My cardiologist/internist recently ordered a chest x-ray due to a cough I've had for 2 months. After the radiologist's report, he wanted previous chest x-rays and an
echocardiogram. I asked why all this for a cough. Apparently the radiologist saw something on the x-ray that suggested "pulmonary
arterialArterial embolism
Arterial insufficiency hypertension". Well, I looked that up... and it ain't a pretty picture (pun intended).
When I reminded him that he did an
echocardiogram 18 months earlier and it was
normalNormal saline flush, he decided I didn't need another one.
The radiologist's original report: "The heart is within
normalNormal saline flush limits for size. The hila are bilaterally prominent which may reflect vasculature. Correlation with prior chest radiograph, if available, would be helpful. There is no confluent infiltrate or
pleuralPleural effusion
Pleural fluid analysis
Pleural needle biopsy effusion. There is no mediastinal lymphadenopathy."
After viewing a 2 year previous x-ray the radiologist wrote: "The prominent hilar structures, consistent with vascular structures appear unchanged. Heart, mediastinum and bony structures are also stable."
I've researched basic terminology, but could you explain why they would think pulmonary arterial hypertension in the first place? I'm guessing it has to do with "prominent hila...reflect vasculature", but can't quite get it. Any insight would be appreciated.
Cheers -
Mt. Carmel
If you have a moment more, I'm curious... you wrote "However, this is a clinical diagnosis". What other kinds of diagnoses are there?
Thanks again.