I have been having chest pain since I did a colonoscopy in early May 2017. For the chest pain, a cardio doctor did all kinds of heart tests (ekg, echo test, stress test (with and without the dye), heart CT scan and two chest x-rays). The only things that were found was minimal pulmonary and triscupid value reguritation and slightly abnormal ekg). The cardio doc said my chest pain is not related to my heart, its related to the depression I have been going through as a result of my GI/GYN health issues and other stressors that has been bothering for a while now, and I need to see a psychi doctor (which I have been already seeing a psychologist and have been on anti-depression meds).
I eventually passed out and I was rushed to the emergency room. When I was rushed to the emergency room, the chest pain was a 7-8 on a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being the worst) it was alternating from feeling dull to as if a gallon of water was placed on my chest, to stabbing pains mostly focused on the left side of my chest radiating into my breast and at time times to the center and right side of my chest. What was the worst was the shortness of breath it was a 10, making it very difficult to talk or move at all without needing to gasp for air. The emergency room doc told me I had a mild chest infection and bladder infection after doing blood test, urine test, chest X-ray and CT scan. The shortness of breath reduced significantly after taking the antibotics provided. However, the chest pain persisted and it was radiating into upper left arm and sometimes in my left hand and left upper back, throat, jaw accompanied with throbbing headache that is there practically all the time.
About a week and half after that emergency room visit I was in the hospital again cause. I didn't faint this time but I was very weak and limp similar to the first time but without passing out. This time the hospital said nothing was wrong with my chest (urine, blood. X-ray, CT scan of my entire upper body from head to pelvic), but I was still given more antiobtics (different kind).
Til this day am still having the chest pain and it alternates in severity and type every moment of the day. I still have shortness of breath if I talk to much but it's not as bad as before. My doctor believes my chest pains are related to the stomach and female organ issues I've been having (been diagnosed with IBS-C, endometriosis, mild colitis and small stomach ulcers, I have chronic nausea, constipation alternating with the runs and sometimes stomach pain mostly on the left side, which is reduced somewhat after taking meds for the pain) and believes nothing is wrong with my chest, which am ok with that explanation. However, am still confused with these CT scan reports I was reading from the emergency room visit. I know am not a doctor nor trying to overstep what my doctors current beliefs are, but am just trying to get a little more clarity on the reports to see if I may still need to see a chest specialist or something.
I was reading the reports of the chest CT scans that were done on me both times. From what I read from reports of both scans the findings does not appear to be exactly 100% normal. So I am wondering if I need to see a pulmonary specialist.
The first CT scan report said the following:
“The heart size is normal. There is no pleural or pericardial effusion. The thoracic aorta demonstrates no evidence of aneurysm or dissection. There is no lymphadenopathy within the chest. The evaluation of the pulmonary arteries reveals adequate opacification of contrast through the mid subsegmental level. No filling defects are identified to suggest pulmonary embolism. Minimal peripheral ground glass opacities are noted in the upper lung zones bilaterally which may reflect mild pneumonitis. No focal dense infiltrate is identified.
IMPRESSION:
1. TECHNICALLY ADEQUATE STUDY WITH NO EVIDENCE OF PULMONARY EMBOLISM.
2. ATYPICAL APPEARING INFILTRATES MOST LIKELY REFLECTING INFECTIOUS OR INFLAMMATORY PNEUMONITIS.”
———
The second report said the following:
“Heart size is normal. There is no pleural or pericardial effusion. The thoracic aorta demonstrates no evidence of aneurysm or dissection. Evaluation of the pulmonary arteries reveals adequate opacification of contrast through the mid subsegmental level. No filling defect is identified to suggest pulmonary embolism. Minimal fairly diffuse areas of tree-in-bud opacities are noted throughout both lungs, similar to the prior study. No focal dense infiltrate is identified. There is no pneumothorax.
IMPRESSION:
1. TECHNICALLY ADEQUATE STUDY WITH NO EVIDENCE OF PULMONARY EMBOLISM.
2. MILD SCATTERED TREE-IN-BUD OPACITIES IN THE LUNGS SIMILAR TO THE PRIOR STUDY AND LIKELY REFLECTING INFECTIOUS OR INFLAMMATORY CHANGE. NO FOCAL DENSE INFILTRATE.”
Any thoughts?