RobThatsMe
Well-known member
Hi Everyone,
I was asked to post this information here regarding this topic. It was first posted on the WebMD board by CardioStar. IT contains very useful information about this new proactive approach to heath, and my respsonse is at the end. It is lengthy, but good reading.
A Diagnostic Tool, With Complications
Supporters tout the full-body CT scan for finding disease before symptoms emerge. But medical groups and the FDA warn of their potential for harm.
By Ridgely Ochs
Newsday staff writer
March 19, 2002
The ads are everywhere, on radio, on television and in magazines. "Why wait until symptoms show?" asks one. "Your health is your most important asset."
The pitch is for full-body CT scans, state-of-the-art computerized X-ray technology that within minutes can deliver three-dimensional pictures of the inside of the body, from the neck, to the heart, the lungs, the spine and muscle, and on to the colon and groin.
These scans are being advertised directly to consumers, bypassing doctors and medical organizations, some of which have warned against them.
Supporters say the scans are a quick and painless way to look for disease that hasn't yet produced any symptoms, such as early kidney or lung cancers.
And they say patients who choose to have one - and pay for it out of pocket, because medical insurance isn't covering the cost - are taking an active role in their own health care, a move seen as empowering the patient in this age of rushed doctor visits.
"This is a physical exam everyone will have in the future," said Dr. Richard Penfil, a radiologist and chief executive of CT Screening International, a California-based company that has 13 CT (computerized tomography) sites in the New York City area and on the West Coast.
Penfil said he started the company when he read an article about full-body scans about a year and a half ago and became convinced they were "really very beneficial to patients."
Since then, he said, his three older centers in California, opened a little more than a year ago, have each done about 5,000 scans a year.
But the government and organized medicine say not only is the technology unproven, but it may also do more harm than good.
Experts from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the American College of Radiology and the American Cancer Society, for example, say there have been no studies to show that scans actually save lives.
Moreover, the scan results can lead to other tests or surgical procedures that may not be necessary and that have their own risks, including unnecessary exposure to radiation.
Moreover, they say, the expense can't be justified. "We do have a concern that people are getting irradiated without good reason," said Thomas Shope, radiation physicist in the FDA's center for devices for radiological health.
The FDA approves the manufacture of new models of CT scans for diagnostic purposes, as it has since their arrival in 1976.
But even as the FDA OKs drugs for one purpose that then go on to be prescribed for unrelated conditions, so too are scanning machines winding up being used for purposes unrelated to their initial approval, Shope said.
The American College of Radiology issued a statement in 2000 saying it did "not believe there is sufficient scientific evidence to justify total body computed tomographic (CT) screening at this time." And in February, a review in the New England Journal of Medicine came to the same conclusion.
So the consumer is left to weigh the two messages: from Madison Avenue, an appeal to the basic desire to be healthy, a pitch saying disease can be discovered before symptoms are obvious.
And from organized medicine a note of caution, saying the value of scans needs to be proven over time - and they do have a real downside: exposure to radiation and putting oneself at risk for procedures that may turn out to be unnecessary.
"I guess the core question is: Has anyone proved it is effective? Do we save lives? And if we are unclear about that, are we doing more harm than good?" said Dr. Stephen Swensen, head of radiology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
Swensen is heading one of several ongoing studies looking at the use of CT scans for lung disease; others are evaluating it for heart disease. No large study so far has looked at its use for the whole body.
Despite the apparent concern of some in the medical community, offices offering the procedure at about $850 a scan are popping up all around the New York area.
CTSI, based in California, already has three offices in Manhattan, two in New Jersey, one in Scarsdale and is expecting to open one in Manhasset within the next three or four months, according to Rob Mackey, the company's East Coast regional manager.
Imaging for Life, headed by Dr. George Berk and owned by private individuals, has offices in White Plains and Manhattan and is planning to open offices on Long Island, New Jersey and Connecticut, according to Marc Manuel, the company's executive vice president.
Both companies say they offer the latest in computerized X-ray technology and, just as important, give the patient time with a doctor, who explains the results and follows up to ensure that the patient has taken any suspicious findings back to his or her doctor for review.
A full-body scan, using either an electron beam CT scan or multislice, multihelical CT scan - the two most advanced ways pictures are taken - typically includes a scan of the neck (**at some facilities using customized software you can also scan (screen) your head for brain tumors, ear infections, sinusitus, etc.), starting at the thyroid, the heart, the lungs, the abdomen, colon and pelvic area, said Dr. Anouk Stein, the radiologist at the CTSI Broadway site.
The patient can also opt for a "virtual colonscopy," which requires taking a preparation the day before to clear the bowels.
For a full-body scan, a patient lies on a table that moves through a spinning doughnutlike device that takes the pictures. The procedure is painless and typically takes less than 15 minutes. Both companies say the patient gets the results immediately, both on paper and on a CD-ROM.
The scan has not proven effective at finding two of the most common cancers, tumors in the breasts and the prostate, because it doesn't provide enough detail and contrast, Stein said.
But it can spot a range of problems, from emphysema in the lungs to calcium buildup in the coronary arteries, aneurysms and spinal problems, she said.
C. Richard Prince, 56, a tax consultant who works down the hall from Stein, was given a free CT scan when the office opened three months ago so that Stein and the CT technicians could refine their procedure.
----?He had been given a clean bill of health at his physical exam a few months earlier. But the scan showed a mass on his right kidney. He took the results to his doctor, and further tests showed it to be a 3- to 4-centimeter CANCER.
He underwent surgery to have it removed, along with about a quarter of his kidney. Kidney cancer, which accounts for 3 percent of cancers in men (it is less common in women), is generally not detected until there is blood in the urine or there are other symptoms such as pain in the side or back, and Prince feels the scan saved his life. "It was a blessing all around," Prince said. "I'm a walking testimonial."
Cases like his have convinced Stein - who admitted she had reservations about full-body CT before she took the job - that it is a useful tool.
"I did have to think very hard about whether I was contributing or hurting," she said. "I've been here three months, and I'm convinced I'm contributing."
But the coauthor of a review in the New England Journal of Medicine last month said that although he is sure some people believe the full-body scan is a useful and important diagnostic tool, others are just looking for a way to make a quick buck by marketing an essentially unproven test directly to consumers.
"I truly believe there are people who are doing it because they believe it is the right thing to do, and then there are people who are doing it because it is a good business," said Dr. Thomas Lee, chief medical officer for the health network started by Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston.
Lee, like many interviewed, said he is most troubled by the fact that the scan picks up lots and lots of spots; the older you are, the more likely something will show up, he said.
The great majority of these will turn out to be benign or would never become a threat, he said.
But each one discovered will require a follow-up test or treatment that is costly and carries its own risks.
Lee, a cardiologist, cited the example of a CT scan used to detect coronary calcifications - which would be one part of a full-body scan. The hypothesis is that calcium in the arteries can identify people at risk of developing heart disease, and it is an area of much research.
But an expert panel in 2000 concluded that while 80 percent of the time the CT picked something out in the arteries, that "something" turned out to be calcium only 40 percent of the time.
"That means that 60 percent of the time people have an abnormal test when there is actually nothing wrong (false positive)," Lee said.
Swensen has had similar results with his study using CT scans of the lungs - another hot area of research because lung cancer is the top cancer killer. Most are detected too late to be treated effectively.
In a National Institutes of Health- sponsored study, Swensen has recruited 1,520 smokers or former smokers for an annual CT screen of the lungs and abdomen.
In its fourth year, the study has so far detected 44 lung cancers, about 60 percent of them in the early stage, which is associated with longer survival.
"On the surface that is good news," he said. But he has also detected 2,900 lung nodules. "Ninety-nine percent of lung nodules are benign," he said. But each one requires a biopsy - an invasive, painful and costly procedure. It can also be deadly. Studies have found that about 4 percent of surgeries taking out lung nodules result in death, Swensen said.
He is continuing the study, but, he said, he has serious questions. "I still have hope; we need to know. But it's absolutely unproven, and we could realistically be doing more harm than good," he said.
While patients pay out of pocket for the scan, what worries some doctors is the impact that follow-up tests and procedures - typically done by the patient's regular doctor and paid for by insurance - will have on an already overburdened medical system.
"People say, 'Look, we save lives; we discover disease' .... The thing they don't talk about is the prevalence of abnormalities.
It's extremely high and most are benign .... From a societal perspective, we have to decide whether this is cost effective," said Dr. Dirk Sostman, head of radiology at Weill Medical College of Cornell University in Manhattan.
But for some, the cost and risk are acceptable. A detective sergeant with the New York City Police Department said he decided to have a full-body CT scan and virtual colonoscopy after he heard the ads on the radio.
He had worked at Ground Zero and also at the scene of the crash of American Airlines flight 587 in Queens, and he was concerned about his health.
"I just figured it was time to find out if I was all right," said the officer, who asked not to be named. He had felt a lump on his side, but had never mentioned it to his doctor.
The scan showed a mass near his liver. His doctor subsequently ordered other tests, and he was diagnosed with a lipoma, a common benign tumor of fatty tissue. It was removed by a surgeon. Lipomas are benign and usually don't have to be removed. But the officer said he was glad to have the surgery.
Another concern is unnecessary radiation. Radiation exposure from a full- body scan is about 2 to 3 rads, according to Dr. Fred Mettler, chairman of radiology at the University of New Mexico and the U.S. representative to the United Nation's scientific committee on the effects of radiation.
That's about 10 times higher than from natural background radiation, about 10 times higher than from a mammogram and about 100 to 300 times higher than exposure from a chest X-ray, he said.
Internal organs get about 70 percent of what hits the skin, although those closer to the surface, such as the thyroid or testicles, absorb more, he said.
Based on studies from Nagasaki, where one of the atom bombs was dropped, small but statistically significant increases in cancers begin to appear at about 5 rads of exposure, he said.
So it's possible that someone getting annual full CT scans at a fairly young age could develop cancer decades later as a result, he said.
It's also possible that, given the high number of findings that need to be followed up, exposure could mount from subsequent scans or X-rays - all perhaps unnecessarily, if the full-body CT can't be shown to save lives, Mettler said. "It's a risk-vs.-benefit issue," he said.
And that's especially troubling, he said, because full-body CT doesn't easily detect breast and prostate cancers, and "it's still not clear with lung nodules."
It is not particularly good at detecting ovarian, cervical or endometrial cancer either, he said. As for virtual colonoscopy, "you still have to do the prep, and there are a lot of false positives that lead to [regular] colonoscopy.
It's not clear in my mind that it will catch on," he added.
But it is in the mind of Dr. Stephen Koch, radiologist at Imaging for Life in Manhattan. Koch started doing full-body CTs about 2 1/2 years ago in Beverly Hills, Calif., catering mostly to a wealthy clientele, including actors.
In New York, he says, most of his patients are blue-collar or middle-class, and most feel "disenfranchised" by managed care. Much of the criticism he gets from doctors reflects fear they are losing control over patients - and dollars from their pockets, he says.
"What it boils down to is that people are saying 'I want to do this without all the gatekeepers' .... Who really controls one's health? I believe in America we are free citizens ....and we should have the option," Koch said.
His most popular procedure is a full-body CT scan coupled with a virtual colonscopy, and he believes such procedures will become widely accepted over time.
But right now the lines are drawn - without much evidence on either side. As Sostman of Cornell put it: "Total-body screening is really pretty much a matter of opinion."
Not part of this article
HealthView on Psychology Today
**Interview date: 10/31/00
Dr Harvey Eisenberg from HealthView, Inc. in California who appeared on Oprah's show and said that his facility received about 10,000 calls after the program first aired.
Question:
**Is there any particular reason why at the moment why you are not scanning the head and the legs?
Dr. Eisenberg:
"The particular technology and techniques we are using
really aren't giving enough yield in the types of pathology as we we would want to find in the brain.
So we don't want to give people a test that just says we've l@@ked at the head (or legs) without feeling that we've l@@ked at it in a way that would have found the important dieases one would want to find.
If we want to do the head currently here at HealthView, we give the patient the option of having an open-MRI exam.
It does of course add to the cost and time but we offer that as an option."
___
Thanks for reading this message
Take care
CardioStar*
Hi CardioStar,
Just wanted to say thanks for your informative post.
If I had a full body scan a few years ago, it would have caught my aortic dissection before it ruptured. I now have a full scan done yearly due to the dissection and aneurysm. Every 6 months if the aneurysm shows signs of enlarging.
Many people die each year from dissections and aneurysms. They are known as the silent killers. Most never know they have them until it is too late. According to the stats, if one ruptures, 80% never make it to the hospital, and of those that do, only 50% survive the surgery. In my case, they only gave me a 3 to 6% change of surviving the surgery.
I would recommend a full scan to anyone who has a family history of aneurysms, dissections, Marfans disease, or any degenerative tissue disorder, or artery disease.
Just wanted to share my thoughts. They are obviously slanted do to my personal experience, but none the less, I think valid.
Thanks again, I am pasting your article in my files of health related documents.
Rob
I was asked to post this information here regarding this topic. It was first posted on the WebMD board by CardioStar. IT contains very useful information about this new proactive approach to heath, and my respsonse is at the end. It is lengthy, but good reading.
A Diagnostic Tool, With Complications
Supporters tout the full-body CT scan for finding disease before symptoms emerge. But medical groups and the FDA warn of their potential for harm.
By Ridgely Ochs
Newsday staff writer
March 19, 2002
The ads are everywhere, on radio, on television and in magazines. "Why wait until symptoms show?" asks one. "Your health is your most important asset."
The pitch is for full-body CT scans, state-of-the-art computerized X-ray technology that within minutes can deliver three-dimensional pictures of the inside of the body, from the neck, to the heart, the lungs, the spine and muscle, and on to the colon and groin.
These scans are being advertised directly to consumers, bypassing doctors and medical organizations, some of which have warned against them.
Supporters say the scans are a quick and painless way to look for disease that hasn't yet produced any symptoms, such as early kidney or lung cancers.
And they say patients who choose to have one - and pay for it out of pocket, because medical insurance isn't covering the cost - are taking an active role in their own health care, a move seen as empowering the patient in this age of rushed doctor visits.
"This is a physical exam everyone will have in the future," said Dr. Richard Penfil, a radiologist and chief executive of CT Screening International, a California-based company that has 13 CT (computerized tomography) sites in the New York City area and on the West Coast.
Penfil said he started the company when he read an article about full-body scans about a year and a half ago and became convinced they were "really very beneficial to patients."
Since then, he said, his three older centers in California, opened a little more than a year ago, have each done about 5,000 scans a year.
But the government and organized medicine say not only is the technology unproven, but it may also do more harm than good.
Experts from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the American College of Radiology and the American Cancer Society, for example, say there have been no studies to show that scans actually save lives.
Moreover, the scan results can lead to other tests or surgical procedures that may not be necessary and that have their own risks, including unnecessary exposure to radiation.
Moreover, they say, the expense can't be justified. "We do have a concern that people are getting irradiated without good reason," said Thomas Shope, radiation physicist in the FDA's center for devices for radiological health.
The FDA approves the manufacture of new models of CT scans for diagnostic purposes, as it has since their arrival in 1976.
But even as the FDA OKs drugs for one purpose that then go on to be prescribed for unrelated conditions, so too are scanning machines winding up being used for purposes unrelated to their initial approval, Shope said.
The American College of Radiology issued a statement in 2000 saying it did "not believe there is sufficient scientific evidence to justify total body computed tomographic (CT) screening at this time." And in February, a review in the New England Journal of Medicine came to the same conclusion.
So the consumer is left to weigh the two messages: from Madison Avenue, an appeal to the basic desire to be healthy, a pitch saying disease can be discovered before symptoms are obvious.
And from organized medicine a note of caution, saying the value of scans needs to be proven over time - and they do have a real downside: exposure to radiation and putting oneself at risk for procedures that may turn out to be unnecessary.
"I guess the core question is: Has anyone proved it is effective? Do we save lives? And if we are unclear about that, are we doing more harm than good?" said Dr. Stephen Swensen, head of radiology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
Swensen is heading one of several ongoing studies looking at the use of CT scans for lung disease; others are evaluating it for heart disease. No large study so far has looked at its use for the whole body.
Despite the apparent concern of some in the medical community, offices offering the procedure at about $850 a scan are popping up all around the New York area.
CTSI, based in California, already has three offices in Manhattan, two in New Jersey, one in Scarsdale and is expecting to open one in Manhasset within the next three or four months, according to Rob Mackey, the company's East Coast regional manager.
Imaging for Life, headed by Dr. George Berk and owned by private individuals, has offices in White Plains and Manhattan and is planning to open offices on Long Island, New Jersey and Connecticut, according to Marc Manuel, the company's executive vice president.
Both companies say they offer the latest in computerized X-ray technology and, just as important, give the patient time with a doctor, who explains the results and follows up to ensure that the patient has taken any suspicious findings back to his or her doctor for review.
A full-body scan, using either an electron beam CT scan or multislice, multihelical CT scan - the two most advanced ways pictures are taken - typically includes a scan of the neck (**at some facilities using customized software you can also scan (screen) your head for brain tumors, ear infections, sinusitus, etc.), starting at the thyroid, the heart, the lungs, the abdomen, colon and pelvic area, said Dr. Anouk Stein, the radiologist at the CTSI Broadway site.
The patient can also opt for a "virtual colonscopy," which requires taking a preparation the day before to clear the bowels.
For a full-body scan, a patient lies on a table that moves through a spinning doughnutlike device that takes the pictures. The procedure is painless and typically takes less than 15 minutes. Both companies say the patient gets the results immediately, both on paper and on a CD-ROM.
The scan has not proven effective at finding two of the most common cancers, tumors in the breasts and the prostate, because it doesn't provide enough detail and contrast, Stein said.
But it can spot a range of problems, from emphysema in the lungs to calcium buildup in the coronary arteries, aneurysms and spinal problems, she said.
C. Richard Prince, 56, a tax consultant who works down the hall from Stein, was given a free CT scan when the office opened three months ago so that Stein and the CT technicians could refine their procedure.
----?He had been given a clean bill of health at his physical exam a few months earlier. But the scan showed a mass on his right kidney. He took the results to his doctor, and further tests showed it to be a 3- to 4-centimeter CANCER.
He underwent surgery to have it removed, along with about a quarter of his kidney. Kidney cancer, which accounts for 3 percent of cancers in men (it is less common in women), is generally not detected until there is blood in the urine or there are other symptoms such as pain in the side or back, and Prince feels the scan saved his life. "It was a blessing all around," Prince said. "I'm a walking testimonial."
Cases like his have convinced Stein - who admitted she had reservations about full-body CT before she took the job - that it is a useful tool.
"I did have to think very hard about whether I was contributing or hurting," she said. "I've been here three months, and I'm convinced I'm contributing."
But the coauthor of a review in the New England Journal of Medicine last month said that although he is sure some people believe the full-body scan is a useful and important diagnostic tool, others are just looking for a way to make a quick buck by marketing an essentially unproven test directly to consumers.
"I truly believe there are people who are doing it because they believe it is the right thing to do, and then there are people who are doing it because it is a good business," said Dr. Thomas Lee, chief medical officer for the health network started by Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston.
Lee, like many interviewed, said he is most troubled by the fact that the scan picks up lots and lots of spots; the older you are, the more likely something will show up, he said.
The great majority of these will turn out to be benign or would never become a threat, he said.
But each one discovered will require a follow-up test or treatment that is costly and carries its own risks.
Lee, a cardiologist, cited the example of a CT scan used to detect coronary calcifications - which would be one part of a full-body scan. The hypothesis is that calcium in the arteries can identify people at risk of developing heart disease, and it is an area of much research.
But an expert panel in 2000 concluded that while 80 percent of the time the CT picked something out in the arteries, that "something" turned out to be calcium only 40 percent of the time.
"That means that 60 percent of the time people have an abnormal test when there is actually nothing wrong (false positive)," Lee said.
Swensen has had similar results with his study using CT scans of the lungs - another hot area of research because lung cancer is the top cancer killer. Most are detected too late to be treated effectively.
In a National Institutes of Health- sponsored study, Swensen has recruited 1,520 smokers or former smokers for an annual CT screen of the lungs and abdomen.
In its fourth year, the study has so far detected 44 lung cancers, about 60 percent of them in the early stage, which is associated with longer survival.
"On the surface that is good news," he said. But he has also detected 2,900 lung nodules. "Ninety-nine percent of lung nodules are benign," he said. But each one requires a biopsy - an invasive, painful and costly procedure. It can also be deadly. Studies have found that about 4 percent of surgeries taking out lung nodules result in death, Swensen said.
He is continuing the study, but, he said, he has serious questions. "I still have hope; we need to know. But it's absolutely unproven, and we could realistically be doing more harm than good," he said.
While patients pay out of pocket for the scan, what worries some doctors is the impact that follow-up tests and procedures - typically done by the patient's regular doctor and paid for by insurance - will have on an already overburdened medical system.
"People say, 'Look, we save lives; we discover disease' .... The thing they don't talk about is the prevalence of abnormalities.
It's extremely high and most are benign .... From a societal perspective, we have to decide whether this is cost effective," said Dr. Dirk Sostman, head of radiology at Weill Medical College of Cornell University in Manhattan.
But for some, the cost and risk are acceptable. A detective sergeant with the New York City Police Department said he decided to have a full-body CT scan and virtual colonoscopy after he heard the ads on the radio.
He had worked at Ground Zero and also at the scene of the crash of American Airlines flight 587 in Queens, and he was concerned about his health.
"I just figured it was time to find out if I was all right," said the officer, who asked not to be named. He had felt a lump on his side, but had never mentioned it to his doctor.
The scan showed a mass near his liver. His doctor subsequently ordered other tests, and he was diagnosed with a lipoma, a common benign tumor of fatty tissue. It was removed by a surgeon. Lipomas are benign and usually don't have to be removed. But the officer said he was glad to have the surgery.
Another concern is unnecessary radiation. Radiation exposure from a full- body scan is about 2 to 3 rads, according to Dr. Fred Mettler, chairman of radiology at the University of New Mexico and the U.S. representative to the United Nation's scientific committee on the effects of radiation.
That's about 10 times higher than from natural background radiation, about 10 times higher than from a mammogram and about 100 to 300 times higher than exposure from a chest X-ray, he said.
Internal organs get about 70 percent of what hits the skin, although those closer to the surface, such as the thyroid or testicles, absorb more, he said.
Based on studies from Nagasaki, where one of the atom bombs was dropped, small but statistically significant increases in cancers begin to appear at about 5 rads of exposure, he said.
So it's possible that someone getting annual full CT scans at a fairly young age could develop cancer decades later as a result, he said.
It's also possible that, given the high number of findings that need to be followed up, exposure could mount from subsequent scans or X-rays - all perhaps unnecessarily, if the full-body CT can't be shown to save lives, Mettler said. "It's a risk-vs.-benefit issue," he said.
And that's especially troubling, he said, because full-body CT doesn't easily detect breast and prostate cancers, and "it's still not clear with lung nodules."
It is not particularly good at detecting ovarian, cervical or endometrial cancer either, he said. As for virtual colonoscopy, "you still have to do the prep, and there are a lot of false positives that lead to [regular] colonoscopy.
It's not clear in my mind that it will catch on," he added.
But it is in the mind of Dr. Stephen Koch, radiologist at Imaging for Life in Manhattan. Koch started doing full-body CTs about 2 1/2 years ago in Beverly Hills, Calif., catering mostly to a wealthy clientele, including actors.
In New York, he says, most of his patients are blue-collar or middle-class, and most feel "disenfranchised" by managed care. Much of the criticism he gets from doctors reflects fear they are losing control over patients - and dollars from their pockets, he says.
"What it boils down to is that people are saying 'I want to do this without all the gatekeepers' .... Who really controls one's health? I believe in America we are free citizens ....and we should have the option," Koch said.
His most popular procedure is a full-body CT scan coupled with a virtual colonscopy, and he believes such procedures will become widely accepted over time.
But right now the lines are drawn - without much evidence on either side. As Sostman of Cornell put it: "Total-body screening is really pretty much a matter of opinion."
Not part of this article
HealthView on Psychology Today
**Interview date: 10/31/00
Dr Harvey Eisenberg from HealthView, Inc. in California who appeared on Oprah's show and said that his facility received about 10,000 calls after the program first aired.
Question:
**Is there any particular reason why at the moment why you are not scanning the head and the legs?
Dr. Eisenberg:
"The particular technology and techniques we are using
really aren't giving enough yield in the types of pathology as we we would want to find in the brain.
So we don't want to give people a test that just says we've l@@ked at the head (or legs) without feeling that we've l@@ked at it in a way that would have found the important dieases one would want to find.
If we want to do the head currently here at HealthView, we give the patient the option of having an open-MRI exam.
It does of course add to the cost and time but we offer that as an option."
___
Thanks for reading this message
Take care
CardioStar*
Hi CardioStar,
Just wanted to say thanks for your informative post.
If I had a full body scan a few years ago, it would have caught my aortic dissection before it ruptured. I now have a full scan done yearly due to the dissection and aneurysm. Every 6 months if the aneurysm shows signs of enlarging.
Many people die each year from dissections and aneurysms. They are known as the silent killers. Most never know they have them until it is too late. According to the stats, if one ruptures, 80% never make it to the hospital, and of those that do, only 50% survive the surgery. In my case, they only gave me a 3 to 6% change of surviving the surgery.
I would recommend a full scan to anyone who has a family history of aneurysms, dissections, Marfans disease, or any degenerative tissue disorder, or artery disease.
Just wanted to share my thoughts. They are obviously slanted do to my personal experience, but none the less, I think valid.
Thanks again, I am pasting your article in my files of health related documents.
Rob
