General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Flawed test, Dr Chung?

Started by Frankm · · Last activity · 1 post · 299 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
9 April 2004
Last activity
9 April 2004
Original author
Frankm
Posts
1
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
299
Views / 30 days
0

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

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

Text size
  1. In reading several recent cardiology texts, after getting a
    questionable series of heart tests, I decided to learn "how
    the car works", so to speak, from a macro perspective, which
    I found readily accessible.

    But in considering the art vs. science, I can't seem to find
    the interpretations for the precise time interval after
    getting off the treadmill for "at rest" pix, i.e. after
    optimum exercise...

    So, wouldn't pix taken 17 minutes after exercise abatement
    yield different results from say those taken 1 or 2 hours
    later, sic, specifically, regarding ejection rate
    (relative to gated wall motion study) pursuant to the
    reuptake of the Thallium?

    And thus, how does one (cardiologist) conclude diapramagitc
    attentuation versus old scar; does it warrant a
    catherization, which is a big decision since my heart will
    otherwise be diddled with, and my life put at risk if the
    doctor jumped to a "science conclusion" versus an experience
    or "art" perspective? Do the tests over again?

    Would appreciate Dr. Chung's input. Thank you.

    --
    FMinATL, [email hidden] c 2003, all rights reserved
    To email, remove "/"

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.