Hi everyone...

I had a few CT Angiograms, and like Greg mentioned, it's similar to a regular CT with an IV line.  I don't like it because I'm considered a "hard stick".  Even for blood tests, it's not unusual (if I don't have Karen or Gail, my favorite phlebotomists) for them to have to stick me 2 to 3 times just to get a blood sample.  Therefore, to get an IV is sometimes rough.  Nonetheless, I'd rather them poke me a few times to put in an IV than to have a cerebral angiogram...any day.  Oh, BTW, I also don't care for the warm sensation and metal taste I get from the dye...   

Thanks Lisa for explaining why Angios may not be so painful after surgery.  I'm sure hoping it's the case for me too!

I too am curious about CTAs versus Cerebral Angiograms.  I had thought that cerebral angiograms provided the most detailed information, but I could be wrong.  I thought I'd try and look it up online, so to Google I went...and here's what I found so far..

"Unlike computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance (MR) angiography, use of a catheter makes it possible to combine diagnosis and treatment in a single procedure. An example is finding an area of severe arterial narrowing, followed by angioplasty and placement of a stent.

The degree of detail displayed by catheter angiography may not be available with any other noninvasive procedure."


CT (computed tomography) angiography (CTA) is an examination that uses x-rays to visualize blood flow in arterial vessels throughout the body, from arteries serving the brain to those bringing blood to the lungs, kidneys, and the arms and legs. CT combines the use of x-rays with computerized analysis of the images. Beams of x-rays are passed from a rotating device through the area of interest in the patient's body from several different angles so as to create cross-sectional images, which then are assembled by computer into a three-dimensional picture of the area being studied. Compared to catheter angiography, which involves injecting contrast material into an artery, CTA is much less invasive and a more patient-friendly procedure; contrast material is injected into a vein rather than an artery. This exam has been used to screen large numbers of individuals for arterial disease. Most patients have CT angiography without being admitted to hospital.  

Take care,
Shan

Hi all,

Shan, very useful and interesting info you pulled up!
Quote:
-- That is pretty much what they told me at University of Chicago when they suggested I have this instead of regular angio.  I asked repeatedly if the CT-A was just as good as the regular angio, not because I wanted a regular angio mind you but I also didn't want to have the CT-A only to have them tell me later on it wasn't good enough and to go back and have the regular.  I was assured the CT-A was just as good.  But, like I said earlier, it is a newer test and not all hospitals are yet equipped to do the CT-A which brings me to the next question.

Quote:


The last time I was at Stanford, December 2004, they were not equipped at that time to do the CT-A (I asked hoping!).  But, when I asked people at Stanford if my CT-A was good enough to send in to Dr. S they assured me that was fine.

Along another side note and please do not take this in a way it is not intended; while I adore Stanford in general, the care in the hospital, cleanliness etc.(much more so than the hospitals in Chicago for sure!) and I definitely know that Dr. S himself has much more knowledge about MM than University of Chicago, I have to say that in my opinion and experience there, the hospital itself is sometimes behind in some of their testing equipment/ideas (excluding the dreaded Xenon!  ) For example, I remember the first time I went to Stanford I was amazed that they were not yet using that patch thingy (forget the name now) during angios so that one does not have to lay there for 8 hours or so.  University of Chicago was already using that so that I was able to get up from the angio in two hours.  Believe me, this is NOT a put down about Stanford at all- that place is top notch!  Just a comparison that I've experienced along the long journey.  I'm sure University of Chicago doesn't have some things Stanford does (yep, like the Xenon!  )  In the end I guess, concerning the CT-A if your hospital doesn't yet have the capabilities to perform it then you don't have much choice in which type of angio you get.

Lisa

Hi all,

I had my CT-A done at Hackensack Imaging Center in Hackensack, NJ. The test was requested by my neuro as an alternative to the angiogram reqeusted by Dr. Connolly. Unfortunately, there were a million issues with my insurance covering the angio, but not with the CT-A (lets read this as FREE....a rare find with my insurance company).  As an aside, I went to Hackensack Imaging because they have all of the newest and latest equipment...much better than the hopsitals in northern NJ....not sure about Columbia though.

It was my neuro who indicated that the quality may not be as good in the diagnostic phase of the MM game. He felt that it might not provide good detail in determining if small MM vessels are present, due to the dilution of the tracer injection. He indicated that the tracer may be too diluted to be picked up in small vessels because it has been "blended" into the blood stream by the time it reaches the brain...versus an angiogram which injects directly into the corodids.

My CT-A results are "suggesting" MM but neuro will not confirm without a angio. I am trying to get an appointment with Doctor Connolly for him to review the CT-A results and to determine if I need the angio...I'll keep you posted.

Has anyone had discussion along these lines with any of the MM doctors listed on here...

Lisa, its good to be back among friends...especially because you all understand that "just because you look good, doesn't mean you feel good".

Have a great day,
Greg