in

21:45 Jun 11, 2019 

Thank you for the explanation. I'll keep this in mind for my own use in the future.

21:07 Jun 11, 2019 

Re: "secondary to": Along with many of my physician colleagues, I prefer to avoid mechanistic cause-and-effect explanations (as implied by "secondary to"), because the living body just does not work like a machine; and even if the patient has a condition which strongly suggests a causal relationship, the true cause may always be a different or more complex one. This aversion is probably at the root of elusive creations like "with [underlying]", "in", "in a patient with", etc.

20:36 Jun 11, 2019 

Ciao Cedric. I've also seen "in" used in translations that I've proofread, but I think it's careless work; the linguist hasn't taken the time to ask what the word really means there.

10:52 Jun 11, 2019 

Hi Fiona, take your pick. I do not like 'in' though I have seen it used in translations. Try 'from' - 'due to' - 'deriving from'. Take your pick. They will all mean the same thing. As I see it, he has single-vessel coronary artery disease, which caused his heart attack.