Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
ArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneous
Discussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK Scuba
DirectoryScuba Clubs

Scuba Forum / General / March 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

PFO-An open letter of thanks to George Irvine  (long)

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
divingguy - 06 Mar 2004 03:26 GMT
About right now, about 80 percent of you are saying to yourself
"What's a PFO and who is George", 10 percent are saying, "Oh, someone
else trying to kiss GI's butt", and the rest saying "This should be
interesting". Or at least that's my perception.

So why am I writing this letter? I'm writing this because it is my
impression that most of you have never heard of a PFO and what can
happen to you as a diver if you do have one. I'd like to explain by
separating this into 3 parts. 1. What is a PFO? 2. Why does it matter
to diving and 3.My experience in repairing the PFO.

What is a PFO?

A little story about how I became aware of the whole PFO issue. When I
began diving about 4 years ago, I was introduced to the DIR concepts
by my open water instructor, Brandon Schwartz  (www.scubaguys.com). I
assure you that this is not going to become a DIR rant. I am just
filling in some holes in the story. Anyway, Brandon's emails to me
included some interesting (if not colorful!) issues that George Irvine
of the WKPP said about diving in general. Some of it was way over my
head as I was just certified. Nevertheless, as a student of diving, I
found great information among the noise. One of the things I picked up
on was this thing called a PFO. George forcefully suggested that any
diver should find out if he had this PFO. I believe, in fact, that it
was required of all WKPP divers (of which he was director
www.wkpp.org). It was mentioned numerous times in his writing. I later
came to find out that it stood for Patent Foramen Ovale.

When you are a fetus in your Mother's womb, your mother's body does
the job of filtering out all of the harmful pieces of material that
float around in the blood supply. The BIG reason for the flap is so
the blood purposely bypasses the lungs because the fetus's use of the
mother's oxygenated blood is how the baby (in effect ) breaths. Your
heart has a hole (actually a flap) between the left and right side
chamber so that this filtered blood can supply your (the fetus's)
brain. Immediately after birth, this flap is supposed to close. The
newborns body is now filtering the "dirty" blood. I say "supposed"
because about 30 percent of the population still has this flap or
hole. That means that of yourself and your 2 other dive buddies, odds
are that 1 of you has this PFO (okay, I'm rounding the numbers).

Why does it matter to a diver?

Remember all those things you learned about safety stops and slow
ascents? Well folks, this is where things get tricky if you have a
PFO. Let's say you've been down diving for about a half hour or 45
minutes on a pretty reef in the Caribbean. I'm taking strictly
recreational diving. After you are done with your bottom time, you
have accumulated a fair bit of nitrogen, as I'm sure you remember from
your OW class. So you're told to ascend slowly and do a 3-5 minute
safety stop to allow the nitrogen to filter out of your system via the
lungs. This nitrogen-laden blood flows thru the left chamber of your
heart. There is a wall separating the left and right chambers, and the
wall keeps the unfiltered nitrogenous blood from traveling to the
right side, which supplies your brain. The problem arises when you
have a PFO. The flap I previously spoke about is in this separating
wall and is normally kept closed by your blood pressure, but during
periods of exertion- like coughing, strenuous movement, or climbing
the ladder of a boat- this blood pressure reduces on the right side
for a brief moment and can open the flap that was supposed to close
naturally. This can allow small nitrogen bubbles to pass to the right
chamber of the heart and be fed to the brain. As you can remember from
OW class, Boyles Law takes over here. So as you ascend, those bubble
grow in size due to the reduce pressure. Large bubbles in the brain
material are not good for anyone, and can cause strokes and paralysis.
For some this means death.

My experience in repairing the PFO

You might ask-how did I find out that I had a PFO? During a routine
cardiology exam, I asked my cardiologist to check for a PFO because of
what I had read from George Irvine's writings. My cardiologist looked
at me really funny and asked how I knew what a PFO was, and why it
mattered to me. I explained to him what I had learned, and that I did
a lot of scuba diving. Then he smiled and began to speak about the
implications of the PFO in diving and other sports. He related some
stories about previous patients that were not divers, but weight
lifters. Some are paraplegics now because of PFOs. It seems that
during the lifting phase, the exertion caused the flap to open, and
it's presumed that a piece of plaque or cholesterol passed thru the
opening and into the brain. We're talking a kid in his mid-twenties.
Really sad. Getting back to my story, I asked him what it would take
to test for this anomaly, thinking there was no way that I would have
one of these things. It only happens to other people of course. He
suggested an echocardiogram with bubble study. This is a fairly benign
test. You lay down and an IV is inserted into your arm. A "wand" is
run across your chest that creates ultrasound waves. These are then
seen on a monitor by a trained technician. Dyes are injected into the
IV and the technician follows the dye into the heart. They then ask
you to cough, and try to find out whether the dye went across the
wall. Then they inject very small bubbles into your bloodstream and
repeat the coughing process. In my case, they could see a few bubbles,
but not until after they reviewed the tape later on.

I had left the next day to attend the DEMA show and get in a little
diving. Well, I spent about an hour at DEMA and dove the rest of the
time, but that is another story! During a surface interval at lunch
the next day, I received a phone call from my cardiologist and he told
me that upon review of the video, they had seen some bubble pass thru
the chamber. In other words, I had a PFO. He believed it was a small
one, but told me that I shouldn't be diving deep. In fact, he
suggested that I not dive at all unless I wanted to get it fixed. I
was a bit shocked to say the least.

So now what? I had a decision to make, and it involved a lot of
variables. How important was diving to me? What are the risks involved
with closing this flap? How do you close the flap? Is the surgery
worth the risk? I won't go thru all of the issues that confronted me,
but I decided to go ahead with the procedure. It reduced my risk of
stoke, regardless of the diving issue. Would I have done this if I
were not a diver? Probably not.

My cardiologist recommended a heart surgeon that had done numerous PFO
repairs. I wanted someone who was experienced in this. Probing
something into your heart is no simple matter. I interviewed the
doctor and chose him to repair my PFO. I entered the hospital
yesterday at 6am for a 7am surgery. A nurse shaved parts of my chest
for the EKG leads, and the upper part of my groin area where they
would insert the catheter for the procedure. An IV was started. And I
waited. And waited. Turns out there were a couple of emergencies that
they pushed in front of me, and I was finally taken into the Cath Lab
at 10:30am. I was moved onto the surgery table, and that's the last
thing I remember until I awoke in recovery. Here is what they used to
fix the problem: http://www.spencervascular.com/pfoclosure.htm Mine is
the device on the right.

For me, there was absolutely no pain involved, other than a slight
sore throat from the tubes they inserted during surgery. After you
awake and they take you to your room, you are required to lie flat on
your back for around 6-8 hours. After they remove the shunt from your
leg (around 2 hours), a heavy sandbag is placed over the insertion
area. Their biggest concern is that you don't bleed from the artery in
the groin that they used. I was allowed to get up after 8 pm that
nite. Today I feel wonderful. No pain, no soreness. Just some funny
looking shaved body parts!

Epilog

I wrote this because I believe that the PFO issue is ignored or
glossed over by the dive industry. If 30 percent of the population has
this anomaly, and the potential for serious injury or death is high in
the diving world, then it would be my conclusion that it should be
more in the forefront than it currently is. I can't speak of another
agency, but I know that most agencies do not even mention it in their
classes. One can speculate why, but it is my impression that we're
back to a numbers game. Imagine scaring 3 out of every 10 people that
come into your class? Worse yet, scaring those that don't even have
the PFO? Unless you test for it, there is no way to know you've got
it. You'd have people running from this industry. Not good for
business. My guess is that the industries response would be that there
is no proof that PFOs cause diving accidents. Not surprising, because
there is really no way to pinpoint the problem after it happens. How
many of the "heart attacks" or "undeserved" hits do we hear about
during the year? My guess is that a good portion of these is PFO
related. There are just too many of us PFO'ers within the dive
population. And ascent rates and buoyancy control are not often
highlighted in the industry. There are a lot of potential victims
amongst us.

So George, although I've never met you, and probably never will, I
want to thank you for your teachings and for your insight. I love this
sport, but I love my family much more. You have allowed me to enjoy
both of them for however long I'm supposed to be around. I may have
been okay otherwise, but I've now removed one potential obstacle.
Maybe thru this long report of mine, someone else who has not heard
about this can benefit also.

Thank you,

Jack

PS. If medical doctors would care to add to the description of the
anomaly, or to correct anything I've written, it would be most
appreciated.
Popeye NCAT3 - 06 Mar 2004 10:26 GMT
>Subject: PFO-An open letter of thanks to George Irvine  (long)
>From: divingguy@mailinator.com  (divingguy)
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>else trying to kiss GI's butt", and the rest saying "This should be
>interesting". Or at least that's my perception.

 Your perception would be grossly incorrect.

 Because we're in the know here at Rec.scuba, PFO is frequently discussed, and
has been since 1991.

 80% of us are well aware what it is (You should probably post this over at
Scubaboard and Rodale's).

 We all know who George is too, many of us have met him, several of us have
threatened him, and, yes, you are kissing his butt.

 He doesn't come here.

 Many of us know Brandon as well (I've been diving with him twice).

 He's a great guy.

 Your post is informationally excellent however, for newer members.

 OW Agencies don't mention PFO because it has little or no bearing on OW
diving.

 DIR/GUE "advocates" have a tendancy to use scare tactics with information
that they use to formulate policy.

 If "30 percent of the population has this anomaly, and the potential for
serious injury or death is high in the diving world",:

 Why don't we ever see any injuries from it?

 What are the DAN statistics on PFO hits? PFO deaths?

 Give ya a hint, -there aren't any-, which is why PADI didn't tell you about
it.

 Still, it's better to have the information than not.

 Glad you got your pump fixed, and thanks for sharing.  

>So why am I writing this letter? I'm writing this because it is my
>impression that most of you have never heard of a PFO and what can
[quoted text clipped - 165 lines]
>anomaly, or to correct anything I've written, it would be most
>appreciated.

   

                     
                                    Popeye
            "If one does as God does enough times, one
            will become as God is."  -Dr. Hannibal Lector.
mike gray - 06 Mar 2004 15:27 GMT
>   OW Agencies don't mention PFO because it has little or no bearing on OW
> diving.

Yer wrong. OW agencies don't mention PFO because GIII and GUE would sue
for trademark infringement.
Scott - 06 Mar 2004 15:33 GMT
> >   OW Agencies don't mention PFO because it has little or no bearing on OW
> > diving.

> Yer wrong. OW agencies don't mention PFO because GIII and GUE would sue
> for trademark infringement.

BONESMUGGLERS! ?
Salty - 06 Mar 2004 23:44 GMT
>  
> > >   OW Agencies don't mention PFO because it has little or no bearing on
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> BONESMUGGLERS! ®

That's a George Irvine classic. LOL
Jammer Six - 07 Mar 2004 00:21 GMT
> BONESMUGGLERS! ®

There are times when you crack me right the f.ck up, Scott.

Signature

"I know we're going to die. There's three of us who are going to do something
about it."
    -Tom Burnett, aboard United Airlines flight 93, September 11, 2001

H. Huntzinger - 06 Mar 2004 15:28 GMT
> [divingguy@mailinator.com  (divingguy) wrote]:
> >
> >About right now, about 80 percent of you are saying to yourself...

Why was it again that I listed 'divingguy@mailinator.com' as a SPAMMER
in my killfile?

Oh yeah, his 20 Oct 2003 SPAM on rec.scuba...and here he is back again,
kissing GIII's toenails.


> >"What's a PFO ...

Its that hole in your heart that you're born with, which slowly closes
as you grow up, and which never closes in some people.

On rec.scuba, we've known about it for over a decade.  

> >Why does it matter to a diver? [snip]

All true, but its risk is such that PADI and other Agencies have kept on
lowering their minimum diving age lower and lower, into the very youth
population that is known to have higher and higher incidence rates of
PFO's the younger you go.

> >I wrote this because I believe that the PFO issue is ignored or
> >glossed over by the dive industry. If 30 percent of the population has
> >this anomaly, and the potential for serious injury or death is high in
> >the diving world, then it would be my conclusion that it should be
> >more in the forefront than it currently is.

DAN isn't screaming bloody hell murder over the lowered Cert Age
changes, let alone the risk in Adults.  Why don't you go ask them why?

-hh
Kevin Metcalfe - 06 Mar 2004 17:49 GMT
> >Subject: PFO-An open letter of thanks to George Irvine  (long)

>   If "30 percent of the population has this anomaly, and the potential for
> serious injury or death is high in the diving world",:
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>   Give ya a hint, -there aren't any-, which is why PADI didn't tell you about
> it.

FYI, the latest issue of Alert Diver from DAN has an article about a
guy in North Carolina who got bent on a couple of fairly agressive,
but "recreational" profile dives.  He went to DAN and after testing
was found to have a PFO.

They also refrence article in Alert Diver from 1989 and 1995.

Kevin Metcalfe
nslckevin@yahoo.com
mike gray - 06 Mar 2004 18:22 GMT
>> >Subject: PFO-An open letter of thanks to George Irvine  (long)
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> They also refrence article in Alert Diver from 1989 and 1995.

If one in three divers have blonde hair, we would expect one in three
cases of the bends to occur in blonde divers.

If one in three divers have a PFO, we would expect one in three cases of
the bends to occur in PFO divers.

When the data show that the incidence of bends is greater than the
incidence of the condition, you can worry about it.

One guy in North Carolina getting bent is no reason to stop diving just
because you are from North Carolina.
Michael Wolf - 06 Mar 2004 23:18 GMT
>>> >Subject: PFO-An open letter of thanks to George Irvine  (long)
>>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> One guy in North Carolina getting bent is no reason to stop diving
> just because you are from North Carolina.

I posted this a month ago.

On a seminar on dive safety I got the following figures: 30% of the pop.
has a PFO, but 60-70% of divers with a DCS hit have a PFO.

The doctor who presented this figure is involved in the PFO research of DAN
Europe.

Signature

Michael Wolf
------------

Cthulhu for President! Why settle for the lesser evil?

remove stopspam to reply

mike gray - 07 Mar 2004 15:28 GMT
>> One guy in North Carolina getting bent is no reason to stop diving
>> just because you are from North Carolina.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> The doctor who presented this figure is involved in the PFO research of DAN
> Europe.

Okely dokely, now we're getting somewhere. Accepting the above as true,
the risk of DCS doubles with a PFO.

The next question (which war was fought here recently) is the incidence
of DCS. If it is, say, 0.004 then the incidence without a PFO is about
0.003, the incidence with a PFO is about 0.006

The final question is, of course, whether this should concern you.

I have no idea whether I have a PFO or not. And I still don't care.
Michael Wolf - 08 Mar 2004 21:03 GMT
>>> One guy in North Carolina getting bent is no reason to stop diving
>>> just because you are from North Carolina.
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> I have no idea whether I have a PFO or not. And I still don't care.

How big is the chance that you'll have a car accident?

Signature

Michael Wolf
------------

Cthulhu for President! Why settle for the lesser evil?

remove stopspam to reply

mike gray - 08 Mar 2004 21:28 GMT
>>>> One guy in North Carolina getting bent is no reason to stop diving
>>>> just because you are from North Carolina.
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> How big is the chance that you'll have a car accident?

For me, about 7.0

Fatal, about 0.03
Michael Wolf - 09 Mar 2004 00:41 GMT
>>>>> One guy in North Carolina getting bent is no reason to stop diving
>>>>> just because you are from North Carolina.
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> For me, about 7.0

Oops!

> Fatal, about 0.03

I also don't know if I have a PFO and it own't stop me from going diving.
I will however take a bit more care and I won't dive too much on the edge,
just to be on the safe side.

Signature

Michael Wolf
------------

Cthulhu for President! Why settle for the lesser evil?

remove stopspam to reply

mike gray - 09 Mar 2004 01:19 GMT
>>>> I have no idea whether I have a PFO or not. And I still don't care.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> I will however take a bit more care and I won't dive too much on the edge,
> just to be on the safe side.

Yeah, and I'm gonna drive a lot slower, just to be on the safe side.

Heh, heh, heh.
bullshark - 08 Mar 2004 00:02 GMT
>On a seminar on dive safety I got the following figures: 30% of the pop.
>has a PFO, but 60-70% of divers with a DCS hit have a PFO.

BOGUS!

No such study has ever been conducted to my knowledge. You realize that
this requires PFO testing everyone that has ever been bent? It has not
been done. It will not be done. It cannot be done.

BOGUS!

>The doctor who presented this figure...

...is either a charlatan, an out and out liar, or presenting in a context
that you did not understand and failed to convey here.

safe diving,

bullshark
Matthias Voss - 08 Mar 2004 07:25 GMT
bullshark schrieb:

> >On a seminar on dive safety I got the following figures: 30% of the pop.
> >has a PFO, but 60-70% of divers with a DCS hit have a PFO.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> BOGUS!

Sojus ;-)
It has been done. Michael is right here.


> >The doctor who presented this figure...
>
> ...is either a charlatan, an out and out liar, or presenting in a context
> that you did not understand and failed to convey here.

Moon, Camoresi, et. alii: link between DCS and PFO
Recent studies have shown it more clearly.

Pls. note that these studies were retrospektive.
They do not specify the DCS risk you run when you have a PFO.
They only show evidence that among the number which have suffered from a
DCS-Hit the number where a PFO exists is significantly above the
expected number from prevailing PFO in the population.

From this fact alone conducting that PFO magnifies DCS-risk may be
statistically not valid, because the link vanishes in alpha-error, or
white noise, because  of the large number of divers/dives without any
DCS.

Matthias
bullshark - 08 Mar 2004 14:34 GMT
>Moon, Camoresi, et. alii: link between DCS and PFO
>Recent studies have shown it more clearly.

This kind of thing has been looked at in the past with no significant
correlations.

It is widely believed that PFO's bend more severely than non-PFO's.
(which is distinguished from "more often")

I'm expecting that this study focuses on a particular kind of bend
(i.e. type II DCI or AGE or Table 6a or something else that distinguishes)

I'm having a hard time believing that anyone has managed to conduct
a PFO test on every new bend everywhere. Further, there is no way to
determine total bends to provide a denominator.

It is my experience that when researchers use numerical methods to estimate
every aspect of their data, they get whatever results they want.

The selected population for the study may be significant as well.
I.e. There may be significantly higher incidence of PFO's in their groups.
Did they take a control from the studied population and establish the
PFO frequency in *their group* BEFORE running the study?

e.g.- They could have studied a diving club in some french town where
all the local divers (landed gentry) are descended from Louis the Fagteenth
and count PFO's as one of the more pleasant genetic benefits they inherited.

This has been looked at and looked at and looked at for years and years.

I am quite suspicious of a new study that finds things different
so suddenly. Though it's possible, it's not probable.

I am even more suspicious when the material is presented with the
implications that this has been:

2/3's OF ALL BENDS ARE CAUSED BY PFO?!
2/3's OF ALL BENDS ARE PREVENTABLE?!

This is bullshit, matthias. What surprises me, is that you don't
know it. I didn't think you were among the group of people that
were ignorant of the pulmonary shunt that exists in all divers.
The shunt increases with decompression load, and unless a PFO is
large it's contributions would be minor by comparison.

The fact is, that blood is shunted all the time, and that it is
completely harmless EXCEPT when gas in solution has been excited
and provoked into bubble *growth*. When that is the case, obviously
shunts are not good.

I just found this link to the Moon article:
http://www.diversalertnetwork.org/medical/articles/article.asp?articleid=50

There is nothing, anywhere NEAR to 60%, and the study group is OBVIOUSLY
NOT random. Nothing like 64:91 bends involve serious neurological problems.
39:91 (divers with PFO) is higher than expected (42% vs 20-35%) but
considering the population selected, it's not surprising at all. If I
wanted to FIND this result, this is EXACTLY how I would look for it.

The results of the study correlate with what has been thought for
decades. Nothing has changed.

So here you are Matt, pretending to support a sensationalist claim
with "studies" you don't have cites for, and "statistics" that don't
agree with anything published.

What is your interest here?

safe diving,

bullshark
Matthias Voss - 08 Mar 2004 17:11 GMT
bullshark schrieb:

> >Moon, Camoresi, et. alii: link between DCS and PFO
> >Recent studies have shown it more clearly.
>
> This kind of thing has been looked at in the past with no significant
> correlations.

Correct, if you take the whole diving population. Significant, if you
take those with a history of treated DCS.


> It is widely believed that PFO's bend more severely than non-PFO's.
> (which is distinguished from "more often")
>
> I'm expecting that this study focuses on a particular kind of bend
> (i.e. type II DCI or AGE or Table 6a or something else that distinguishes)

Right, how would one take into account al the nondisclosed cases, those
with bends itches keeping their mouth shut.


> I'm having a hard time believing that anyone has managed to conduct
> a PFO test on every new bend everywhere.

No need to, me thinks.

>Further, there is no way to
> determine total bends to provide a denominator.

Of course it is better to count only known cases. This does not
necessarily mean the number of non-examined cases would tilt the
picture.


> It is my experience that when researchers use numerical methods to estimate
> every aspect of their data, they get whatever results they want.

So better restrict oneself to the trusted data. It is possible.


> The selected population for the study may be significant as well.
> I.e. There may be significantly higher incidence of PFO's in their groups.

That is what happens when you call for divers to take part in a
DCS-study.
Only, replace DCS for PFO. People do not know they have one. And when it
comes as a part of the DCS picture, that's what you wanted to prove..;-)

> Did they take a control from the studied population and establish the
> PFO frequency in *their group* BEFORE running the study?

Some used matched pairs technique, on others I have to look up.


> e.g.- They could have studied a diving club in some french town where
> all the local divers (landed gentry) are descended from Louis the Fagteenth
> and count PFO's as one of the more pleasant genetic benefits they inherited.

Fagteenth or Fagteethed ;-)?

> This has been looked at and looked at and looked at for years and years.
>
> I am quite suspicious of a new study that finds things different
> so suddenly. Though it's possible, it's not probable.

Not so new. Earlier studies gave indications, so this implied a
direction to go.


> I am even more suspicious when the material is presented with the
> implications that this has been:
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> This is bullshit, matthias.

Sorry who said that ? In this context, it is bullshit.

Unless you have studies with people diving knowingly with their PFO, and
follow such recommendation as never overstress, avoid to much
intrathoracic pressure, and such.

> What surprises me, is that you don't
> know it. I didn't think you were among the group of people that
> were ignorant of the pulmonary shunt that exists in all divers.

Please don't assume ;-)

> The shunt increases with decompression load, and unless a PFO is
> large it's contributions would be minor by comparison.
> The fact is, that blood is shunted all the time, and that it is
> completely harmless EXCEPT when gas in solution has been excited
> and provoked into bubble *growth*. When that is the case, obviously
> shunts are not good.

That is been known since long, and made popular knowledge by Bühlmann,
who even gave the math for predicting shunts mediated by exertion.
Shunting is a covalent factor, and much depends on the filtering
capacity of the lungs. Which is disturbed by a PFO.

> I just found this link to the Moon article:
> http://www.diversalertnetwork.org/medical/articles/article.asp?articleid=50
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> considering the population selected, it's not surprising at all. If I
> wanted to FIND this result, this is EXACTLY how I would look for it.

> The results of the study correlate with what has been thought for
> decades. Nothing has changed.
>
> So here you are Matt, pretending to support a sensationalist claim
> with "studies" you don't have cites for, and "statistics" that don't
> agree with anything published.

Regarding the date of the Moon study, it is not so very much
sensationalist now.
I will cite the real studies, when I have time to look through half a
meter of "Caisson".
At the moment, I am still covered with dust from my SCUBA-operated air
chisel, hammering into floorwork in my cellar for new tiles to come.

Matthias
bullshark - 08 Mar 2004 18:02 GMT
>Fagteenth or Fagteethed ;-)?

Ya got me there, I honestly don't know my Louis's that well.

>> I am even more suspicious when the material is presented with the
>> implications that this has been:
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>Sorry who said that ? In this context, it is bullshit.

That is what readers are "hearing" when someone declares
"60% of all DCS cases have a PFO"

Here is a direct quote of what Wolf said (and you defended)
"On a seminar on dive safety I got the following figures: 30% of the pop.
has a PFO, but 60-70% of divers with a DCS hit have a PFO."

>Please don't assume ;-)
>
>That is been known since long, and made popular knowledge by Bühlmann,

See? I was right, and I'm impressed by your command of umlauts.

>Regarding the date of the Moon study, it is not so very much
>sensationalist now.

When restated to say "60% of all DCS patients have PFO", I think it
is.

safe diving,

bullshark
Steven Tolleneer - 08 Mar 2004 18:35 GMT
>Here is a direct quote of what Wolf said (and you defended)
>"On a seminar on dive safety I got the following figures: 30% of the pop.
>has a PFO, but 60-70% of divers with a DCS hit have a PFO."

if my risk is 0.01% of DCS, and with PFO my risk increases with, ahum
let's say a factor 5, my risk is still fairly low at 0.05%.

Wild a.s guess: still safer than crossing the street on a saturday ;)

steven
+------------------------------------------------+
| Please use steevke at hotmail dot com to reply |
+------------------------------------------------+
|              Hinc illae lacrimae               |
+------------------------------------------------+
Matthias Voss - 08 Mar 2004 18:56 GMT
bullshark schrieb:

> >> 2/3's OF ALL BENDS ARE CAUSED BY PFO?!
> >> 2/3's OF ALL BENDS ARE PREVENTABLE?!
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> That is what readers are "hearing" when someone declares
> "60% of all DCS cases have a PFO"

We agree here. As well am I most suspicious of premature claims made in
such studies, because they seem to be viewed with a certain certain
enthussiasm among people who want to restrict independent diving.


> Here is a direct quote of what Wolf said (and you defended)
> "On a seminar on dive safety I got the following figures: 30% of the pop.
> has a PFO, but 60-70% of divers with a DCS hit have a PFO."

That's to much of a generalisation for sure.

> >That is been known since long, and made popular knowledge by Bühlmann,
>
> See? I was right, and I'm impressed by your command of umlauts.

Hoops, where did you learn about umlauts? In Cologne ?


> >Regarding the date of the Moon study, it is not so very much
> >sensationalist now.
>
> When restated to say "60% of all DCS patients have PFO", I think it
> is.

;-) I bet there is more to come.

silent bubbles

Matthias
Michael Wolf - 08 Mar 2004 09:45 GMT
>>On a seminar on dive safety I got the following figures: 30% of the pop.
>>has a PFO, but 60-70% of divers with a DCS hit have a PFO.
>
> BOGUS!

No

> No such study has ever been conducted to my knowledge. You realize that
> this requires PFO testing everyone that has ever been bent? It has not
> been done. It will not be done. It cannot be done.

It requires PFO testing of all new cases that come in.

> BOGUS!
>
>>The doctor who presented this figure...
>
> ...is either a charlatan, an out and out liar, or presenting in a context
> that you did not understand and failed to convey here.

He presented it in the context of a seminar on dive safety and medicin:
30% of the pop. has a PFO, 60% of divers with DCS had it. The figures
are based on the screening of DCS cases.
The project was started by the head of the Center for Hyperbaric Medicin
of the army (and no, they didn't/don't only test military divers). His
name's Dr Germonprez (so, if you want to to check...).

Now, if you want, you can always contact DAN Europe and tell them that
their people are charaltans and liars...

Signature

Michael Wolf

-----

Cthulhu For President.
Why settle for the lesser evil?

remove stopspam to reply

bullshark - 08 Mar 2004 14:33 GMT
>> ...is either a charlatan, an out and out liar, or presenting in a context
>> that you did not understand and failed to convey here.
>
>He presented it in the context of a seminar on dive safety and medicin:
>30% of the pop. has a PFO, 60% of divers with DCS had it. The figures

Neither one of these figures are actually knowable.
Where was this study done?
What methods were employed?
How was the population selected?

>Now, if you want, you can always contact DAN Europe and tell them that
>their people are charaltans and liars...

C'mon wolf, you only had to copy "charlatan" to spell it right.
I gave you three *alternatives* so don't direct me to compound them.
BTW, my money is on the last alternative.

I just looked it up at DAN.

QUOTE from MOON publication at DAN:

Here is a link, but I think you have to be a member:
http://www.diversalertnetwork.org/medical/articles/article.asp?articleid=50

"We have examined with a two-dimensional echocardiogram 91 patients
evaluated and/or treated for decompression sickness at Duke University
Medical Center. Of these 91, 39 had PFO. Sixty-four of the 91 patients had
more serious symptoms (weakness, dizziness or symptoms of brain abnormalities)
and 32 of these 64 had patent foramen ovale (50 percent). This percentage
is higher than one would expect in a normal population (10 to 20 percent).

Does this mean that the presence of patent foramen ovale may cause decompression
illness? No, it does not. ..."

Read the writing on the wall.

Where do you get this f.cking 60% crap?

39/91 - 42% is at the high end of NORMAL distribution but still in
an acceptable range for such a small sample.

The first thing that should jump out at you is the STUDY GROUP:
64/91 had serious [neurological] symptoms. This was known BEFORE they
did the 2D Echo to look for PFO.

That alone is atypical, and taints the results from the start.

I am not sure why they suggest PFO is 10-20% with such authority. Other,
credible authorities suggest a much larger range. However, DAN is in the business
of selling insurance, and exaggerating risks that don't require payout is in their
best interest.

It looks to me like my money is safe, and DAN's latest membership drive
is going well.

safe diving,

bullshark
Michael Wolf - 08 Mar 2004 16:31 GMT
>>>...is either a charlatan, an out and out liar, or presenting in a context
>>>that you did not understand and failed to convey here.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Neither one of these figures are actually knowable.
> Where was this study done?

Belgium, on Belgian divers

> What methods were employed?

Transesophageal Echocardiograph.

> How was the population selected?

There was a first phase, 6 years ago, whereby they took a sample group
of divers of all age (they made sure that all ages and types of divers
were represented).

The follow up afterwards consisted of the screening of people with a DCS
hit for PFO.

http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/84/5/1622
http://users.swing.be/hyperbare/cadre_UK.htm

>>Now, if you want, you can always contact DAN Europe and tell them that
>>their people are charaltans and liars...
>
> C'mon wolf, you only had to copy "charlatan" to spell it right.

Just adding a 'personal touch'

> I gave you three *alternatives* so don't direct me to compound them.
> BTW, my money is on the last alternative.

What interpretation can you give to the statement that they saw that
there was 1 DCS hit per 30,000 dives, but with people with PFO that
figure could be (at the worst case) 1 per 5,000 dives?

Mind you: they do not say that a PFO is the sole cause of these DCS
hits, but that it's an aggravating factor. Meaning that in the 'border'
cases, it can make the difference between getting a DCS hit or not.

> I just looked it up at DAN.
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Where do you get this f.cking 60% crap?

You can contact Dr. Germonpré (he's the medical director of Dan Europe
Benelux) and tell him his figures are crap.

> 39/91 - 42% is at the high end of NORMAL distribution but still in
> an acceptable range for such a small sample.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> bullshark

I don't have DAN insurance...

Signature

Michael Wolf

-----

Cthulhu For President.
Why settle for the lesser evil?

remove stopspam to reply

bullshark - 08 Mar 2004 17:12 GMT
>The follow up afterwards consisted of the screening of people with a DCS
>hit for PFO.
>
>http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/84/5/1622

My money remains safe. You evidently do not read your own cites.

They select 37 (ONLY) cases involving neurological symptoms (TypeII) to
arrive at their skewed conclusions. Said conclusions are amply reserved
and explained, even in the short brief.

>Mind you: they do not say that a PFO is the sole cause of these DCS

No, and they don't even hint it is contributory.

>hits, but that it's an aggravating factor.

That has been widely believed and assumed for decades.

>Meaning that in the 'border' cases, it can make the difference
>between getting a DCS hit or not.

It means no such thing. Not even the most ardent supporters of
PFO-evil-doing suggest such a thing.

"almost bent?" = "bent for sure" with PFO?
That's a study I want to see.

"Here is a group of divers that were almost bent...
..we're almost certain that if they had PFO's they would
have been really bent..."

I had no idea Belgians were so entertaining.

safe diving,

bullshark
Michael Wolf - 08 Mar 2004 21:13 GMT
>>The follow up afterwards consisted of the screening of people with a
>>DCS hit for PFO.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> to arrive at their skewed conclusions. Said conclusions are amply
> reserved and explained, even in the short brief.

And did you read the full length article too?

>>Mind you: they do not say that a PFO is the sole cause of these DCS
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> "almost bent?" = "bent for sure" with PFO?
> That's a study I want to see.

There's a difference between 'can make' and 'makes'...

> "Here is a group of divers that were almost bent...
> ..we're almost certain that if they had PFO's they would
> have been really bent..."

'Here's a group of divers that were bent...a higher % of them has a PFO
than is common in the population...'

> I had no idea Belgians were so entertaining.

Only on weekdays from 9h till 9h30.

Signature

Michael Wolf
------------

Cthulhu for President! Why settle for the lesser evil?

remove stopspam to reply

Steven Tolleneer - 08 Mar 2004 18:01 GMT
>I don't have DAN insurance...

Michael,

you should. if diving without a buddy-line you're not covered ;)

steven
+------------------------------------------------+
| Please use steevke at hotmail dot com to reply |
+------------------------------------------------+
|              Hinc illae lacrimae               |
+------------------------------------------------+
Michael Wolf - 08 Mar 2004 21:14 GMT
>>I don't have DAN insurance...
>
> Michael,
>
> you should. if diving without a buddy-line you're not covered ;)

That's why I use a buddy-line... ;-)

Signature

Michael Wolf
------------

Cthulhu for President! Why settle for the lesser evil?

remove stopspam to reply

Matthias Voss - 08 Mar 2004 16:48 GMT
bullshark schrieb:

> >> ...is either a charlatan, an out and out liar, or presenting in a context
> >> that you did not understand and failed to convey here.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Neither one of these figures are actually knowable.
> Where was this study done?

On bodies of soldiers having died from an accident. Draft soldiers.

> What methods were employed?

Guess ;-)

> How was the population selected?

S.a. Other screening test were also made. Like volunteers, without
specifiying the goal of the study ( otherwise divers might rush in)

For more details I'd have to rush through my medical journals of the
german Society for diving and hyperbaric medicine. It is there, but for
now I am sorry to have to leave yu w/O a cite.

Matthias
bullshark - 06 Mar 2004 18:26 GMT
>FYI, the latest issue of Alert Diver from DAN has an article about a
>guy in North Carolina who got bent on a couple of fairly agressive,
>but "recreational" profile dives.  He went to DAN and after testing
>was found to have a PFO.

FYI: That doesn't mean anything. That would be true for about 20-35%
of everyone that has ever been bent, been in an airplane, been to
New Orleans, or slept with your sister.

The mere fact of a PFO in a DCS patient does not mean that the PFO
was causal.

bullshark
Ross Bagley - 06 Mar 2004 20:07 GMT
>   If "30 percent of the population has this anomaly, and the potential for
> serious injury or death is high in the diving world",:
>
>   Why don't we ever see any injuries from it?

Didn't our very own Jim Frei have a serious DCS incident within limits
on a DAN research dive that was ultimately blamed on a PFO?

Now I do agree that "increased risk" is not the same as the
inflammatory: "the potential for serious injury or death is high", but
I've thought that anyone with a PFO was at "increased risk" of DCS
injuries since about a week after my PADI OW class.

Have I been wrong?

Regards,
Ross

-- Ross Bagley       http://rossbagley.com/rba
"Security is mostly a superstition.  It does not exist in nature...  
Life is either a daring adventure or nothing."  -- Helen Keller
jim frei - 06 Mar 2004 22:20 GMT
> >   If "30 percent of the population has this anomaly, and the potential for
> > serious injury or death is high in the diving world",:
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Didn't our very own Jim Frei have a serious DCS incident within limits
> on a DAN research dive that was ultimately blamed on a PFO?

It was determined that I have a PFO - the ultrasound test was done a few
days after I got bent...but there is no definitive proof that the PFO was
causal.  The study dive from which I got bent was my 500th (+/-) dive...and
I've done about 100 dives since then.

I have been trying to remember if I did anything strenuous between the end
of the chamber dive and the onset of the DCS symptoms...in those approx 40
minutes all I did was fix a sandwich from a deli tray...as best I can
remember.

There may be a weak correlation between having a PFO, strenuous exercise,
and the onset of bends or strokes...at least that's my limited opinion.

Signature

jim frei
http://stormwatergroup.com

bullshark - 07 Mar 2004 23:21 GMT
>Didn't our very own Jim Frei have a serious DCS incident within limits
>on a DAN research dive that was ultimately blamed on a PFO?

How could you blame it on a PFO? I can see why DAN would.

The dive was way out of bounds.

30 @ 100 on air. The 10fpm ascent only makes things worse. Any
model I've ever run it on says "NO".

safe diving,

bullshark
Drew A. Dunn - 08 Mar 2004 19:57 GMT
buzcutt454@aol.comByteMe (Popeye NCAT3) wrote
>   If "30 percent of the population has this anomaly, and the potential for
> serious injury or death is high in the diving world",:
>
>   Why don't we ever see any injuries from it?
>
>   What are the DAN statistics on PFO hits? PFO deaths?

Recent studies show an suprisingly large number of DCI cases which are
linked to PFOs. (http://www.divernet.com/news/stories/pfo260204.shtml)

Now, combine that with DAN statistics which show 2/3rds of divers
treated for DCI had been diving within the limits of their
table/computer. (http://www.divernet.com/news/stories/DAN080803.shtml)

I think classifying this as "scare tactics" is going a bit far.
Jan Werbi?ski - 22 Mar 2004 18:14 GMT
U?ytkownik "Popeye NCAT3" <buzcutt454@aol.comByteMe> napisa? w wiadomo?ci
news:20040306052627.20223.00000942@mb-
>   What are the DAN statistics on PFO hits? PFO deaths?
>
>   Give ya a hint, -there aren't any-, which is why PADI didn't tell you about

Your information is incorrect.
60% of DCS II (neurological) patients having hyperbaric treatment had PFO

Signature

Jan Werbi?ski       O0oo....._[:]) bul, bul, bul
Prywatna http://www.janwer.com/
Nasza siec http://www.fredry.net/
W mojej skrzynce jest 1024 nieprzeczytanych wiadomo?ci...

Dennis \(Icarus\) - 22 Mar 2004 19:45 GMT
> U?ytkownik "Popeye NCAT3" <buzcutt454@aol.comByteMe> napisa? w wiadomo?ci
> news:20040306052627.20223.00000942@mb-
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Your information is incorrect.
> 60% of DCS II (neurological) patients having hyperbaric treatment had PFO

and this comes from.......?

Dennis
Jan Werbi?ski - 22 Mar 2004 20:19 GMT
U?ytkownik "Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> napisa? w wiadomo?ci
news:105ue5d3jlvdja2@corp.supernews.com...
> > Your information is incorrect.
> > 60% of DCS II (neurological) patients having hyperbaric treatment had PFO
>
> and this comes from.......?

Scientist/medic making research in DCS, working in hyperbaric treatment
facility. I don't remember is it based on DAN reports or his treatment
statistics.

The point is: PFO one of many factors in DCS II, and it's important one.
People having PFO should keep in mind their higher risk of DCS. If they
decide to do serious diving they should think it twice.
Signature

Jan Werbi?ski       O0oo....._[:]) bul, bul, bul
Prywatna http://www.janwer.com/
Nasza siec http://www.fredry.net/
W mojej skrzynce jest 1024 nieprzeczytanych wiadomo?ci...

Dennis \(Icarus\) - 23 Mar 2004 02:44 GMT
> U?ytkownik "Dennis (Icarus)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> napisa? w wiadomo?ci
> news:105ue5d3jlvdja2@corp.supernews.com...
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> facility. I don't remember is it based on DAN reports or his treatment
> statistics.

Cool. Got a citation?

Dennis

> The point is: PFO one of many factors in DCS II, and it's important one.
> People having PFO should keep in mind their higher risk of DCS. If they
> decide to do serious diving they should think it twice.
Randy F. Milak - 06 Mar 2004 15:22 GMT
> ... I'd like to explain by
> separating this into 3 parts. 1. What is a PFO? 2. Why does it matter
> to diving and 3.My experience in repairing the PFO.

<snip a very nice explanation>

> Epilog
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> agency, but I know that most agencies do not even mention it in their
> classes.

    On one hand you say "...I can't speak of another agency..." and
then you say, "...but I know that most agencies do not even mention..."
Which is it?  You know, or you don't know?  You know, you speculate, or you
maybe happen to surmise?

> One can speculate why, but it is my impression that we're
> back to a numbers game. Imagine scaring 3 out of every 10 people that
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> business. My guess is that the industries response would be that there
> is no proof that PFOs cause diving accidents.

    Your observations and inference to a numbers game although astute,
appears emotionally mislead if not non sequitur.  You appear to be
inferring blame of some sort or some type of impropriety.  Suggesting it's "Not
good for business" is nothing more than a misdirected cheap shot to the
entire dive industry in MNSHO.  FACT: statistically, the risk of DCS due
to PFO is not significant enough to warrant expanded universal testing for
the general diving population.  It's not the fault of any training agency,
nor is it the fault of the medical field.  It is, what it is... like it
or not.  Technical/commercial/military diving profiles are a significantly
different animals and are appreciated as such.  Every training agency which
offers programs in deep(er) staged decompression and mixed gas diving,
which incidentally, now includes PADI, addresses to some degree,
the issues and concerns of PFO and deeper diving.

<snip>

> Thank you,

    No, thank you for sharing.

> Jack
>
> PS. If medical doctors would care to add to the description of the
> anomaly, or to correct anything I've written, it would be most
> appreciated.

    Everything you ever wanted to know about PFO but were to scared to ask your
mother...
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&selm=38B440A3.C2B680E7%40DiveMed.zzn.com

    Deeper into PFO...
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl4238689478d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3
C4057D9.32638D0B%40yahoo.com


    About PFO testing...
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl291235400d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3C
440632.605197AE%40yahoo.com


    And some typical rec.scuba drama... sympathetic comments to a diver who got the
snot bent out of them because of their PFO, yet still dives today and TMK still
has not got it repaired...
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1766272067d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3
C420D56.3CC7234B%40yahoo.com&rnum=111


--
Randy F. Milak
~Friends help you move.  Real friends help you move bodies!~
Salty - 07 Mar 2004 00:00 GMT
> About right now, about 80 percent of you are saying to yourself
> "What's a PFO and who is George", 10 percent are saying, "Oh, someone
> else trying to kiss GI's butt", and the rest saying "This should be
> interesting". Or at least that's my perception.

No.

> So why am I writing this letter? I'm writing this because it is my
> impression that most of you have never heard of a PFO and what can
> happen to you as a diver if you do have one. I'd like to explain by
> separating this into 3 parts. 1. What is a PFO? 2. Why does it matter
> to diving and 3.My experience in repairing the PFO.

No.

> PS. If medical doctors would care to add to the description of the
> anomaly, or to correct anything I've written, it would be most
> appreciated.

I'm not a doctor but I am an RN. I have nothing to add to your
description or to the surgery that you had after having read over it
very briefly. I appreciate that you took the time the discuss this...
but as many have pointed out here, this issue has been discussed in
great length. I tend to lean toward the side that says there is no
need to test for a PFO prior to taking up diving as a general hobby
within the recreational limits. That is not what GI's divers do though
when diving the caves with him. I would be inclined to say that divers
who intend to do deep dives with mixes on a constant basis probably
should be tested. But then again, those who take up this aspect of
diving should probably be tested for other medical conditions as well
with general blood flow to the heart and basic lung function being the
top priority. In fact, it wouldn't be bad if most older divers... esp
those who are overweight or have pre-existing conditions... got tested
for general heart blood flow and lung capability. There are a great
many more divers afflicted by heart attacks than those who end up with
PFOs... and according to the stats, those with heart attacks while
diving often don't fare as well as though with PFO's.
Jim Wyatt - 07 Mar 2004 11:10 GMT
>I'm writing this because it is my impression that most of you have
never heard of a PFO

It is my impression you rarely read ANY of the scuba boards.

Can you spell naive` ??

Signature

Jim Wyatt
PADI Master Instructor #4612/IANTD Instructor
Florida Keys Reef-Divers, Inc.
www.reef-divers.com

Randy Buckner - 08 Mar 2004 06:41 GMT
> About right now, about 80 percent of you are saying to yourself
> "What's a PFO and who is George", 10 percent are saying, "Oh, someone
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> What is a PFO?

Snip

There are more than 5 million recreational scuba divers in the United
States, and thousands of new divers are trained annually. The incidence of
diving-related disorders has increased in tandem with this increasing
population at risk, not to an increase in any one cause.  A large number of
PFOs are not able to be found on routine dive physicals, so I wonder about
the practicality of the information.  People are not going to pay for an
ECHO to get a dive physical passed, so the research may have no real
clinical use except for treatment and future prevention in an afflicted
diver.

The conclusion of a study on PFO (abstract below) explains why divers are a
nutty lot ;-).

TI - Relation between directly detected patent foramen ovale and ischemic
brain lesions in sport divers.
AU - Schwerzmann M; Seller C; Lipp E; Guzman R; Lovbald KO; Kraus M; Kucher
N
SO - Ann Intern Med 2001 Jan 2;134(1):21-4.

BACKGROUND: In divers, the significance of a patent foramen ovale and its
potential relation to paradoxical gas emboli remain uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To
assess the prevalence of symptoms of decompression illness and ischemic
brain lesions in divers with regard to the presence of a patent foramen
ovale. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: University hospital and
three diving clubs in Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS: 52 sport divers and 52
nondiving controls. MEASUREMENTS: Prevalence of self-reported decompression
events, patent foramen ovale on contrast transesophageal echocardiography,
and ischemic brain lesions on magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS: The risk
for decompression illness events was 4.5-fold greater in divers with patent
foramen ovale than in divers without patent foramen ovale (risk ratio, 4.5
[95% CI, 1.2 to 18.0]; P = 0.03). Among divers, 1.23 +/- 2.0 and 0.64 +/-
1.22 ischemic brain lesions per person (mean +/- SD) were detected in those
with and those without patent foramen ovale, respectively. Among controls,
0.22 +/- 0.44 and 0.12 +/- 0.63 lesion per person were detected (P < 0.001
for all groups). CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of whether a diver has a patent
foramen ovale, diving is associated with ischemic brain lesions.

Buck
chilly - 08 Mar 2004 07:55 GMT
> There are more than 5 million recreational scuba divers in the United
> States, and thousands of new divers are trained annually. The incidence of
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> clinical use except for treatment and future prevention in an afflicted
> diver.

And what about those that work at dive destinations.  They are diving 5-6
dive per day, every day, range of depths, bounces, etc.  1 out of evry 4 of
them should be crippled by now.

> The conclusion of a study on PFO (abstract below) explains why divers are a
> nutty lot ;-).

Hmm, I guess most of us here at rec.scuba better run and get tested.  An
extraordinarily nutty segment of the diving population spends time here.

(snip)
Randy Buckner - 08 Mar 2004 15:52 GMT
> > There are more than 5 million recreational scuba divers in the United
> > States, and thousands of new divers are trained annually. The incidence of
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> dive per day, every day, range of depths, bounces, etc.  1 out of evry 4 of
> them should be crippled by now.

Do you know what the injury rate is among commercial divers, Chilly?

> > The conclusion of a study on PFO (abstract below) explains why divers are
> a
> > nutty lot ;-).
>
> Hmm, I guess most of us here at rec.scuba better run and get tested.  An
> extraordinarily nutty segment of the diving population spends time here.

Do you really want to confirm it? :-)
Stephen Weir & Associates - 08 Mar 2004 15:56 GMT
>> There are more than 5 million recreational scuba divers in the United
>> States, and thousands of new divers are trained annually. The incidence of
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>> clinical use except for treatment and future prevention in an afflicted
>> diver.

Seven years ago I suffered medical problems  following a day of routine,
conservative no decompression diving.  Finding medical help in Canada with
doctors who know about diving is very difficult.  It took awhile to get a
MRI and ECHO but about nine months after my accident it was found that I
have a PFO and that it was probably responsible for my problem.  I wrote
about what happened on rec.scuba under the posting Have You Checked Your
Brain Lately (or something like that).  I found that a number of other
posters on rec.scuba had developed medical problems that <<might>> be traced
back to a PFO.  

Since the accident I have dramatically changed how I dive. (i.e.. switched
to Nitrox, I have adjusted my bottom times, I don't go too deep, I come up
real slow and I make sure that I exercise on regular basis etc). So for me,
having the PFO test was worth it.

I have been diving a long long time and I still enjoy the sport.  However, I
wish that I had tested for a PFO before I got hit.
bullshark - 08 Mar 2004 14:54 GMT
>People are not going to pay for an
>ECHO to get a dive physical passed, so the research may have no real
>clinical use except for treatment and future prevention in an afflicted
>diver.

Screw the cost. Nobody is shooting me with "harmless air bubbles" and
asking me to Valsalva.

Western doctors are just amazing. There is no risk their patients should not
endure for their benefit. Curiousity killed the patient, not the cat. The
cat gets all the press because the patient signed a waiver.

safe diving,

bullshark
Randy Buckner - 08 Mar 2004 15:50 GMT
> Western doctors are just amazing. There is no risk their patients should not
> endure for their benefit.

I could not agree with you more.  There is a lot of overkill in medicine,
but there are also a lot of lawyers circling out there as well, waiting for
the kill.

Buck
Matthias Voss - 08 Mar 2004 17:13 GMT
bullshark schrieb:

> >People are not going to pay for an
> >ECHO to get a dive physical passed, so the research may have no real
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> endure for their benefit. Curiousity killed the patient, not the cat. The
> cat gets all the press because the patient signed a waiver.

Well it did not kill me ;-), was quite fun really to look into the veins
and arteries, took plenty time to do because it was in a study, not as a
patient.

Matthias
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.