General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

? for cardiologist

Started by Frank M · · Last activity · 4 posts · 637 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
17 April 2004
Last activity
18 April 2004
Original author
Frank M
Posts
4
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
637
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–4 of 4
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Please excuse if this post sounds redundant but I'm trying
    to clarify my earlier question which I've not been able to
    resolve...

    After having a nuclear stress test (amongst others) for
    Arthersclerosis shown on a CT scan I rec'd two opinions:
    one, thatdiaphram attentuation was causing 10% ventricular
    obstruction, and the other that it might be old scar, sic
    from infarction in the past.

    I'm concerned since the latter indicates either a third
    opinion, and/or catherization, or dicarding it, since I
    personally don't think it's right (based on my "clean"
    medical history and my followup research after the tests
    {which I felt were rather haphazardly done})!

    What would help is knowing the preferrred time interval
    (protocol) after getting off the treadmill for "at rest"
    pix, i.e. after optimum exercise...for Thallium reuptake
    (and thus, the consequences of the results).

    So, if pix taken 20 minutes after exercise abatement yield
    a result of say 60% ejection rate, wouldn't it be logical
    to conclude that results taken 1 or 2 hours later, would
    yield a different reuptake rate, and that if the shorter
    interval showed 60% then the longer interval would be a
    larger number (i.e. inferring worse case is 60% if at rest
    interval is too short)?

    Any light you can shed by post or email would be greatly
    appreciated (even if further research and study is called
    for on my part). And should I go to the trouble and expense
    of re-taking the tests?

    Thank you for your considerations.

  2. Frank M said:

    Please excuse if this post sounds redundant but I'm trying
    to clarify my earlier question which I've not been able to
    resolve...

    After having a nuclear stress test (amongst others) for
    Arthersclerosis shown on a CT scan I rec'd two opinions:
    one, thatdiaphram attentuation was causing 10% ventricular
    obstruction, and the other that it might be old scar, sic
    from infarction in the past.

    I'm concerned since the latter indicates either a third
    opinion, and/or catherization, or dicarding it, since I
    personally don't think it's right (based on my "clean"
    medical history and my followup research after the tests
    {which I felt were rather haphazardly done})!

    What would help is knowing the preferrred time interval
    (protocol) after getting off the treadmill for "at rest"
    pix, i.e. after optimum exercise...for Thallium reuptake
    (and thus, the consequences of the results).

    So, if pix taken 20 minutes after exercise abatement yield
    a result of say 60% ejection rate, wouldn't it be logical
    to conclude that results taken 1 or 2 hours later, would
    yield a different reuptake rate, and that if the shorter
    interval showed 60% then the longer interval would be a
    larger number (i.e. inferring worse case is 60% if at rest
    interval is too short)?

    The ejection fraction as determined from the gated images
    should not vary how much time has elapsed from time of
    Thallium injection.

    Quoted message said:

    Any light you can shed by post or email would be greatly
    appreciated (even if further research and study is called
    for on my part). And should I go to the trouble and
    expense of re-taking the tests?

    I would suggest you decide after hearing the recommendation
    of the "second opinion."

    Quoted message said:


    Thank you for your considerations.

    You are welcome, Frank.

    Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

    Andrew

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    heartmdphd.comheartmdphd.com

    **
    Who is the humblest person in the universe?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

    What is all this about?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

    Is this spam?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

  3. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:

    ...The ejection fraction as determined from the gated
    images should not
    vary how much time has elapsed from time of Thallium
    injection...

    Thank you kindly, Dr. Chung, and maybe I'm not understanding
    your reply, but isn't the above the corrollary of my
    question, sic that ejection rate follows timing of pix???

    Quoted message said:

    ... I would suggest you decide after hearing the
    recommendation of the "second opinion."

    And to further clarify the arcane languange of medicine
    (which is quite understandable), how safe might I be
    remaining status quo based on the below quote from report by
    second opinion - which doesn't compel me towards any
    specific course of action? ('need 3rd opinion or new tests?
    or have a soda and tell NEW doctor next year?):

    "...Gated wall motion analysis appears normal. This is a
    mildly abnormal stress quasi-isotope myocardial perfusion
    study demostrating a fixed inferoceptal defect suggesting
    either diapragmatic attenutaion or old scar. There does not
    appear to be any significant reversible myocaridal ischemia
    demonstated. The normmal wall motion analysis study would
    favor this being soft tissue attenuation aritifact rather
    than old scar."

    Again, your clarifications are very much appreciated.

    --
    (C) 2004,[email hidden] all rights reserved To
    email, please remove "ns" in name

  4. FrankM said:


    In article
    <[email hidden]>,
    "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    ...The ejection fraction as determined from the gated
    images should not
    vary how much time has elapsed from time of Thallium
    injection...

    Thank you kindly, Dr. Chung, and maybe I'm not
    understanding your reply, but isn't the above the
    corrollary of my question, sic that ejection rate follows
    timing of pix???

    The ejection fraction as determined by the gated images will
    not be affected by any delays in acquiring the images.

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    ... I would suggest you decide after hearing the
    recommendation of the "second opinion."

    And to further clarify the arcane languange of medicine
    (which is quite understandable), how safe might I be
    remaining status quo based on the below quote from report
    by second opinion - which doesn't compel me towards any
    specific course of action? ('need 3rd opinion or new
    tests? or have a soda and tell NEW doctor next year?):

    "...Gated wall motion analysis appears normal. This is a
    mildly abnormal stress quasi-isotope myocardial perfusion
    study demostrating a fixed inferoceptal defect suggesting
    either diapragmatic attenutaion or old scar. There does
    not appear to be any significant reversible myocaridal
    ischemia demonstated. The normmal wall motion analysis
    study would favor this being soft tissue attenuation
    aritifact rather than old scar."

    Again, your clarifications are very much appreciated.

    The second opinion sounds reasonable enough to me.

    Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

    Andrew

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    heartmdphd.comheartmdphd.com

    **
    Who is the humblest person in the universe?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

    What is all this about?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

    Is this spam?
    makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.com

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.