To tell a friend I think she may have had a heart attack, even though the doctors don’t

[Sophie2525]

So my friend recently has been having some chest pain, she described it as a very intense feeling in her chest, then she felt dizzy and short of breath. She then had a week of on & off chest pain.

she went to her GP who carried out an ECG, which came back normal.

My concern is my colleague had the exact symptoms and it was a heart attack, I called an ambulance even though she didn’t want me to, they carried out an ECG which showed normal but took her to a&e where she had a blood test and showed she had had a heart attack.

So ECGs are not always accurate, and the bloods are.
she didn’t have a blood test.
Her mum also passed away from a heart attack.

She seems fine now, but I’m terrified for her, as I feel like those symptoms were a heart attack. People think a heart attack is something you would know about but it isn’t always.

I am not medically trained, the doctor has assessed her, do I just not say anything?

They’re also the symptoms of a panic attack.

All these ‘doctors’ on here 🤯

People should not be allowed to give ‘Medical advice’

How wrong the majority of you are is actually scary !!!

Back to gp for referral to cardiology. I had costochondritis for over a decade until it turned not to be...

an eg also didnt show heart attack for my dad

it doesnt efinitely mean she had one but a blood test would rule it out

Actually it doesn’t. That’s why in A&E, they do blood tests to diagnose a heart attack.
With her medical history, I’d urge your friend to push for more tests. Why are people sent to A&E when a heart attack is suspected and not the GP ??

Ahh the confident naivety of a person who doesn't continually have to advocate for their own healthcare.

Pot kettle and black come to mind when reading your post

I would gently nudge her to have it investigated further OP, and quickly, particularly in light of what happened to her mum. If it were me, I'd be going private if I got brushed off. I know someone who died of a P.E. that in hindsight, really should have been spotted.

One of the woman at work went to the GP with chest pain. ECG done, told all was fine and went home.
She died in the night from a massive heart attack.
Encourage your friend to push for further tests.

My ecg was normal as were the bloods. It was the scan that revealed the issue.

I didn’t know the bloods could get it wrong.

The OPs previous posts are mostly about various health concerns.

I'd keep this in mind.

Doesn’t sound anything like acid.

Tbf I did wait 2 months before goung to the GP

That's an assumption and you're wrong.

As someone with health issues I find nothing more annoying than people who think they are doctors.

I had chest pains and was sent to A&E by my GP. ECG was fine, bloods were fine. No heart attack. Two months later I finally got an echocardiogram I had been referred for at the same time and they discovered an aortic aneurysm.

My mum had up to three heart attacks before having full heart failure - after being repeatedly told by doctors that it was indigestion.

Op, you are right, my DH had chest pains, called ambulance who did ECG which was normal, but BP was high, so they suggested he go to hospital in for blood tests. On the way to hospital he had a heart attack, fortunately for him that he went as I was sure he wouldn’t. His angiogram the next day showed 2 blocked arteries and a third partially blocked and he needed an urgent triple heart bypass, which he had 10 days later.

I had a more or less totally blocked (94%) right coronary artery and the bloods were only slightly raised. I had the sort of heart attack that does not cause major long term damage to the heart (an NSTEMI) so the blood tests show very little. But had it been ignored I would have been at risk of one that did damage my heart.

So ECGs are not always accurate, and the bloods are.

Not true. Both can only show what is happening at the time and sometimes things that have happened.

The person reading the ECG can make a mistake and the computer analysis is worthless.

Actually it doesn’t. That’s why in A&E, they do blood tests to diagnose a heart attack.

Not entirely true, when I trained we learned to tell how long ago an MI had occurred. Then streptokinase was invented and the different stages on MI stopped happening after a dose.

Just an explanation of what a heart attack is and what an ECG shows.

A heart attack AKA a myocardial Infarction is the death of a heart tissue known as the myocardium.

The myocardium is the muscle part of your heart which also has an inner layer (endocardium)and an outside 'sac' the pericardium.

The main thing that causes an MI is a blockage to one or more coronary arteries, this means there is no blood supply to part of the myocardium fed by that coronary artery and it begins to die. This is what shows on the ECG.

So you can have a blocked coronary artery but if the myocardium isn't dying or dead it will not show on an ECG.

The same with a coronary artery that ruptures, the rupture isn't 'seen' on an ECG.

An ECG shows the electrical activity of the heart, when an MI occurs the electrical signal can no longer pass through the dead myocardium. If the myocardium is dying then some abnormal activity can be seen on the ECG.

An ECG does not show the size and shape of the heart, it can be implied by changes in the ECG but to measure the size of the chambers, how the valves are working etc you need an echo. @Pamelaaaaarrr that's why your ECG and bloods were normal, they were tests for something you didn't have. But they are still useful to rule things out.

Oh dear, I was ill recently all day, the pain getting quite bad in my back, well shoulders really, so bad that I just couldn’t sit and work at my desk, due to the discomfort ( not back ache) ,I’m had to tell work I couldn’t go on, rang 111 who insisted they send an ambulance, they did an ECG, and said it was normal, and said they could take me to hospital, but didn’t think it was needed.
It was late and I didn’t want to go at night.
I was ill in bed the next day, but felt Ok after that.
Now I’m wondering if I did have a heart attack, as I really did think I had at the time.
A couple of months now though

Could be palpitations, could be pleuritic.

No, a blood test does not show a heart attack. A troponin can be raised for other reasons. A heart attack is based on patient symptoms, ECG and a blood test called a troponin. The three things are not significant in isolation without background.

GP can refer to a chest pain clinic if no acute event found but she continues to experience chest pain.

Nice to be concerned, but don't put two and two together and make 5. You'll cause her untold anxiety with this insistence also.

This is really really not helpful. This thread is full of scare mongering misinformation and needs to be taken down.

I'm not going into detail.

But just in case anyone is reading this with health anxiety or similar that may now be worried:

There are several reasons for chest pain (pleuritic, gastric, palpitations, anxiety) to name a few. If you're under 50 and female , unless you have a very high cholesterol and/or high blood pressure / smoke and have a mother father brother or sister who's had a heart attack before age 60 - it's more likely to be another cause. A negative ECG and negative troponin will add the final piece of reassurance alongside the history given.

Blood tests do not diagnose heart attacks.

Troponin can be raised with kidney disease, arrythmia, pulmonary embolism, myocarditis, amongst other reasons.

If the history of the patient was not consistent with cardiac chest pain and the ECG was negative and the symptoms could be explained reasonably by another cause, they were satisfied there was no acute event : ie a heart attack.

If op has ongoing concerns that pain is related to the heart : investigations can be done as an outpatient. The GP would be her port of call, not the hospital. The hospital have already ruled out an acute event.