New York Times article: Mitral stenosis

Valve Replacement Forums

Help Support Valve Replacement Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
M

Marge

<<1. Symptoms

''I thought it was my smoking, and so I quit,'' the patient said flatly. His bright blue eyes peered out of his thin, tanned face. ''But, you know, it didn't make any difference.'' He ran his hand through his graying hair. ''I felt like I was going to drop dead just walking to the TV.''

It started a while ago, he told the young resident in the E.R. He would be out of breath when he walked to the store or climbed the stairs. He had to take everything ''real slow.'' Then, a couple of months ago he noticed that his abdomen and legs were swollen -- that's when he went to the emergency room the first time. He was in the hospital for a week and was sent home with diuretics but no answers. He was supposed to follow up with a cardiologist, for further evaluation, but he didn't. He also stopped taking the medicines. He didn't really like doctors. Until this started a couple of years ago, he hadn't been sick since he had rheumatic fever as a child. He came back to the hospital this time only because he was scared and he was too winded to work. ''Hell, I can't even walk.'' >>

The rest of the patient's story is in the May 30 New York Times Sunday Magazine at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/30/magazine/30DIAGNOSIS.html

The patient eventually had mitral valve replacement surgery and is now doing fine.

The most interesting thing about this story is that he had two echocardiagrams and a CT scan, but his doctors were unable to determine what his diagnosis was until a third echo finally revealed that he had severe mitral stenosis.

<<How could this happen? How could a test be wrong not once but twice? The cardiologist paused when I asked him this and then said briskly: ''Mistakes happen, but the bottom line was this: Everything pointed to mitral stenosis except for this test. Given that, most likely it was the test that was wrong.''>>
 
Yep, that is the problem with echo's. The result is very dependent on both the technician's interpretation and the quality of the exam. It tells you something when many consults want to redo the tests themselves.
 
Betty and all
Amazing for sure. "Must be the test". I have discovered that NO ONE has been able to visualize the valve that is in the conduit, outside of my heart. There is evidently no way to determine 1) whether it is functioning appropriately, 2) if there is anything growing on it, 3) if it FELL out!!!
It was basically an experimental procedure at the time, and I understand that, but what a queasy feeling, to just wonder..........

Think I will go back up to Houston and see Dr. Cooley (yes, he is still working) I talked to his Asst. last week!! He has one echo tech there that somehow has gotten it one time........... No MRI for me, cat scan wont look through the conduit which encases the valve... what a mystery. One more unknown to live with.

Guess if it were really messed up, I wouldn't be typing this, now would I?
Ok... I'm going to bed now.
Mindy
 
What is a bit scary to me (when I let myself think about it) is that I am supposed to have an echo in about a month (the first post-operative echo), I get the impression that this is what is supposed to tell my doctors what, if anything, is going on at that point with my valve and other heart functions. Let's assume they tell me after the echo that everything is just hunky-dory, that there continues to be no regurgitation (as indicated by the TEE I had right after my surgery) -- I hope I can rely on that ....

I suppose if there WERE something wrong, it would be mostly the symptoms that would tell me (like the man in the Times piece) rather than, or as much as, the echo? And since I feel fine, I shouldn't worry (or even think about it too much) until or unless symptoms show up? I don't want to end up being a person who thinks about her heart all the time. But it is hard after this sort of experience not to find oneself feeling a bit "vulnerable," even when everything seems to have come out remarkably well.
 
ALL tests can be wrong ( I'm in the business of doing tests, Xrays and ultrasounds). An echo cardiogram is what we call operator dependent. This means the results are highly dependent on how the tech does the test and how the doctor uses it. A few years ago my son who has MVP as I did, saw a cardiologist in Florida who ordered an echo. On the basis of the technicians work the cardiologist told my son he had cardiomyopathy and would need a heart transplant. A few months later my son saw a cardiologist at the University of Vermont( who did the echo himself) and was told this diagnosis was ridiculous. So get second opinions on any kind of lifechanging diagnosis.
 
I totally agree with Marty. It has to do with the capacity of the technician, with some deference to the vagarites of the individual human form, which may impede accurate readings in some cases.

Mary has a thread open, "Echo vs. Cath" which is also struggling with this issue.

I have had two echo techs. One was terrible. The other is careful and accurate. If she said she was able to get a good scan, I would trust her readings as much as or more than any cath readings.

I would go with the echocardiogram. The techs are generally accurate, and it is certainly not invasive like a cath. A catheterization is not casual. It is for when you are down to a surgery go/no-go situation.

You could have an MRA (MRI angiogram). I just had one. The doctor who interpreted it was an absolute idiot. I wouldn't trust him to interpret whether the hall light was on or off. I'm sure they're not all like that, either.

Best wishes,
 
bvdr said:
Yep, that is the problem with echo's. The result is very dependent on both the technician's interpretation and the quality of the exam. It tells you something when many consults want to redo the tests themselves.

*raises eyebrow*

I guess this explains why my cardiologist insisted that my most-recent echo be done at Northwestern by their tech....

Now, I can understand a bit better....just wish they had said something more. Then again, if I had heard this, I might've been more skeptical about having the test done in the first place...lol. Irony rocks ;).

Cort, "Mr Road Trip"/"The Uniter", 30swm w/pig valve & pacemaker
member & newsletter editor, Faith COB, Batavia IL
"Mr MC"'s Family...& train & models = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort/
K's BL = http://forums.demonsoftware.com/index.php?showforum=15
Spotting MCs = http://www.chevyasylum.com/mcspotter/main.html
MC's Future = http://www.projectmonte.com/petition/
 
It took them two echos to find out why I couldn't be weaned out of my coma and off of the meds they had me on...They had done one echo, and didn't see the mitral stenosis, and a couple of days later, I just kept getting worrst, and so the pulonologist ordered another one. The tech fought him and said I had already had an echo, but the pulmonoligist(mind you, this is an army hospital) who was a colonel and basically ran the west ICU, told them he didn't care, to get down there PRONTO. So, yes, tests can be wrong, especially when they are dependant on the tech.
 
Back
Top