Artery Blockage

I read with interest your respond to the gentleman below about artery blockage.

My father is going in for an angiogram. The cardio MD said that he is very conservative and that unless the tests indicate there is a blockage of 80% or more, he wouldn't recommend the stent insertion.

This percentage sounds high before action is taken. Your opinion?

In lieu of stents, would medication such as the stations and beta blockers be appropriate or other treatments?

Thank you.

Kathy.

[Cleveland Clinic]

Statins are excellent but they are more likely to prevent disease progression in that same artery or other ones.  they are less likely to cause actual regression of the stenosis.  I would have to agree with you doctor that one should only intervene on severe stenosis (>80) or on lesser stensis (<80) only when symptoms are present.  

[mo121]

I have seen a cardiologist this week.  He has scheduled me for a Cath. on Jan. 2.
I am not sure I should do this.   I only went to my reg. m.d. because I had shortness
of breath on the treadmill at the gym and also when running up and down stairs in my home.  I am an otherwise healthy 64 year old working grandmother.  I have had blood
work, electocardiograms, nuclear stress test, echo.  The nuclear raised the possibility that there may be some blockage.  The echo saw no heart damage.  Does the cath seem excessive.  Is there not another way to  determine blockage without this invasive procedure?  I thought I read about something like an MRI?  that can determine stenosis?
Thanks for any advice.  

[erijon]

If you're having symptoms along with an abnormal nuclear stress test, you are a candidate for a cath, it's the best way to determine if the stress test is correct and if any blockages are involved. The MRI will not necessarily give an accurate answer and is not always approved by most insurances.

The Cleveland Forum doctor will most likely not answer a second question on a thread, you should definitely try to post this again for a response from a doctor.

Good Luck!

Jon

[kenkeith]

A CT-64 slice angiogram is as good as a cath.  The downside is there may a cancer risk from the radiation.  The CT angiogram is not recommended for a younger individual, but an older individual does not have the same risk for cancer and also it takes about 10 years for any adverse affects, if there is to be any.

I recently had a ct angiogram and the exam includes the respiratory system and the complete aorta configuration.  The cath only views the lumen (vessel channel) for any lesions, but the ct scan includes the complete anatomy of the vessel.  The highest risk for a heart attack is the soft tissue rupturing through vessel's inner lining and forming a clot and causing a heart attack.  The exam takes about 20 minutes, as I remember, and there is a injection to lower the heart rate.  For better images the heart rate should be below 60.

If the doctor does not respond, you can google CT scan 64-slice angiogram for more information.  Take care.