Member Comments are provided by individuals and reflect their personal opinions only. Under NO circumstances should you act on any advice or opinion posted in this forum. ALWAYS check with your personal physician before taking any action regarding your health! MedHelp International and our partners, sponsors and affiliates have no obligation to monitor any comments posted on this site, or the content and/or accuracy of such exchanges. MedHelp International does not endorse the views of any user.
Heart Disease (Expert Forum)
Clarification, Please
Answered by
Cleveland - OH
This forum is for questions and support regarding heart issues such as: Angina, Angioplasty, Arrhythmia, Bypass Surgery, Cardiomyopathy, Coronary Artery Disease, Defibrillator, Heart Attack, Heart Disease, High Blood Pressure, Mitral Valve Prolapse, Pacemaker, PAD, Stenosis, Stress Tests.
Clarification, Please
by rossi, Apr 01, 2009 01:47PM
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.
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.
Doctor's Answer
by Cleveland Clinic, Apr 02, 2009 11:42AM
, Apr 02, 2009 11:42AM
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.
