Me: Persistent AFib in normal HR range 60-90. Some shortness of breath on hills but mild symptoms overall. Ejection fraction rate 50. Some structural wall stiffness.
Failed cardioversion recently. Ablation or drug assisted cardioversion next step.
However, next stage is angiogram plus possible angioplasty in April.
I’m grateful for treatment of course and very wary of questioning NHS support. Just wondered why I wasn’t in for a angiogram scan rather than angiogram plus poss angioplasty.
If I understand correctly I could have had a scan first to see if any arteries were blocked or narrowed and then have angioplasty if they were.
Any personal experiences and advice would be appreciated
Written by
Hallane
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
No-one on here is qualified to provide you with advice on which treatment you should or should not have, I would recommend you listen to the healthcare professional who is treating you? You sound a little bit as if you are questioning the support, if I may say with all respect?
I suppose you never question anything ? Hallane..asked for advice and you just gave it then said no one on here can give advice ! Contrary springs to mind.!
Of course I question things, but usually not the likes of consultants? Maybe you are qualified to do so, but if so I guess you wouldn't be asking laymen for their opinion? I think there is a bit of difference between your situation and the fairly simple situation regarding a Veganburger, personally. Anyway, happy Easter, hope you get sorted.
Hello Not sure but I believe if they do an Angiogram with PCI on stand by they expect to see something that a stent may help. Without your full history it's really difficult to help as advised earlier best speak to the professionals treating you .
They're probably looking for something which wouldn't be clear on a CT Angiogram. An invasive Angiogram is the ultimate test of blood flow through the heart so it's great they're going for that. If they'd suspected something from a CT scan you'd have had to have an Angiogram anyway so may as well bite the bullet and have the all bells and whistles procedure. I had my 4th Angiogram last week. They're getting easier for me proving most of my disliking them is in my mind. Ask for sedation and you won't know much about it. It's relatively pain free anyway (I have extremely narrow vessels so it's always a bit uncomfortable) but most people don't feel anything. Be happy knowing they will have a great overview of your heart and you'll at least know what's going on, if anything.
hiya, I had a heart attack a month ago today and had no previous symptoms before. It was a bolt out of the blue!
When I was in a & e they did a chest scan and a CT scan and neither of those showed any abnormalities in my heart. Even the ultrasound was unclear. It was only when they did the angiogram that they saw they needed to insert a stent. I had a 90% blockage in my LAD. I’m 53.
I had a CT angiogram privately to speed up diagnosis because of my then job . The cardiologist said it was not clear enough so I had to have a full angiogram anyway- ended up with two stents.
I'm not sure you can "request" particular treatment? The Pro's treating an individual will provide the most effective and targeted procedure based on an individuals circumstances.
I had a CT angiogram scan first. Basically that was able to tell I had a had a problem, s I had a high calcium score and some narrowing of arteries. From what I understood though it couldn't tell how bad the problem was. Therefore I then had to go and have the angiogram anyway. Ended up having one stent in my lad.
The risks are higher with an angiogram, I think that's why some places do the ct scan first to see if there is a problem. However I have read in some areas they just go straight to the angiogram, if it's felt needed.
I had to go the private route so maybe that's why they may have been cautious and did the CT angiogram scan first.
I went private as initially NHS referred me to cardiac nurse led clinic. They did ECG and blood pressure and told me there was nothing wrong and I definitely did not have heart diesese. This was despite daily chest pain and terrible family history
Very lucky for me I had inherited a bit of money so could go private. Consultant I saw said he didn't think anything was wrong but needed to check due to family history. He then did CT scan which showed there was a problem, which led onto the angiogram and stent.
Obviously everyone's situation is different but that's my experience
Hi, I was in a Coronary Care Unit 5 years ago, following a heart attack (NSTEMI type 2). There was some discussion over my treatment and a course suggested was to discharge with a follow up CT or diagnostic angiogram. The Sister on the ward felt this might delay my treatment, if follow up intervention was required. She advocated that I should be transferred to another unit where a traditional angiogram could be conducted with PCI (if needed). This was done quickly and I pleased to say no further intervention was required. Although the traditional angiogram is more invasive and carries a little more risk, I was happy it was done. This helped me to move on quickly to my rehabilitation and recovery.
Incidentally, there wasn’t a firm prognosis. After some further investigation, the conclusion was my heart attack was likely caused by a small, transient clot as a result of undiagnosed and untreated paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.
If you have questions about your treatment, I would always recommend discussing it throughly with your healthcare team.
only small thing I can add to this is that my CT scan showed mild narrowing with plaque while my angiogram suggested the arteries were completely clear with no narrowing. I think this is because they are clearly different techniques of viewing what is going on in our coronary arteries and CT scans can pick up different compositions of layers while the angiogram effectively shows any significant narrowings or blockages.
Interesting responses above. I'm having an angiogram/plasty tomorrow (eek) following a CT scan some months back. Consultant said the Scan definitely showed "severe" calcification and blockages (triple vessel disease) but now needed to move to the more invasive angio-intervention to determine precisely what is going on inside. He advised it might be stents if possible or worst case, triple by-pass. The CT scan simply does not show in sufficient detail what is precisely required. So right now, I'm going with the stent option... and not even thinking about the surgery. It's all a bit shocking tbh, and I'm still processing the situation, while my heart failure symptoms gradually worsen. One way or other I want it sorted. I'm also going with the professional flow and allowing the medics to do what they think is best. (Certainly, I've been taken seriously, and well looked after, and have no reason to question any of the judgements that have been made.)
Good luck anyway. It's an anxious time. So much uncertainty. None of the options are what I'd have chosen, but suppose I'm grateful for the care I'm receiving. Send news of how things pan out.
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.
Angiogram, Angioplasty / Stent
CT Coronary Angiogram 
Angiogram after CT Scan
CT SCAN AND CT ANGIOGRAM
CT scan results huge difference to Angiogram
