much. Also it doesn't seem to be aligned to a university or other medical institution like most other medical links on wikipedia. Having said that, feel free to put any links back that you need. I've said some more about the site at wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. Graham87 13:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

See this message sent to my talk page. ~Should I follow the instructions completely or doesn't it matter? Graham87 01:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

It's about time someone awarded you a barnstar.

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Ksheka, for numerous medical articles. Axl 18:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Ksheka 01:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] myocardial infarction

Hello Ksheka,

I'm thrilled to see someone of your competence has taken an interest in this article -someone with the experience to out: "How can we have an article on MI without mentioning ISIS-2? ;-)" However, I think the sentence you added isn't really proven by the paper: it says nothing about nitrates for example. Also, the study is with months of enteric coated aspirin, whereas you've put it into the first line-section. Are my remarks just plain stupid or am I making sense here?

Anyway, thanks, also for the many other articles you've improved so much, and hope to work together to further improve the article!

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

ISIS-2 is one of the pivotal MI trials for one reason alone: It showed that when given promptly, aspirin is as good as thrombolytic therapy. Not bad for a drug that costs $5 per year. :-)

As for the line I added about no other first line therapy proven to have mortality benefit, I stand by it. I'll fill in a few references, though. The definitive paper about myocardial infarctions is the ACC guidelines (which I happen to have read cover-to-cover a couple months ago). According to the guidelines (page e89 in the pdf version), nitroglycerine is a class I indication for persistent ischemia, chf, and hypertension in the first 48 hours post-MI, with the caveat that it shouldn't interfere with beta blockers or ACE inhibitors. This is level of evidence B (Derived from a single randomized trial or from non-randomized studies). Not exactly the best form of proof. Morphine is the only indicated medication for pain relief (with level of evidence C), by the way. :-) Ksheka 21:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

As for ISIS-2 using 1 month of ASA while I mentioned it in the first line agents portion, the trial randomized people within 24 hours of presentation (median 5 hours), meaning it was started early. Also, the trial showed such a clear benefit that no one will ever do another trial comparing placebo to ASA for first line therapy. ASA is now considered the standard of care. Ksheka 21:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied here. I really think we're improving it massively, btw, and I enjoy working together.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It's nice to work on this article when there are other eyes on it as well. I was thinking about other first line agents not impacting on mortality. My statement still holds true. The problem is, it's hard to prove since it's hard to prove a negative. It's just one of the things they mention during fellowship training. Ksheka 17:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If you look closely, I'll hope you agree that I only removed things from the reperfusion section that were already mentioned elsewhere. I think a better strategy than writing first and splitting into new articles later, is just write stubs in the individual sections now, with the essentials, and expand on those in new articles later -but that's just my opinion.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I was surprised that you said you're going to "leave the article again for a while, until edits settle down.". Are the numerous edits a problem? If I did anything wrong or something, please say, if my edits are driving you away I would feel really uncomfortable, and I'd change my attitude if that's what's keeping you away.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I just read User_talk:Jfdwolff#Myocardial_infarction; if I have offended you in any way, I'd like to apologise. I know it can be frustrating for experts to collaborate on a wiki. Also, I was just trying to prevent comments about article length when this would ever reach FA-status (which should be the case). Again sorry, I'm really open to suggestions if I contributed to your frustrations.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I can live with that! I'll refrain from shortening sections you write, thus somewhat destroying work that could be incorporated in new articles, again sorry for that. Maybe we can start a "therapies for MI" article right now? Take a wikibreak if you need one, but as a matter of fact I'm gonna be gone soon myself cause of exams... so, hope no hard feelings, 'cause that article really needs your great contributions!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Eyes open on the MI page, Pinochet puts us on the mainpage...--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay. To avoid confusion, I wont edit anything on the page until it gets off the main page. By the way, I took a picture of some thrombus I removed from a coronary artery on Friday. I should get the digital image in a couple days. :-) Ksheka 21:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bisoprolol in MI

Evidence or not, here in the UK bisoprolol is somehow much more popular than carvedilol. I'm really not quite sure on what grounds, but it's nice & easy to dose... JFW | T@lk 15:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I found a reference: [1]. Ksheka 20:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Intracoronary thrombus.png

Impressive! -- Samir धर्म 01:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Boy, you're fast. I thought the image was still being uploaded. :-) Ksheka 01:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From MoodyGroove

I made some major changes to the Tachycardia article. Please review and share your thoughts. There's a lot of work left to be done. It also wouldn't hurt my feelings if you'd weigh in on the risk stratification discussion on the myocardial infarction talk page. Best, MoodyGroove 16:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)MoodyGroove

[edit] Beware

Hey Karthik, just dropping a note to inform you that Eddievos (talk • contribs) has decided that cholesterol is not bad for arteries. I've left a gentle note on his talkpage. JFW | T@lk 16:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Funny. I actually saw that edit on Coronary heart disease and wasn't sure if it was vandalism or just an alternative view point. I knew a dermatologist (that was into alternative medicine) that was convinced that smoking was not associated with CAD. I really should get to merging Coronary heart disease and Ischaemic heart disease at some point... Ksheka 16:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

He's one of Ravnskov's lot and has a habit of reinterpreting study results without having seen (or contributed to) the original data. He propagates anti-homocysteine stuff on his website. JFW | T@lk 19:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arrhythmia Alliance

Hello,

I'm writing to you from the Arrhythmia Alliance. You appear to have removed us from several arrhythmia related articles on the grounds that you consider us to be a small support group. This is not the case and we are actually larger than some of the groups left on the page.

The Arrhythmia Alliance is a coalition of individuals, patient groups, professional medical groups and industry allies. These groups work together under the Arrhythmia Alliance umbrella to promote timely and effective diagnosis and treatment of arrhythmias. We have over 420,000 members. Our president is Cardiologist and Electrophysiologist, Professor A. John Camm.

Amongst our members are several large companies that you may have heard of, as well as numerous patient groups, medical professional groups and carers groups. Though we may not be large in The United States of America (yet), I do not believe that this warrants the systematic removal of our organisation from the pages of Wikipedia.

Arrhythmia Alliance

"Due to the rising profile of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote links. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interests guidelines." Source: WP:EL MoodyGroove 23:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

[edit] Chagovetc et al

Hi,

I'd like to follow up on your edit re Chagovetc et al in artificial pacemaker history. Canot find any reference on-line. Could you tell me more about the source of the info please so that I might be able to put-in a citation. RegardsGeoffrey Wickham 04:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that was me? I haven't touched that article (except for punctuation) in quite some time. Ksheka 11:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Apologies Ksheka, I didn't go back far enough in the history. The reference to Chagovetc has been there for a long time with the fact tag. No user has come forward with a citation while in my long experience with pacing have not encountered the name -- there are no references on-line so I shall delete it. Kind regards Geoffrey Wickham 05:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First ...transvenous

Hello Ksheka, I'm trying to put more substance into the "History" on the article page and note that in Talk [Timeline]12.23 6 April 2004 you wrote " 1959/May/19 First long term transvenous pacing wire used.....". As the introduction of transvenous or pervenous pacing was a most important step forward the fact should be recorded in the article's 'history' section. Could you kindly give me some information as to the source of your knowledge so that I might try to follow-up with an edit and reference. I recall that the first commercial availability of transvenous electrodes in Australia was from Elema-Schonander in early 1965. Kind regards Geoffrey Wickham 02:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It took a little digging, but this is where I got it. Ksheka 12:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

(NASPE was renamed to the Heart Rhythm Society a year or two ago and (I guess) they decided not to bother keeping up the old website.)Ksheka 13:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks Geoffrey Wickham 21:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Myocardial infarction

Hi! Myocardial infarction, to which you contributed a lot, is now a featured article candidate! Cheers, WS 21:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Staging

On your User:Ksheka/Staging you note that Sones' patient did not have VF after injection of contrast into the coronary. This is countered by a report by Connolly (PMID 11995842) who reports an oral report from Shirey that the patient briefly arrested. JFW | T@lk 20:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Tell you the truth, what you said also goes along with what I was told. (The way I had heard it is that Dr. Sones' next words were something along the lines of "I just killed him".) But at least you have a reference for it. At some point I would like to write up a bit of the history of coronary angiography and PCI. Not only is it amazing, but it puts the things that are in the news now in perspective. (Imagine having to call the operating room and letting them know that you were about to start a PCI, and to keep the room "hot" in case of complications.) Ksheka 21:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)