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 ?

Sorry winetime, I don't know about cardiac CT for looking at coronary arteries. It's not something that's been used in any hospital I have worked in. I imagine if your Cardiologist was scathing about them, he probably has good reasons! I wouldn't imagine a cardiac CT for your purposes would be offered on the NHS either.

my husband had an angiogram 5 years ago for a brain a.v.m he didnt have a sedative (very brave or maybe stupid) he said it didnt hurt as they numb the area first but he was scared and said he could see lots of blood.i think a sedative would be strongly recommened

Thanks Thursday - I think I am probably just grasping at straws about the CT scan. I am almost sure now that I will have the angiogram as every time I get indigestion now I think it could be a heart attack - so I'm realising that it is just going to cause lots of stress living with the uncertainty. Better to find out for sure really as the anxiety is probably doing me far more harm than the angiogram would.

Thanks for the tip candyfluff - I am definitely going to ask for a sedative. My cardiologist said he doesn't usuallly give them but I can have one if I really want.

Good luck, winetime, I hope you find the angiogram OK if you do go ahead with it.

Just a thought,the other thing I would do, is ask your cardiologist what the plan of action would be if he found a significant lesion. Would he be able to treat it there and then (with angioplasty & stent) or would you have to come back for a separate procedure? Worth knowing, as it could save you a lot of stress at a later date! Good luck with it all, will keep checking to see how you go

the gold standard procedure is an angiogram,, ct will not give you a definitve answer . you may end up haibg the ct and then an angio after and a ct scan is much mmore radiation.Have the test.. its the only way of knwing what is going on, thousands of people have then everyday. - honest

some ven type better after !

Just thought I would return to this thread and finish the story off in the hopes that my experience may help anyone else in a similar position to me.

I have been fretting for months about whether or not to have a catheterised angiogram as I was concerned about the small but still significant risk of heart attack, stroke or even death that this carries. I felt this was probably an unacceptable risk for me as the test was hopefully only going to be ruling out any major problems, so I went on Monday to Harefield and had a CT angiogram which is non invasive. It does carry a higher radiation dose than a standard angiogram , but at a high volume centre like Harefield they have got the radiation levels down to not much more.

I am very pleased to say that the test was very successful { despite me having a fairly high heart rate which can blur the images } and I have been given the all clear. I was told by the cardiologist I saw at Harefield not to worry any more and that he wishes his arteries looked as good as mine .

I just wanted to say thank you to all of you that gave me advice and support and to add this to the mn cache of information on the subject as this is a relatively new test which my local cardiologist had told me was all but useless as a diagnostic tool but based on my experience is a viable, non invasive option for some { I know it isn't suitable for all situations } people who have been advised to have an angiogram.

Just thought I would return to this thread and finish the story off in the hopes that my experience may help anyone else in a similar position to me.

I have been fretting for months about whether or not to have a catheterised angiogram as I was concerned about the small but still significant risk of heart attack, stroke or even death that this carries. I felt this was probably an unacceptable risk for me as the test was hopefully only going to be ruling out any major problems, so I went on Monday to Harefield and had a CT angiogram which is non invasive. It does carry a higher radiation dose than a standard angiogram , but at a high volume centre like Harefield they have got the radiation levels down to not much more.

I am very pleased to say that the test was very successful { despite me having a fairly high heart rate which can blur the images } and I have been given the all clear. I was told by the cardiologist I saw at Harefield not to worry any more and that he wishes his arteries looked as good as mine .

I just wanted to say thank you to all of you that gave me advice and support and to add this to the mn cache of information on the subject as this is a relatively new test which my local cardiologist had told me was all but useless as a diagnostic tool but based on my experience is a viable, non invasive option for some { I know it isn't suitable for all situations } people who have been advised to have an angiogram.

Not sure how I missed this first time round Winetime. My dd has had several catheterised angiograms ( and is having another in February). She recently had an inconclusive cardiac MRI in a futile attempt to avoid this next one.

Glad your scan was clear. That's really good news

Glad to hear that you got the all clear (It's Monkeyme under a new name!)it must be such a load of your mind - I'd have a glass of wine to make sure those arteries stay nice and clear!!!

Thanks Saggar.

I'm sorry to hear that your dd has to undergo regular angiograms. That must be a worry - my concerns were nothing compared to how you must feel. I hope my thread hasn't added to any concerns you have.

The risks are very small though - I wonder if they are even less for children and I assume they are very neccessary for your dd. If they had told me they strongly suspected that I had a problem that needed something like stenting that can only be done with a catheterised angiogram, I would have had it with no argument - just didn't want to have it to confirm that there either was no problem or a slight one that they are already treating with drug therapy anyway.

I would think that for a child needing regular angiograms the extra radiation from the CT one would be more of a risk than the standard angiogram which is why they tried the MRI version instead? The techniques with these tests do seem to be advancing rapidly so hopefully if your dd needs angiograms for the foreseeable future, it won't be too long before there's a viable alternative for her.

Best wishes to both of you and good vibes for her test in Feb.

Thanks stanosaurus - funnily enough we were just about to open a bottle of red wine

S'Ok winetime. I worry about her obviously but I know she's in good hands. They do try to avoid doing angios so if they think she needs it then it's because they need to know she's safe. She's 15 now so her risks are similar to an adult I suppose although she has an odd coronary connection. Catheter is really the only defintive way of visualising them. Over the years the main complication she's had is with an embolus at the catheter site causing an issue with the blood flow to her leg. It seems to me that this is a risk that is often glossed over as I know of several children it has happened to.

I absolutely understand why you would want to avoid it if there was a viable alternative. dd has had to have 6 monthly CT too so the cardiac version not really an option either.

Hope you enjoyed your wine

glad your OK wintimeisfinetime saggar - sorry to hear your dd has to endure this on a regular basis

oops meant you're if any pedants about!