sorry, somehow lost track of this thread.
well, yeah, the MI was cause by all the crap that built up, but the actually MI (the actual infarction), was an acute thing, correct?
Not exactly. It is an acute exacerbation of a chronic pathology. The actual inciting event is vascular wall rupture, that is a chronic process. The wall didn't suddenly become pathologic.
Consider, the most predictive factor for a second MI is a first one. Not because the person is procoagulative, it is because if one part of a vessel wall was weak enough to rupture, somewhere else in the vascular, another one likely is as well.
The purpose of anticoagulation isn't to prevent a wall rupture, it is to make clot formation from subsequent rupture less likely. (ideally not at all)
What I think really makes it interesting is it is the same pathophysiological process as a thoracic aortic aneurysm, but not of that of a abdominal aortic, cerebral, or peripheral aneurysm.
Treating the acute symptom (in this case,MI) means it was not identified and effectively managed. (without fault on healthcare providers, patients are not always the most compliant people)
I would liken it to be the equivalent of calling for gun control after a massacre.
It is simply a symptom of the underlying disease.
add choking or any airway obstruction, and uncontrolled bleeding (which is trauma, I know, but it's one of the few ways BLS interventions can really save a life). even a bad anaphylactic reaction. Most of the medical complaints aren't immediate life threats when they start, but if left untreated, get worse.
I'll concede airway obstruction as an acute emergency, but not as one of the most common, the same with anaphylactic shock.
Who cares if BLS intervention can stop hemorrhage? Anyone can stop hemorrhage and never seek or even decline medical treatment for it. That is redundant.
Similar to choking. I can't even guess how many unreported choking cases there are in one state in a year.