Contents

Talk:Myocardial infarction

	Myocardial infarction is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 9, 2007 Peer review Reviewed March 20, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Template:FAOL Template:WP1.0 Medicine: Cardiology B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Cardiology task force (assessed as Top-importance). This article was a past Medicine Collaboration of the Week.

To-do list for Myocardial infarction: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2010-10-06 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Sort out information that belongs elsewhere (under acute coronary syndrome, for example) to off-load the article. Be sure to leave stub explanations that create sufficient content for the readers who want to know exclusively about this topic. Cleanup : Remove sources that fail WP:MEDRS Stubs :So Other : Please improve this "to do"-box.

This is quite a good article. I think if the remaining long section (on Management) is split off to Myocardial infarction management via WP:Summary style then the article should be submitted at WP:GAN. Johnfos (talk) 02:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't put my name to it for GAN at the moment. See my laundry list in the previous post. JFW | T@lk 09:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent article but I would make just one criticism, relating to the terminology. The point I wish to make is that myocardial infarction is not a heart attack. Myocardial infarction is the result of a heart attack, but is not the heart attack itself. A heart attack is acute myocardial ischaemia, which leads rapidly to the well-known symptoms. The ischaemia then in turn results in infarction. I would suggest editing the article to address this point.Snookerrobot (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heart attack is lay terminology with less than precise meaning rather than a true medical term. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is not reasonable to attempt to isolate the term "Heart Attack" to myocardial ischaemia. This is certinaly lay terminology which is perhaps more commonly applied to AMI than it is ischaemic cardiac events. Remember, that pain experienced by ischaemia is infact angina pectoris and not MI (Martfin 2007). This would then mean tha the lay terminology "heart attack" is not refering to MI which is what most lay persons would assume.^[1]

I believe there should be some mention in the article about the lack of an evolved cognisance of a heart attack. It would be impossible for a "sense" of a heart attack to evolve because that sense would not influence the survival of the carrier. Imagine a mutant individual who was aware they were experiencing a myocardial infarction. This individual would not benefit from this information because he cannot influence the odds of his own survival by averting the heart attack in some way. Such a sensor in the body would not get itself propagated into subsequent generations because the carrier of the sensor would not live longer or leave more children just because he can sense heart attacks. Any sensations that we can attribute to a heart attack is purely incidental to the side effects, such as numbness in the fingers due to the lack of blood flow.

This addition would be useful because #1) it raises awareness of the importance of evolutionary considerations in medicine #2) it is a truthful statement about the nature of our awareness of our heart and the nervous system that has evolved between our heart and brain #3) it fights the implication that we have nerves connected to our heart so that we can "feel" our heart. if this were true why then don't we have nerves to every other organ so we can be aware of their malfunctioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.77.95.90 (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the contents of this article, I'm curious why there is no section titled "Treatment". To me "treatment" is "short-term" and "management" is "longer-term". But those are only my perceptions.

From a medical POV, what is the distinction between "treatment" and "management"? Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Classical symptoms of acute myocardial infarction include sudden chest pain (typically radiating to the left arm or left side of the neck), shortness of breath, nausea, vomiting, palpitations, sweating, and anxiety (often described as a sense of impending doom)." This is a terrible sentence. It justs lists a set of things that are in so many conditions -- like, almost all of them -- so as to be useless. If anyone knows the more dramatic, more obvous symptoms of this (nail or mouth color change for instance) they would be far more useful. Currently, its the type of sentence that terrifies already paniced people, so I think we should make absolutely clear the most dangerous signs, not all of them. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]