Going For Heart Cath Thursday, Take My Machine/Mask?

avi123 wrote:p.s. If I was ever going to do it, then I would go with a bypass surgery instead of angioplasty.

I disagree completely.
Inserting a stent is much less invasive & much less dangerous than doing bypass surgery.

Now, doing bypass surgery is more permanent, but my Cardiologist told me that they can put stents into existing stents numerous times. I don't recall the exact number, so I won't specify a number here, but it takes more than 1 hand to count them.

Lastly, when bypass surgery is screwed up (i.e. they bypass the wrong artery, etc.), what procedure do they use to correct their mistake? >>> A stent! <<<
If it good enough for that, why not just do the stent instead of the bypass surgery.

And where do they get the artery to use in the bypass?
1st one is taken from your leg & in some people that can result in reduced blood flow & fluid retention.

The drug most commonly used as an anesthetic is Propofol. The use of propofol often results in pain on injection. To keep this from happening, ask that they mix lidocaine with the Propofol.

Slartybartfast wrote: Cardiologists come in two flavors: Diagnostic and Interventional. The diagnostic cardiologist is qualified by licensing and training to diagnose a patient's condition, but not to perform interventional procedures like angioplasty, surgery, etc.

I did not know that. Good stuff, thanks for giving us a heads up, SBF

Also I agree with StuUnderPressure above. Bypasses are WAY more complicated than stents. Thus, the risk is considerably higher... I won't go into published failure rates for both procedures here, due to the OPs upcoming procedure, but trust me, there is a much greater risk for a bypass.

My brother-in law had to have another catheter inserted before the procedure.
(Did that take your mind off the heart cath?-- )

chunkyfrog wrote:My brother-in law had to have another catheter inserted before the procedure.
(Did that take your mind off the heart cath?-- )

Oh come on now!.....NO! NO! NO!...LOL.

MrStein wrote:

chunkyfrog wrote:My brother-in law had to have another catheter inserted before the procedure.
(Did that take your mind off the heart cath?-- )

Oh come on now!.....NO! NO! NO!...LOL.

I assume you mean the one inserted up the urethra to facilitate peeing, mostly because peeing is hard to do for some folks while laying on their back. I had that. It sounds terrible but isn't too bad if you can force your mind to be somewhere else for the 30 seconds it takes to insert the tube up there.

As a side note, there's a newer slimmer tube which is a lot easier to insert --- I would ask for the slim one specifically, tho I think the hospitals charge more for that feature (naturally). Anyway, it's not fun, but I've experienced lots of worse stuff. They sometimes put the catheter up there as a preventive measure because the nurses flood your system with intravenous fluids to quickly flush out the drugs they give you during the stent procedure, hence the large quantity of urine... supposedly it gives your liver a break and flushes it out. EDIT: Just remembered: Last time I had a stent, they used a new fangled plastic clamp to instantly seal off the hole in my artery (that's always in the groin, BTW). Therefore they let me get up after about two hours to pee in a basin while standing next to my hospital bed. Yea, no catheter... I loved that.

One, After the procedure, I really did feel stronger. That feeling of my heart not feeling stressed seems to mostly manifest as my not feeling like I need to breathe so often.

Two, I did not take my machine, because, like the other guy mentioned, I did not want hospital viruses and germs on it. I also wore a mask nearly all the time when I was in hospital. I told the staff, heart disease and flu do not play well together. They agreed completely and gave me more masks, they are supposed to be changed every so often.

I did not know for certain I was getting a stent. The doc was very firm before the procedure that if he put in a stent, that I would spend the night in the hospital. The nurse in recovery first said the hospital RT would dig a loaner for me. Then for some reason, probably because they did not have the same mask as mine available, asked if I could do without the machine for one night. so I ended up cranking up the back of the hospital bed and sleeping in a contorted position sorta sitting up on my side. I felt pretty good when I woke up. I never had a sedative, but it the odds of the recovery going better with the sedative might indicate that I should have. The doc said that even with a sedative, most patients never really go to sleep during the procedure, and they would be watching my O2 to make sure that nothing went wrong during the procedure.

So, maybe I should have taken my machine. They would have let me use it, if I had brought it. They had me hooked to a whole lot of monitors continuously, even if it seemed I was all alone in my room. That is my experience in getting a stent on 1-15-13 and every hospital would be different.

StuUnderPressure wrote:

avi123 wrote:p.s. If I was ever going to do it, then I would go with a bypass surgery instead of angioplasty.

I disagree completely.
Inserting a stent is much less invasive & much less dangerous than doing bypass surgery.

Now, doing bypass surgery is more permanent, but my Cardiologist told me that they can put stents into existing stents numerous times. I don't recall the exact number, so I won't specify a number here, but it takes more than 1 hand to count them.

Lastly, when bypass surgery is screwed up (i.e. they bypass the wrong artery, etc.), what procedure do they use to correct their mistake? >>> A stent! <<<
If it good enough for that, why not just do the stent instead of the bypass surgery.

And where do they get the artery to use in the bypass?
1st one is taken from your leg & in some people that can result in reduced blood flow & fluid retention.

Reply,

Sorry that you're not up to date. But Angioplasty is preferred when it's a sudden emergency and there is no time for planning, or when only one artery is blocked.




From: Aug. 2012 Consumer Reports on Health. The upper graph at 4 yr is the bypass surgery.
It does not relate to Mr Stein b/c he is 51 yrs old.

Glad to hear they will let you take your own machine. A number of people on this board have been told they have to use the hospital's equipment.

An old friend of mine has had about 20 stents put in him. He says 21, but I wonder if he's yanking my leash. He found a doc in San Diego who would treat him with stents instead of bypass surgery. He's 87 now and very vigorous, despite being diabetic. Every once in a while he starts to get plugged up and goes to the hospital where they roto-rooter him out. The procedure involves a night in the hospital and a couple days at home with reduced activity, and then he's back to normal. He says they're using a laser now to clear out the plaque deposits when the stents get plugged up. He's sort of a special case; he told his cardio-doc that he would rather die than have open heart surgery and agreed to assume the risk of all the stents. At this point, he's no longer a candidate for open heart surgery and he can't have any more stents, either. So they're keeping him clear with the laser and some sort of implant.

I am happy to report that I had my cath today and My blockage/plaque level is less than 20% and we are going to treat with diet/meds.
He was able to redialate my arteries and I do feel a lot better. No stents/surguries for now at least. I only had to be there from 6am til about 2pm.
I got one of the fancy new angio seals, which enabled me to not have a hooha cath...lol. And yes I opted for the versed and remember a little bit.
It was fascinating to see my heart on tv with a huge buzz. It is however rather uncomfortable in the...area, but that will pass soon enough.
Now a few days of chilling out, and back to excersise routine and a new diet that I am none too thrilled about.
I feel pretty lucky.

Good news: Successful rootering and an unviolated "nanner". Life is good.

MrStein wrote:I am happy to report that I had my cath today and My blockage/plaque level is less than 20% and we are going to treat with diet/meds.
He was able to redialate my arteries and I do feel a lot better. No stents/surguries for now at least. I only had to be there from 6am til about 2pm.
I got one of the fancy new angio seals, which enabled me to not have a hooha cath...lol. And yes I opted for the versed and remember a little bit.
It was fascinating to see my heart on tv with a huge buzz. It is however rather uncomfortable in the...area, but that will pass soon enough.
Now a few days of chilling out, and back to excersise routine and a new diet that I am none too thrilled about.
I feel pretty lucky.

You lucky chimp!

I was going to comment on your thread earlier but did not want to stress you out anymore than you probably already were.

Everyone I know (4 people) who has had stents has died within 3 years of having them installed. They do not work except for very temporary periods ... I suppose Cheney is just .... shall we say, different.

They will attempt to put you on statins if you are already not on them. Statins will turn your muscles and brain to mush over time. If you decide to follow the statin Rx, at least supplement with Ubiquinol to give your mitochondria a chance.

You should look into researching the benefits of a paleolithic diet to reverse heart disease. Also check out Doug Mcguff's body by science for optimizing your exercise for the best response in the shortest amount of time.

Congratulations on the news and best wishes.

Wow, congrats on a clean bill of health. Wonder what your doc is recommending regarding diet. More and more we're hearing that plaque deposits are the result of inflammation; they used to blame high cholesterol but that school of thought has lost some of its supporters of late. A book that's very much worth reading is Dr. William Davis' book entitled Wheat Belly in which he (a cardiologist) advocates staying away from glutens (i.e. wheat, rye, barley) which cause a large inflammatory response. His thesis is that the hybrid dwarf wheat that is grown today is very different genetically and nutritionally than that growing on the "amber waves of grain" that our grandparents remember. He backs up his claims with compelling evidence that explains the so-called obesity epidemic's genesis coincided with the replacement of tall wheat with the short hybrid variety in the post-WWII years. The rather recent move toward eschewing all processed food, and only eating "real" food is the thought behind the Paleo diet, which is more of a lifestyle than a diet.

Anyway, more on that if you're interested.

http://www.amazon.com/Wheat-Belly-Lose- ... wheatbelly