Skip to main content

View Diary: What really saved my life last month (130 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Years ago, I paid to get what they called... (6+ / 0-)

    a Heart Scan which IIRC, detects the presence of calcium in blood vessels around the heart. Such calcium was supposedly an indicator of plaque buildup that eventually could lead to a blockage. I wonder if such a test would have detected your blockage. Heart disease runs in my family which is why I sprang for the test. It showed no evidence of calcium in my case. But I'm wondering if I should consider having it again.

    Just another faggity fag socialist fuckstick homosinner!

    by Ian S on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 04:42:42 PM PST

    •  Suggest you review current recommendations (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ladybug53, Ian S, kyril, KenBee, ivorybill, mikidee

      from the folks that know which screens are appropriate and which ones aren't.  There is a lot of hype and fear-mongering in the screening business (and business it is - with big profits for all involved)
      Evidence based screening recommendations

      •  very interesting n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        "There's nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires." - President Obama

        by fhcec on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 01:00:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  From what I can gather... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        the recommendations re the Heart Scan are inconclusive. On Mayo's website, they suggest it only for those at moderate risk (10-20% chance of heart event within 10 years) and not for high or low risk. According to this calculator I'm in that moderate risk category. The test is only $100 which is a lot less than when I got it 15 years ago so I'll give it serious consideration.

        Just another faggity fag socialist fuckstick homosinner!

        by Ian S on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 08:12:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes ... The key is where you stand in the risk (0+ / 0-)

          Assessment. Many of the tests not recommended for the symptomatic general public are absolutely indicated if you have the correct risk factors. CT lung cancer screening is a perfect example - very appropriate for a certain subset of heavy smokers, but not so much if you don't have the history to justify it.

          So - if after talking with a knowledgable doc, you think the benefits outweigh the risks (which include inappropriate and unnecessary further testing with all the medical and financial risks associated with thoe additional tests), then by all means - go for it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site