I appreciate Kathleen Berra MSN ANP really talking about the difference between women and men when it comes to CVD. We hear about it a lot, but she really explains it. Thank you.

I agree Joy, she did a great job. My question is how do you weigh the risk/benefits or should I say the risks we hear about with the studies of HRT, when so many women are so symptomatic without taking them?

The latest I have been informed of is that there is a reduced risk for cvd in the first ten years post menopause if hrt is taken. The UK site is "menpausematters".

Many of the early findings released from the WHI study were from women aged 65-67 years old, and most women have some form of CVD by this age regardless of taking, or not taking, HRT. What's nice about the "Menopause Matters" website is they have quantified the WHI data (which should have been done before the media got hold of it!). This website offers answers for just about every question and if your patient chooses to use HRT, you can put to rest some of the misinformation still floating around out there. The WHI finding of women aged 50-59 s/p TAH-BSO who had taken HRT during the first 10 years after surgery demonstrated decreased heart attacks and mortality, thereby supporting the use of HRT for that population. But one has to ask, for this younger age group, when naturally occuring menopause symptoms become a problem(hot flashes, night sweats, mood swings, etc.), can their hearts also benefit from short-term (5-year) HRT or is it just too late by age 50? Any thoughts?[/b]