I thought I would post about my experience yesterday incase it can help another user of This forum. I was diagnosed with moderate Coronoary Heart Disease in January of this year. The only reason it was found is because I started to have AFib attacks and they were acute and therefore they wanted to investigate further. Long story short it’s been one hell of a turmoil with my AFIb but my cardiologist decided I needed an angiogram to see exactly how bad my arteries were. I had this done yesterday and am super happy because the angiogram has now diagnosed me with mild CHD in the right artery ( circa 20-30% stenosis) whereas the CT scan was 50-60% in the LAD. How can the CT scan have got it so wrong? Interested to know if anyone else has had a similar experience? And also anyone out there who has had a CT scan and no angiogram I personally would think again. If you have access to one I would go for it
I feel so much happier with the reduced diagnosis it’s like I’ve been sitting on eggshells ( they thought it might have been more like 70% and would have them required a stent) . Now I feel I can relax and get on with my life again
Written by
Nodoubt2
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
19 Replies
•
it’s a bit like a car mechanic can run a computerised diagnostic test on a car and find one an issue but it’s only till someone gets on under the bonnet that the true extent is known - it can go either way though.
Think I have read in research CT scan can tend to overstate but I personally would rather not have it the other way round i.e Ct scan understates and then doctors don’t think to do a angiogram.
Maybe a CT scan errs on the side of caution?
It’s good your angiogram showed not so much of a problem.
My experience is the reverse. I had CT scan which showed 90% block on LAD and 50-70% on another 2 . Went in for scheduled angiogram and stents to be told they could not do stents as100% blocked.... Result was triple bypass pass instead. CT scans can over or undercall - angiogram is the most accurate.
I think you're right. I've been advised that an angioplasty with camera is the only way to see what's going on in one of my veins. The CT scan looks OK, but the only way to see what's happening is to stick a camera in.
The CT scan is cheaper and quicker and still valuable, but....
I just wish I’d had the angiogram back in January I wouldn’t have spent months worrying myself so much - both my brother and my dad died of heart attacks at young ages (52 & 56 ) . I’ve been petrified and now I feel so much more relaxed. I still have heart disease but very mild and I can do what I can now to keep it that way.
I would double check this, as your talking about 2 different coronary arteries, what you are saying is according to the CT your LAD is 60% blocked, and the RCA clear, and the angiogram said the LAD is clear and the RCA is 30% blocked, I think you need to recheck the angiogram report.
My consultant was doing the angiogram and was with me throughout . He also was the same consultant that got the results of my CT scan. He is going to re check the CT scan himself now to be sure but he was involved in both
Oh Bridgett how awful to have had that news you must have gone through hell but such good news that they got it wrong. One of our daughters is going through a similar thing to you not the same but involves a multi disciplinary team who all have differing opinions. She’s been told all sorts of things including likely cancer and other nasties but she is still going through it waiting to find out what she actually has - sh needs to know this so they can treat her, whatever it is, properly.
For me I just wish I’d questioned the CT scan results at the time and asked for an angiogram - I didn’t know enough then but feel I’ve learnt so much from this forum over the last 9 months. Sometimes the worst thing is the worrying and being frightened about what’s happening to your body. I was so angry & upset when they told me about my CHD back in January since I have been so careful most of my life to be as healthy as possible ( kept slim, exercise, meditate & gave up smoking years back) . I just think I would have had a very different 9 months to the ones I’ve had and my fear of the situation I know has made my AFib worse. I’ve read so much here on this forum that we really have to try and live with the AFib not let it rule us . Take care
I'm glad to hear that your angiogram showed a less severe degree of coronary heart disease (CHD) than your CT scan did. It's understandable that you would be relieved by this news.
There are a few reasons why a CT scan might overestimate the severity of CHD. One reason is that CT scans can sometimes have difficulty distinguishing between soft plaque and the surrounding tissue. This can lead to an overestimation of the amount of plaque buildup in the arteries.
Another reason is that CT scans are not always able to accurately measure the degree of stenosis, or narrowing, of the arteries. This is because CT scans are two-dimensional images, and they can sometimes miss areas of narrowing that are not visible from the angle of the scan.
Angiograms, on the other hand, are able to provide a more accurate assessment of the severity of CHD because they are three-dimensional images. Angiograms are also able to measure the degree of stenosis more accurately because they use a contrast dye that highlights the arteries.
In your case, it is possible that the CT scan overestimated the amount of plaque buildup in your arteries, or that it missed an area of narrowing that was not visible from the angle of the scan. The angiogram was then able to provide a more accurate assessment of the severity of your CHD.
I'm glad that you are feeling better and that you can now relax and get on with your life. It is still important to follow your doctor's recommendations for managing your CHD, but you can now do so with the peace of mind that your condition is not as severe as you initially thought.
I had a CT scan that showed I had severe stenosis and triple vessel disease. My cardiologist told me that CT scans were more accurate for mild disease or no disease but not good for differentiating between moderate and severe disease so my CT was followed with an angio which did show severe disease and I ended up with a triple CABG
When I had a CT scan which detected serious blockages I was told these scans are known to produce a significant number of false positives and I was given an angiogram to confirm the result. In my case the CT result was confirmed, but that isn’t always the case. So being given a follow-up angiogram is simply standard practice (or at least isn’t unusual).
HiI read your post with great interest. Last year I had a CT heart scan and an ultrasound heart scan. The result was mild CAD and moderate LVH.
It took a while to get the results and the recommended treatment via the cardiologist was to aggressively treat my high blood pressure and put on Clopidrogel.
I was a bit perplexed when all tests done my results were considered normal. I posted the question on this super forum regarding the moderate LVH which is not a normal result. I have recently started a diet to lose weight as this is a contributing factor in my results. As yet the only difference in relation to my diet is having to eat more and I'm not losing weight.
Thank you for your post. I hope things go well for you.
I was told that a standard angiogram is the gold standard for diagnosing problems with coronary arteries, at least problems with the large vessels (LAD, RCA etc). After my MI, a year later I las an angiogram done to determine if there were any rwsidual problems. My cardiologist told me that it was the best diagnostic.
You are better off pushing for every test possible, l had all sorts of tests and everything was fine then they decided one more the angiogram and that’s when everything went pear shaped and turned out I was a ticking time bomb and shouldn’t be alive, straight to intensive care and a quadruple CABG.
So so lucky for that final test. All I can say is push push push.
Hi Everyone, I have been reading many posts in this forum relating to angina, angiograms & digestion. I am trying to understand what I may encounter in my CT Angiogram Scan, get a handle on what could be in store for me and consider other possibilities. I'm a little confused though as after reading this post and comments it seems that a CT Scan & Angiogram are not the same? I have learned that there is an invasive angiogram too. I am booked in for the above mentioned on 10th January and am wondering what I need to be asking and if this investigation will be thorough enough. It seems from what I have read I may also need further test to ensure that nothing is missed. I wonder, have I got this correct?
So a CT scan is when they pop you into a CT scanner ( bit like a shirt MRI tunnel) and inject you with a dye beforehand so they can review your arteries.
An angiogram is where they feed a ‘tiny camera’ up through the arteries of the heart to take photographs of inside the arteries. This test is far more invasive but is far more accurate that a ct scan. I don’t know for sure but I’m guessing that they would always normally do a CT scan first to give them a heads up if the angiogram was needed. During an angiogram they can also put Stents in if needed - it’s a similar process.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
CT coronary angiogram results
False Negative result of CT Angiogram
Angiogram plus possible angioplasty vs CT Angiogram
CT Angiogram Results (How Long?)
