Reply
Respected Contributor
Posts: 4,427
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

@SilleeMee wrote:

I think one of the best ways to check for calcium blockage in coronary arteries is to get a heart scan. That is not part of a routine physical.

 

Heart scan (coronary calcium scan)

 

https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/heart-scan/about/pac-20384686

 

Also, echocardiograms will also detect blockages. I have to have one of those yearly for my mitral heart valve...it's slowing being affected by my scleroderma.


That's what I had done I think...I called it a ultrasound before...but it's like that...she used gel and a wand thing to go over the heart area.  But since I have implants it wasn't to great...it blocked some of the view.  I wonder if the heart scan would be better or perhaps all implants are going to block the view somewhat?  I wish I had never gotten them to be honest...mistake.

Honored Contributor
Posts: 35,886
Registered: ‎05-22-2016

Re: Susan Lucci

[ Edited ]

@tsavorite wrote:

@SilleeMee wrote:

I think one of the best ways to check for calcium blockage in coronary arteries is to get a heart scan. That is not part of a routine physical.

 

Heart scan (coronary calcium scan)

 

https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/heart-scan/about/pac-20384686

 

Also, echocardiograms will also detect blockages. I have to have one of those yearly for my mitral heart valve...it's slowing being affected by my scleroderma.


That's what I had done I think...I called it a ultrasound before...but it's like that...she used gel and a wand thing to go over the heart area.  But since I have implants it wasn't to great...it blocked some of the view.  I wonder if the heart scan would be better or perhaps all implants are going to block the view somewhat?  I wish I had never gotten them to be honest...mistake.


 

 

@tsavorite,

That heart scan for coronary calcium is not ultrasound. It's a special type of x-ray used to detect calcification inside arteries and implants should not interfere with that kind of scan.

Respected Contributor
Posts: 4,427
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

@SilleeMee wrote:

@tsavorite wrote:

@SilleeMee wrote:

I think one of the best ways to check for calcium blockage in coronary arteries is to get a heart scan. That is not part of a routine physical.

 

Heart scan (coronary calcium scan)

 

https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/heart-scan/about/pac-20384686

 

Also, echocardiograms will also detect blockages. I have to have one of those yearly for my mitral heart valve...it's slowing being affected by my scleroderma.


That's what I had done I think...I called it a ultrasound before...but it's like that...she used gel and a wand thing to go over the heart area.  But since I have implants it wasn't to great...it blocked some of the view.  I wonder if the heart scan would be better or perhaps all implants are going to block the view somewhat?  I wish I had never gotten them to be honest...mistake.


 

 

@tsavorite,

That heart scan for coronary calcium is not ultrasound. It's a special type of x-ray used to detect calcification inside arteries and implants should not interfere with that kind of scan.


@SilleeMee  right I had posted in this thread earlier that I had ultrasound done but not the coronary calcium scan you mentioned but have heard of it but thought it might not work if you have implants.  Thanks for clearing that up....since the result printout I have from the echo ultrasound thing said some parts of my heart couldn't be clearly seen due to the implants.  

 

I have seen these coronary calcium scans offered around $150 since insurance won't pay for it....something to talk with my doctor about at the annual!  

Honored Contributor
Posts: 35,886
Registered: ‎05-22-2016

@tsavorite

Oh, I re-read you post and now I see what you were saying. Yes, the echo is ultrasound. Wow, $150 for the other one, calcium scan, isn't that bad! Woman Happy

Respected Contributor
Posts: 4,306
Registered: ‎03-10-2010

I saw SL on the news tonight and as always she's terribly thin.  She was in an off-shoulder dress and was skin and bones. 

 

I've always wondered if she was anorexic as I can't imagine anyone being that thin and not being anorexic.  (And TV makes people look heavier!!)

 

Regardless, I'm glad she's healthy now. 

 

Respected Contributor
Posts: 4,427
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

@SilleeMee wrote:

@tsavorite

Oh, I re-read you post and now I see what you were saying. Yes, the echo is ultrasound. Wow, $150 for the other one, calcium scan, isn't that bad! Woman Happy


@SilleeMeeYa I think the price is great...not sure if I need a script from doctor or if this is something I can just go get done.  My doctor would be fine with it I am sure...since I am paying for it nobody else should really care if it's a waste of money or not!  

 

 

Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 7,007
Registered: ‎03-05-2011

@tsavorite wrote:

@Ibby114 wrote:

@Fifi1 wrote:

She's very lucky they didn't just do an EKG and say "it's normal", and send her on her way!  

I'm glad she went forward and is talking, getting others to go check things out is great!

I'm going Monday for a check, racing resting heart rate - most likely anxiety, but don't' want to assume anything.  I do have regular check ups. 


@Fifi1 I've found that EKG's are unreliable.  I went to the ER for a chest x ray a few years back. I was congested and had a really bad cold. It was a holiday weekend  in 2011 -  before 'urgent care'. I was hoping to get a script for anti biotics before it turned into bronchitis.  My EKG 'told' them I was having a heart attack and they rushed me into a cath lab. Nothing was even slightly blocked !!  The cardiologist told me the reading was off because I was congested. Woman Frustrated


Now that is scary!  you would think these things would be somewhat accurate!  I get a routine EKG at my physical since I turned 50....maybe it's a waste of time? and money?


@tsavorite  It is a money making racket, which is why I refuse them. If you are not having any issues, doing them every year since 50 is ridiculous.  

Valued Contributor
Posts: 625
Registered: ‎02-16-2014

@QueenDanceALot wrote:

No one here knows how much heredity, diet, lifestyle, and stress contributed to SL's blockage.  Not even her doctor.

 

It is reasonable to consider that without her attention to fitness and diet that, given her family history (father) that without that attention she would have faced this issue decades earlier.  I believe the no. 1 killer of women in their 40's is now heart disease?

 

We also don't know what sort of stress she lived with and, more importantly, how she dealt with that stress.  It could be a very significant factor.

 

I found it a rather astounding thing for a doctor to say that after putting stents into her heart that she now has the heart of a 20 year old.  A healthy 20 year old heart doesn't have stents in it.  Sounds like hubris to me.

 

JMO.    


**********************************************************************

@QueenDanceALot  The stents were placed in her arteries (on the way to her heart)  where the blockages are.  There was no damage to her heart and apparently her heart is in very good condition.  The doctor's statement on the condition of her heart isn't making a claim that the procedure made her heart that of a 20 year old. 

*************************
libby's folly
Esteemed Contributor
Posts: 6,628
Registered: ‎06-22-2010

@hckynut wrote:

@blackhole99 wrote:

I read somewhere where SL suffered from Afib, sorry to hear she ended up with other heart problems as well. My doctor says a lot of it is heredity, but you can certainly minimize your risk for these diseases with a healthy life style.


 

 

 

@blackhole99

 

I saw her interview on a morning show about her events. While she did have 1 artery 90% blocked, and another 75% blocked, she avoided any damage to her heart. She did not say anything about having A-Fib, or any other problem related to her heart.

 

  • Genetics has been a known reason for Heart Related Disease for many decades now, this is not something new.  If one has genetic predisposition to heart disease it does not mean having a heart attack is not preventable.
  • Anyone can easily find the Major Risk factors pertaining to Cardiovasular Disease. Reading them is 1 thing, but removing or lessening all the ones possible, takes a willingness to do so, and a lot of dedicated work to accomplish it.

 

That is why is so important finding the blocked arteries, before having a heart attack. You lose none of your heart muscle. Early detection saves heart muscle damage caused by a heart attack, the damage is permanent.

 

I unfortunately have had 2 heart attacks, both caused by a 100% blocked Right Coronary Artery. Now the lower portion of my heart muscle no longer fully functions. When heart muscle is lost, it is permanent.

 

Just another very strong reason for the ladies, and men, to follow through with annual blood lipid tests, and even a stress test, if approved by your Physician. I have been telling the ladies here, for years, to insist if going to an ER, that they get treated the same way as males when they say "I think I may be having a heart attack"!  I saw a Stat today that said: "More women die of Heart Disease than all Cancers Combined". That should be an eye opener for all ladies.

 

If in doubt? Get to an ER ASAP!!!!

 

 

 

hckynut


You're an angel  hckynut!!!!! Heart

Don't cry for a man who's left you--the next one may fall for your smile.
-- Mae West
Honored Contributor
Posts: 12,185
Registered: ‎02-02-2015

I think I saw that the Pilates Pro chair is going to be shown within the next week. My first thought was whether or not she would be involved in that, even if just as the person giving information.