Aa
64 slice CT scan
I am trying to decide if the risk of a 64 slice CT Scan versus increased cancer risk is woth having. I am a 48 year old male and have been experienceing strange feelings in my chest for a long time with fatigue and some dizzy spells. I have had the excercise test and a 24 hour tape but they have not diagnosed anything. I still feel unwell most days and my father had a heart attach at 49 years old. Do you think the 64 slice CT scan is worth having given the cancer risk. Thanks
I just had a CT angiogram yesterday. I am 58 year old woman and have high cholesterol, fatique, some angina off and on due to stress and had a stroke in my left eye. Before the stroke in my eye two months ago I felt fine and thought I was very physically fit--I was not on blood pressure medication and didn't know my cholesterol level was high.
My cardiologist did an EKG, Echo, Stress Test, 21 Day Event Monitor and now wanted to do an invasive cath angiogram, However, I wanted a second opinion and the second cardiologist recommended a CT angiogram. I was much relieved by this option because I think it would be far too easy for my cardiologist while doing the cath angiogram to start throwing stents in even if they weren't completed needed. In otherwords, you might have a blockage of less than 70%, but hey, the cardiologist might think, as long as I'm in here I want to feel like I've gotten something accomplished so why not put in a few stents (which have been called tiny ticking time bombs by some researchers). In anycase, the CT angiogram gives such a completely detailed picture of the heart from every angle and the cardiologist can even go inside of the arteries to see the plaque build up and see EXACTLY how blocked blocked the artery is. I was able to see everything on a computer screen, even my heart as it was beating. And the cardiologist was able to rule out other concerns my first cardiologist had suggested, i.e., that I might have previously had a silent heart attack which damaged my heart or that I might have a left bundle branch block, or that I might need a stent for that, etc. As it very lucky turns out we caught things in time. I do have heart disease, and more than I should have for my age, but no more than 30% blockage in the areas where plaque has formed (which can be plainly seen as white spots/blobs in the arteries.
I can't tolerate any cholesterol lowering drugs I've tried or niaspan or lovaza, but what I am doing is following Dr. Dean Ornish Vegan diet. I've been on it for six weeks thus far and love the change in foods. I'd much rather give up meats and dairy than have a heart attack or have a stroke and go blind in my other eye. A vegan diet has been proved to actually reverse heart disease over time. So if one has the time, which the CT angiogram showed that I do, it is really smart to make a life style and diet change.
My cardiologist did an EKG, Echo, Stress Test, 21 Day Event Monitor and now wanted to do an invasive cath angiogram, However, I wanted a second opinion and the second cardiologist recommended a CT angiogram. I was much relieved by this option because I think it would be far too easy for my cardiologist while doing the cath angiogram to start throwing stents in even if they weren't completed needed. In otherwords, you might have a blockage of less than 70%, but hey, the cardiologist might think, as long as I'm in here I want to feel like I've gotten something accomplished so why not put in a few stents (which have been called tiny ticking time bombs by some researchers). In anycase, the CT angiogram gives such a completely detailed picture of the heart from every angle and the cardiologist can even go inside of the arteries to see the plaque build up and see EXACTLY how blocked blocked the artery is. I was able to see everything on a computer screen, even my heart as it was beating. And the cardiologist was able to rule out other concerns my first cardiologist had suggested, i.e., that I might have previously had a silent heart attack which damaged my heart or that I might have a left bundle branch block, or that I might need a stent for that, etc. As it very lucky turns out we caught things in time. I do have heart disease, and more than I should have for my age, but no more than 30% blockage in the areas where plaque has formed (which can be plainly seen as white spots/blobs in the arteries.
I can't tolerate any cholesterol lowering drugs I've tried or niaspan or lovaza, but what I am doing is following Dr. Dean Ornish Vegan diet. I've been on it for six weeks thus far and love the change in foods. I'd much rather give up meats and dairy than have a heart attack or have a stroke and go blind in my other eye. A vegan diet has been proved to actually reverse heart disease over time. So if one has the time, which the CT angiogram showed that I do, it is really smart to make a life style and diet change.
I've had a CTA and because it's noninvasive I much prefer that option over a catheter angiogram. But first check with your health insurance carrier. Mine was willing to cover the angiogram but not the CTA. I opted to pay for the CTA out of my own pocket ($900).
You mentioned you had a stress test. Was an echocardiogram involved? If you haven't had one, I would opt for that first. If you have, the next step is a nuclear stress test (same as the echo treadmill stress test except imaging the heart using readioactive dyes is used). The nuke test will determine whether any significant blockages are present in the coronary arteries. The amount of radiation from the nuke test is a small fraction of what you would get from the CTA (and both are noninvasive).
You mentioned you had a stress test. Was an echocardiogram involved? If you haven't had one, I would opt for that first. If you have, the next step is a nuclear stress test (same as the echo treadmill stress test except imaging the heart using readioactive dyes is used). The nuke test will determine whether any significant blockages are present in the coronary arteries. The amount of radiation from the nuke test is a small fraction of what you would get from the CTA (and both are noninvasive).
If the danger of radiation caused cancers was significant, nobody would be tested. Can you have a CT done every month? Of course not. A CT--even with the very slight risk of cancer--is safer than an angiogram. Angiograms are very safe, but not without risk.
The CT is noninvasive, and it would give you either information that you are developing heart disease, or it would give you piece of mind that you are not. Either answer would be useful to you.
The CT is noninvasive, and it would give you either information that you are developing heart disease, or it would give you piece of mind that you are not. Either answer would be useful to you.
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the Heart Disease Community
Is a low-fat diet really that heart healthy after all? James D. Nicolantonio, PharmD, urges us to reconsider decades-long dietary guidelines.
Can depression and anxiety cause heart disease? Get the facts in this Missouri Medicine report.
Fish oil, folic acid, vitamin C. Find out if these supplements are heart-healthy or overhyped.
Learn what happens before, during and after a heart attack occurs.
What are the pros and cons of taking fish oil for heart health? Find out in this article from Missouri Medicine.
How to lower your heart attack risk.
