The only true test, which is a procedure, is the angiogram. My mom had the nuclear stress test and was told that it was not bad and a few months later she was totally plugged in two main arteries and about 99 percent plugged in the other. Have you had an echocardiogram yet? An echocardiogram can check the heart valves.
To what extent would an angiogram be capable of picking up coronary atherosclerosis that would tend to go unnoticed by a nuclear stress test? Would an angiogram offer greater risks than a stress test? How great would that additional risk tend to be?
This discussion is related to <a href='http://www.medhelp.org/posts/show/254861'>Stress test accuracy</a>.
The nuclear stress test is only one test. The angiogram is the best. My mom had a nuclear stress test and then three weeks later had an angiogram which proved that her heart was extremely bad. The nuclear stress test was okay. My mom was plugged in the three arteries. Three heart valves were bad and she had cardiomyopathy. The doctors said that they did not know why she was even able to walk around. The echocardiogram did not show that her heart valves were that bad either.
I've recently gone through a nuclear stress test that demonstrated a mild intensity inferior apical defect and was diagnosed with mild inferoapical ischemia. Please explain what all these mean and the operation involved.
Thanks.
A nuclear perfusion scan is useless unless it is backed up by an angiogram because collaterals could be feeding into tissue making it look healthy. As an example, my nuclear scan showed excellent results, but I had already had an angiogram. My angiogram showed a completely blocked LAD and a blockage in my LCx. My right artery was also totally blocked halfway down. Collateral vessels played a huge role. The amount of radiation used is not that high and risks are low.
Hi, I wanted to find out how much radiation is involved in a traditional angiogram. I've had multiple nuclear tests done in the last 10 years with two nuclear stress tests within the last three. I continue to get chest pain in heat and with exertion and am convinced that I should push my doctors for a traditional angio. Wanted to find out how much radiation dosage is involved in that.
What are the risks involved in getting that test? I'm a 40 year old female.
My cardiologist said the angiogram is the "gold standard" for checking for blockage. I've been through two myself, no big deal.
I too have problems "passing" a nuclear stress test, but the last one I had a few months back went fine.
They ran echo, ekg, Ct of chest and nuclear stress. The images in the nuclear stress test did not match. The Dr said that they isotopes did not go to the front of my chest but he did not know why. He said it did not show a blockage. He told me to go home, take it easy and follow up in his office in a few weeks. He said he was unsettled that it they did not match. I am at a loss, leaving the hospital with chest pain and an abnormal nuclear stress test is unsettleing. Any advice or thoughts?
If you can afford the angiogram, by all means, have it done. As reported, it is the gold test. Why not establish a baseline, or determine what might be a question?
Hi Ken-thanks for responding-have you had an angiogram? My cardiologist put me on im (time released nitrates) in addition to the toprol xl (beta blocker) & said if the angina & SOB continued he wants to do an angiogram-if you did have an angiogram how did they decide when to do it?
Went to family physician who was concerned and suggested nuclear stress test or CAT angiogram and gave me a choice. He ruled out blood work to look for enzymes. He told me the CAT would require prior insurance approval and recommended nuclear stress test. Like the EKG's I am sure that nothing will show up on the stress test. Should I save the insurance co pays etc and go straight to CAT angiogram?
This discussion is related to <a href='http://www.medhelp.
A relative with similar sensitivities to particulate matter was unable to breathe in nuclear stress test and had to be given oxygen to rescue her. Also there is an issue with left basilar scarring. Cardiologist says nuclear stress test is not a very good test. Isn't there an alternative?
I think if I was in your shoes, I would first maybe wonder if 'both' tests are accurate and have given true readings to the best of their ability. The perfusion (nuclear) scan has revealed reversible ischaemia which means blood flow to an area of heart muscle is restricted. The angiogram shows that your major coronary arteries are clear.
Positive results are always true, but not all negative results are correct. Nuclear scan consists of injecting a safe nuclear material to be moved to the coronary arteries. If the arterial lumen is normal, the muscle supplied by that artery will absorb this material and the whole muscle will appear in the image.
If the arterial lumen is narrowed, the muscle will need a longer time to absorb the material, so the muscle will appear defected when taking the picture.
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.
Is a nuclear stress test necessary to monitor the affects of flecinide on the heart? I've already had an angiogram that shows no artierial blockages.
s doctor is assuming there will be stent implants, therefore, a cath angiogram would be more appropiate. And if true, that would justify a cath angiogram and no CTA.
Requesting a CTA is no different than getting a second opinion so I don't see why there would be an objection. Sometimes a second opinion is rewarding...It is difficult to second quess a doctor's assessment, but due to the new technology and the probability of false postive, it may be a good idea. ..
I had a nuclear stress test that may have showed an issue in my right coronary artery. I have no angina and excellent exercise ability. My cardio suggested to get an angiogram to see if it really blocked or just a false positive. I'm scared of the angiogram. Isn't the new 64 slice CT scan just as good to detect blockages as the invasive angiogram?
Recommended
