M
Mary
I don't even know why I'm posting this, except I do know why, if that makes any sense. Logically I know there's nothing different going on than what's been going on, but I'm rattled and need to vent (I guess)
I saw the cardiologist today; my AVR was last June 7. He quizzed me pretty hard about the amount of fluid retention I am having but seemed satisfied with my answers. He did ask me if I thought we needed to up the Lasix again, but I declined. Then he launched into the, "with your history, what I'm worried most about is the pericardial constriction and staying on top of any more fluid retention that might develop." And then he threw in, "unfortunately, as you know, the surgery to relieve the constriction is more serious than the original valve replacement."
Now I know all this, but I suppose I've grown accustomed to dealing with and downplaying it. His words seemed to be a cautious reminder that I have issues, and he expects them to worsen over time. (Boy, rereading this, I am whining! Oh well! )
I then asked if he were going to schedule my echo, and he said he didn't see the need. In his opinion, the constriction is the primary problem and even if my mitral is leaking (which the echo indicated last August) it would take a backseat to the constriction. When I asked him when I would need an echo, he said if I were concerned, he would go ahead and schedule one. I said I was, so I will have one run next Monday. In the meantime, I have an appointment with him in six months. I don't think that's a good sign, but maybe I'm wrong?
Ok, I'm through.
Thank you to those who read this.
But please, no offers of cheese to go with my "whine"; it's got too much sodium for me to indulge!
I saw the cardiologist today; my AVR was last June 7. He quizzed me pretty hard about the amount of fluid retention I am having but seemed satisfied with my answers. He did ask me if I thought we needed to up the Lasix again, but I declined. Then he launched into the, "with your history, what I'm worried most about is the pericardial constriction and staying on top of any more fluid retention that might develop." And then he threw in, "unfortunately, as you know, the surgery to relieve the constriction is more serious than the original valve replacement."
Now I know all this, but I suppose I've grown accustomed to dealing with and downplaying it. His words seemed to be a cautious reminder that I have issues, and he expects them to worsen over time. (Boy, rereading this, I am whining! Oh well! )
I then asked if he were going to schedule my echo, and he said he didn't see the need. In his opinion, the constriction is the primary problem and even if my mitral is leaking (which the echo indicated last August) it would take a backseat to the constriction. When I asked him when I would need an echo, he said if I were concerned, he would go ahead and schedule one. I said I was, so I will have one run next Monday. In the meantime, I have an appointment with him in six months. I don't think that's a good sign, but maybe I'm wrong?
Ok, I'm through.
Thank you to those who read this.
But please, no offers of cheese to go with my "whine"; it's got too much sodium for me to indulge!