Uh oh, I forgot about CT angiograms. Was a catheter involved? No catheter and not having to shave your groin may disqualify CT angiograms.I've had three CT angiograms.
Umm...well.....this is what it says about CT angiogram from RadiologyInfo.org Computed Tomography (CT) Angiography (Angiogram):Uh oh, I forgot about CT angiograms. Was a catheter involved?
But it involves getting stuck with a catheter, so it sounds legit to me.Umm...well.....this is what it says about CT angiogram from RadiologyInfo.org Computed Tomography (CT) Angiography (Angiogram):
So not in the groin and no shaving !
- CT angiography uses a CT scanner to produce detailed images of both blood vessels and tissues in various parts of the body. During the exam, contrast material is injected through a small catheter placed in a vein of the arm. A radiologic technologist will capture high-resolution CT images while the contrast material flows through the blood vessels.
I have that same scar on the arm from when I was 4.Mentioning not having to shave your groin took me back to the cardiac cath I had when I was 11...they made the incision and inserted the catheter througn my right arm right at the crease where the arm bends. I still have a prominent scar there that hasn't faded much at all nearly 48 years later. Out of the 5 I've had it's the only time they didn't go through the groin.
I also got a mechanical valve. I believe that's what is causing it........... I haven't asked my cardiologist about it yet, but I will be seeing them hopefully next week!My mechanical valve ticks. Has for some years, I hope for more.
No ticking after my angiograms, had 2 or 3.
Where is this ticking coming from?
People do not get arteriograms just to determine the amount of plaque in their veins. It's not cheap and I believe it needs insurance approval. I agree with Vitdoc, you should ask why your medical team thinks you need the procedure before declining it.Vitdoc. I'm not at all bitter, and didn't intend to impugn this doctor. Actually, the last question about an arteriogram came from his nurse practitioner, and he seemed to support it.
I was just noting that his 'you'll never get a heart attack' about 12 years apart strongly suggested that my coronary arteries were clear both times, and, I supposed his 'never' indicated that he believed that they would not clog or calcify enough to CAUSE a heart attack. I was wondering if, according to his earlier evaluations that I would 'never' get a heart attaack, there was any need to repeat this procedure just a few years later.
I realize that you're a physician, and you may have taken my comments as bitterness -- but they're not. I'm still seeing this doctor -- if I was bitter, I would have changed to another cardiologist long ago. I was just searching for reasons for suggesting such an apparently unnecessary procedure. (FWIW - I will be getting a cardiac CT with and without contrast - a procedure that I've never had done before).