Hank
Recycles dryer sheets
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2008
- Messages
- 98
Hi,
I'm a very long time lurker and occasional poster but not in a long time. The information about investing that I garnered from this site 2 decades ago really helped me and I thank everyone. The forum section I never read in the past is now -- unfortunately -- my go-to -- Health!
Anyway, I failed a recent EKG and was referred to a cardio specialist. My EKG had some extra beats and 2 mild ST Depressions for non-specific reasons. Because of that I was given an echo cardiogram stress test which also showed similar problems but the doc couldn't figure out why. My max heart rate was good, valves were good and I have/had no symptoms. The cardio doc put me on baby aspirin and 20mg of Crestor. My cholesterol was high this most recent blood test but in the past has always been very good. My family history is bad. Father died at 58 from heart disease and my brother has had 2 strokes in his 60s. I'm 62 and lived a much healthier life than my father or brother but genetics might rule here. Uncle also had a bypass when he was in his 60s but lived into his 80s. So I don't think I can just ignore this...
For next steps the doctor gave me three options:
1) Nuclear Stress Test - (doc owns the diagnostic lab)
2) Conventional Angiogram -- catheter
3) Coronary CT Angiogram -- non invasive, easy, very accurate
Which choice is best? How should I decide?
My thought is that doing either the CCTA or the Conventional Angiogram is best. If I have blockages and do the Conventional Angiogram they might be able to fix some problems at that time (I think) . Stopping me from having to have a second procedure and dose of radiation. If I have the CCTA and they find blockage then they still do the Conventional Angiogram. I'm concerned about the radiation because I will likely have more CT scans in the near future for an unrelated issue. But since they all contain about the same amount of radiation then I am leaning toward the CCTA because it is easier and my situation is not an emergency and I think there is a good chance that I don't have blockages. So I figure why not try this non-invasive option first.
It is difficult for me to get a second opinion in a timely manner but I wish i could be even more sure that I need these tests.
Any thoughts from those who have been down this path would be appreciated.
I'm a very long time lurker and occasional poster but not in a long time. The information about investing that I garnered from this site 2 decades ago really helped me and I thank everyone. The forum section I never read in the past is now -- unfortunately -- my go-to -- Health!
Anyway, I failed a recent EKG and was referred to a cardio specialist. My EKG had some extra beats and 2 mild ST Depressions for non-specific reasons. Because of that I was given an echo cardiogram stress test which also showed similar problems but the doc couldn't figure out why. My max heart rate was good, valves were good and I have/had no symptoms. The cardio doc put me on baby aspirin and 20mg of Crestor. My cholesterol was high this most recent blood test but in the past has always been very good. My family history is bad. Father died at 58 from heart disease and my brother has had 2 strokes in his 60s. I'm 62 and lived a much healthier life than my father or brother but genetics might rule here. Uncle also had a bypass when he was in his 60s but lived into his 80s. So I don't think I can just ignore this...
For next steps the doctor gave me three options:
1) Nuclear Stress Test - (doc owns the diagnostic lab)
2) Conventional Angiogram -- catheter
3) Coronary CT Angiogram -- non invasive, easy, very accurate
Which choice is best? How should I decide?
My thought is that doing either the CCTA or the Conventional Angiogram is best. If I have blockages and do the Conventional Angiogram they might be able to fix some problems at that time (I think) . Stopping me from having to have a second procedure and dose of radiation. If I have the CCTA and they find blockage then they still do the Conventional Angiogram. I'm concerned about the radiation because I will likely have more CT scans in the near future for an unrelated issue. But since they all contain about the same amount of radiation then I am leaning toward the CCTA because it is easier and my situation is not an emergency and I think there is a good chance that I don't have blockages. So I figure why not try this non-invasive option first.
It is difficult for me to get a second opinion in a timely manner but I wish i could be even more sure that I need these tests.
Any thoughts from those who have been down this path would be appreciated.