Can anyone give me any reassurance about angiograms - have to have one and am really worried.

[Winetimeisfinetime]

I have just had a call from my cardiologist to say that the results of a myoview scan I had aren't normal and that there is some 'patchiness' indicating coronary heart disease.He says I will now need an angiogram. I am both worried about having heart disease and what the long term implications are { I am only 49 }, but also very scared about having an angiogram.

Can anyone please give me any advice or reassurance ?

Oh I've just seen that there have been some more posts on my thread.Thanks so much for thinking of me, I really appreciate it.

I went to see the consultant on Thursday and have been left in a bit of a quandry as to what to do. He said that if it was him he would have the angiogram as he wouldn't want to live with the uncertainty but it was obviously up to me. He tends to bamboozle me with lots of statistics and analogies about arteries being like motorways and what happens to tributary roads if there is a road block etc and I end up losing the gist of what he is trying to tell me.

The possible scenarios seem to be that the tests I have had could both be giving false positive results, or I might have not too severe coronary heart desease or as he put it " We might get a surprise and it could be worse " He also stressed the risks of the angiogram being done which is a 1: 1500 chance of death due to stroke or heart attack, which I found worrying.

So I am now left fretting about what to do and would appreciate any advice, especially about the risks of having an angiogram.

Bump - anyone with any advice about angiograms ? Have now been told by another dr that I really ought to have it done and am stressing about the potential riska involved and trying to get my head round making the decision to do it.

I'm still here fretting and wittering on about my angiogram - anyone any advice or experience to share ?

Wht is it about the angio that worries you most?
To put your risk into some sort of context, if you were to have by-pass surgery, your risk would be much higher (approx 1:100)

Personally speaking I would have the angio done. For me, I think the fear of not knowing what state my arteries were in,would far outweigh the small risk associated with the angio. Also, if my arteries were knackered (not a term you'll see on an angio report btw!) I'd want to know what my options were in terms of 'plasty & stent vs by-pass surgery.
Ultimately the decision is yours alone - however there are things you can be doing to help yourself, look at your diet, activity levels, if you smoke-stop, and drink in moderation!

Here endeth the lecture -sorry if I've gone on a bit, but didn't want your post to go unanswered

Thanks for replying monkeyme - lecture much appreciated

What worries me the most is that my cardio has told me that the test carries a risk of death through heart attack or stroke of 1 in 1500 but I have read elsewhere that it could be as high as 1 in 500. I find it hard to get the risks of that in perspective against the risks of not knowing that that I may have a serious problem needing further intervention that having the angiogram would reveal iyswim.
I am currently on statins. aspirin and beta blockers anyway which I think would be treatment for a mild case of CHD and my cardio seem to think that there is still a chance that previous tests could be giving false positive results so I may not have a problem at all. Just finding it hard to make the decision to take the test without feeling more sure that there is a real neccessity for it.

My dad had an angiogram for heart disease.

He has also had a triple bypass.

The angio was a lot less stressful on his body and easier to recover from.

He has been living with heart disease since his 40s and is now in his 70s.

They sedate you a lot!

I would have one if I were you.

Like you, my father's side of the family is absolutely riddled with heart attack and hpyertension.

One of my first cousins died from heart attack when she was just 39 years old, leaving behind her two year old daughter, and she had no idea anything was wrong.

The older I get, the more it really worries me, as I already have hypertension.

Seriously, the procedure itself wasn't so bad from what he said - but he's also had the triple bypass and prostatectomy as well as some urinary/bladder procedures.

But his recovery was a breeze compared to the bypass.

I work in Cardiology, don't know if I can really help with making your decision though.
The procedure itself is really quite straightforward, it sounds so much worse than it is. It's not painful, the local will sting but that's about it. One of the pictures they sometimes take gives you a wierd hot flush feeling, but just for a few seconds. You won't feel the tubes going round as there are no nerves inside your arteries. Some Cardiologists routinely offer sedation, some don't, but if you want some just ask!
In terms of risks, the few people who do have serious problems when having an angiogram will mostly be people with severe coronary artery disease or other serious health problems, and if they hadn't had the procedure that would be a big risk too, if you see what I mean?
It sounds like you don't really have typical symptoms, i.e. you don't have chest pain on exertion. So you're in a bit of a grey area where the only way anyone can tell for definite if you have coronary disease is having the angiogram.
Even if you do have coronary artery disease, there is often very effective treatment for it now.
Good luck

Treatment options may also include angioplasty (using a balloon and tiny wire cage to open a narrowed artery). So the recommended treatment may differ from your current medication if you do have mild disease.

Thanks for that expat. I think you are right that I need to have it - I guess I know deep down that I will end up doing it but haven't yet admitted it to myself.

It is a worry when there's so much family history of cardiovascular problems - especially when people are having heart attacks at 39. I should be grateful really that this has been picked up now so that I have the chance to get it sorted and stop procrastinating about the angiogram.

Have you had your cholesterol checked expat as I never had, even with a strong family history of heart problems, until all this sparked off as a result of telling my dr I was getting a bit breathless sometimes.

I haven't had my cholesterol checked, no.

Probably should.

Really, though, I doubt they'd recommend having the procedure unless they thought you needed it.

You've already had the myoview and it gave them concern enough.

Some repairs can even be carried out, too, using angioplasty.

We were very worried when my dad went in for his, but really, it wasn't nearly as bad as his previous problems.

His younger brother had his first heart attack at 37.

He's in his 70s now, but his elder brother (the one whose daughter passed on at 39) and one of his sister died of heart attack in their early 60s.

Best to find out now and get it treated.

Cardiovascular disease in women is notoriously underdiagnosed, with the results being that women are far more likely to die from it than men.

So consider this a diagnostic tool for your health.

Thanks ThursdayNext - that was very useful as I keep forgetting that the risk statistics alter depending on your state of health when you have the test. I think I am over focussing on the 1 in 500-1500 risk of a problem - and imagining that I am going to be the 1 unfortuate person it happens to !

You're right I am in a grey area as I have no symptoms so it is harder to decide to have an invasive test - but then if I don't have it and there is a problem......I'm not liking that scenario either.

I have been trying to find out if something like a cardio CT scan might be an alternative to an angiogram as it is less invasive.

That's the problem with reading stuff on the internet - you can come up with all sorts of scary stuff Your cardiologist has worked out your risk based on your medical history so I would disregard the 1:500 bit - it sounds like worst case scenario.(ie patients with unstable angina, renal impairment to name a few)Hope this is of some use - off to bed now, as I have to go lecture at patients tomorrow

You're saying exactly what my dr said to me, expat about it being under diagnosed in women. Apparently it is also much more likely that a heart attack will be fatal for a woman. I don't think I have much choice but to get on with this do I ?

I'm very surprised that you aren't being monitored with your family history - I wasn't as everyone was over 60 when something happened - but was told if they had been younger I would have been. Not sure what the monitoring would have involved but I would have thought cholesterol checks at least.

They don't seem bothered by it.

I write it down on all my forms.

I've had 3 surgeries in the past 6 years and had 2, now going on 3, children and no one's made mention of it at all.

Thanks monkeyme - I think he said that the general risk was 1 in 1500 but that would alter depending on your state of health but I did then go on to scare myself even more by reading on the internet it could be as low as 1 in 500.

I appreciate all of your replies - it has helped me think this through. Not one person has said don't do it - my doctors are telling me I probably ought to do it - I think I need to do it !

Well hopefully expat you are absolutely fine - but you have very kindly taken the time to encourage me to get myself checked out so it wouldn't be right for me not to do likewise for you. So maybe next time you see your gp mention the family history again and get them to check your cholesterol ? At least then you would have a baseline reading for it - I have got to 49 before finding out my cholesterol was high and have no idea how long it's been like that - and I am a vegetarian who also doesn't eat dairy so can't put it down to anything other than a genetic predisposition.

Hi Winetime I have no experience of this procedure so have no wise words, but wanted to say you know deep down in your heart you should have it done... for peace of mind and for your future health. I understand it is a scary process and you are young for this type of procedure but that is good...cause they will have caught everything early (IF there is a problem). {{{hugs}}} x

Hi cositjustisok - thanks for the hugs, they're much appreciated. I think you are right but I just haven't got my head round it yet and am trying to resist a test I'm not totally convinced I really need. It's probably better to not think so much and just get on with it as the anxiety is no doubt doing me more harm than the test ever would.

Winetime...(love the name btw)...the anxiety, stress and worry you are putting yourself under whilst making a decision will not be good for your health. The hardest part about these type of things is actually making the decision to go ahead!!!....(I am so indecisive but working on it ). Read through all these threads and let the MN make the decision for you...YOU HAVE TO HAVE THIS DONE...saying you are not convinced you need it is fruitless...the doctor and cardiologist advise it..listen to them they are the experts. Your young and the chances of them "heading of at the pass" any future diseases to your heart are worth the worries you have now.

I hope that does not sound harsh..cos I am a softy really jsut got your best interest at heart (pardon the pun!!) {{{Hugs}}} x

Thanks coitjustisok - you don't sound harsh at all, you're just speaking sense !

You are right in everything that you say and I would go ahead with it with no qualms if my cardio had said I definitely needed it but he has not been so specific and said it is my decision but if it was him he would have it done as he wouldn't want any uncertainty. Like you I hate this dithering around and will be far better once I've made my decision and feel that I am coming to the realisation it needs to be done.

I read other people's posts on here who are dealing with some truly dreadful situations and think "what are you wittering on about woman - get a grip". So that's what I'm going to do x

ps I hope everything is going ok for IWAL - I keep looking at the clock and thinking of her.

Hi winetime..you are not mithering on..this is equally as worrying as any one else's post. MN here to support everyone x

Thanks again cositjustisok - you're a pal x

Winetime, I'm afraid there is no alternative to an angiogram for looking at coronary arteries.
I don't think anyone would think you were wittering on. The test sounds pretty scary - but it's fine, really. It's actually all quite low key.
I think in your position I would worry about it much more precisely because the Cardiologist has said it's your decision rather than strongly advising you to have it. I would guess he's not sure if you have coronary disease, wheras many people having angiograms almost definitely have coronary disease. It puts the responsibility of the decision on to you, if he had just said 'you should have this done, it's really important' you might have felt more as if you should just get on with it and worry less, in some ways?

That's exactly my dilemma Thursday - the onus is on me to decide whether or not to have an invasive test when I may not even have a real problem to begin with. I would have no qualms in having it dome if I was sure it was neccessary. Even though my cardio hasn't strongly advised it I feel as though I am being drawn into having it anyway by him saying he would do it if he were me, just to rule out uncertainty and I saw my gasteroenterologist on another matter yesterday and he almost made me feel I was being stupod if I didn't do it.

Thurday thanks so much for your post. It is extremely useful to hear from people who have direct cardio experience.

You mention that there is no alternative to an angiogram - is a cardio CT scan { I have been researching this and have seen something called a 64 slice scanner at Harefield hospital } not worth considering to give the same or similar info to an angiogram ? I'm finding it hard to plough through the data on the internet to work out exactly what info the CT scan shows. My cardio was quite scathing about scans that check calcium levels and I think the CT scan might involve this. I would be interested though if it provided a more definitive answer than the scans I have had already and so I could either be reassured that I don't have a serious problem or if I do, go ahead have the angiogram and whatever else knowing it is really neccessary.