Clarification, Please

Re: Your Comment:

Mar 30, 2009 10:46PM
I would have recommend the angiogram because the blockage could have been 90%, in which case the recommendation would have been a stenting procedure. How he can  determine the severity of a blockage by the findings of a stress test befuddles me. A stress test is a measure of relative blood flow to relative parts of the heart; if one area has less flow it may mean that there is a blockage there, but it may mean that there are two blockages, since the scan measures the difference in radioactivity between two areas.

The cardio who did the readings estimated the 70-80% blockage based on what he saw from the film from the nuclear stress test. He added that it's not so much the percent of the blockage, it is more the size of the abnormality which in this case,  he said was relatively small. And thus did not recommend any angiogram follow-up.

I take it from your response that one really can't estimate the size of the blockage from a visual reading from a nuclear stress test?

Thanks again for your valued opinion.

[Cleveland Clinic]

I am not the same physician who answered your previous question, but I will try to clarify this.  What you stated is corrent, however, it seems that the territory that is being compromized by decreased blood flow is small.  Therefore, either medical therapy or a catheterization are both good options in this case.