Angio

Hi Jeff. Not knowing your reasons for not wanting an angiogram, I can only relate my own experience. Having been admitted with MI symptoms in 2014 I was given an angiogram with arterial entry via my right wrist. I experienced no discomfort and had immediate reassurance (no arterial problems) from the surgeon during the procedure. Afterwards I was given a pressure cuff, which was steadily deflated by a nurse, who remained with me over several hours. I understand this is a far better procedure than groin entry (which can immobilise for a much longer period) unless it is deemed a stent is required.

Dear Jeff, Three or more years ago I declined an angiogram in favour of a Myocardial Perfusion Scan, due to chest discomfort and breathings probs and angina was diagnosed. however within another year due to angina becoming unstable I was taken to A & E and given (with my consent) an angiogram which revealed far more than the perfusion scan had been able to do and I got a quad bypass as a result.. So my recommendation would be discuss with your GP and consultant and if you want greater accuarcy go for the Angiogram but if like me you don't want that particular risk go for a Perfusion Scan first and be prepared for further tests perhaps  being necessary later on. all the best  Roy

From the USA - I was advised by cardiologists (2 of them) to have a heart cathiterization derived angiogram after a stress-echocardiogram showing some problem with the left back side of my heart.  Both cardiologists said that I could have a blockage.  I researched alternatives to the cathiterization which was not offered radially (through the wrist) by either doc.  I found that a CT calcium scan might reveal the chances that it was a blockage so I independently got one and it showed no calcium and a low likelyhood of blockages.  Still worried i procured a more complex CT scan of my heart which showed the physiology of my heart and no stenosis or blockages.  Subsequent to that, the radiologist who did the original stress-echo posted a more detailed report in my online chart where I discovered that the diagnosis was "Tricuspid valve insufficiency with regurgitation".  After further research i found that this sort of problem is followed with echo cardiograms and not with cathiterizations. Why did the cardiologists to whom I went not look closely at the original radiologists report, close enough to see that a cathiterization was not required?  The alternative to the cathiterization that worked for me was called a computed tomography angiogram (CT angiogram).

Are you talking about an echocardiogram? That's an ultrasound of the heart & completely un-invasive. It would seem odd that a GP would refer you for an angiogram in the first instance? Have you had an ECG or chest x-ray yet?