Question 1

I'm trying to understand the difference between the results of my echo and my CT scan regarding my heart condition. My echo shows mild concentric LVH with lvpwdd 12.2 and ivs d 12, and my LVEF is at 73. But my CT scan, which was a 128-slice MDCT of the heart, suggests normal LVH and a normal LV cavity with normal thickness, having a zero calcium score. Also, my TMT came out negative for any chest pain-related issues. I'm kind of confused here. Which result should I rely on when it comes to the left ventricular hypertrophy? Which is considered more accurate or should I be concerned about something else here?

Accepted Answer

Both CT angiography and echocardiogram are valuable tools for assessing left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), but they provide different types of information. In your case, since the CT angiography showed normal left ventricular cavity with normal thickness and normal coronary arteries, and zero calcium score, it indicates a healthy heart without any structural abnormalities or blockages. On the other hand, the echocardiogram reported mild concentric LVH with specific measurements of left ventricular posterior wall thickness (LVPWd) and interventricular septum thickness (IVSd). Given the discrepancy between the two imaging modalities, it is important to consider the clinical context and overall picture. In this scenario, the findings from the CT angiography showing a normal heart structure and function, along with a negative TMT (treadmill test), are more indicative of a healthy heart. Therefore, the CT angiography results are more reliable in this case. To address the chest pain related problem, you can consider taking medications like Amlodipine (5mg) for blood pressure control and Metoprolol (25mg) for heart rate control. Additionally, Nitroglycerin sublingual tablets can be used for chest pain relief as needed. It is also important to follow up with your healthcare provider for further evaluation and management.

Question 2

I'm curious about my pulse after exercising. I did a brisk walk for about 3 kilometers, which took me around 30 minutes, and when I checked my pulse rate right after, it was between 130 and 135. Is this considered normal? My resting pulse usually sits between 70 and 80. Should I be concerned?

Accepted Answer

A pulse rate of 130-135 after brisk walking is within a normal range, especially considering your resting pulse is 70-80. As long as you do not experience any symptoms such as chest pain, dizziness, or shortness of breath, this pulse rate is considered normal for your level of physical activity.

Question 3

I've been having chest pain for a couple of days now, and it's pretty constant, especially when I'm just sitting or lying down. Plus, sometimes I get this pain in my shoulder and neck, and even occasionally a stomach ache. I'm 20, I don't smoke or drink, and I'm not overweight. Could this be something serious like a heart attack or angina? I'm kinda worried and not sure what to do.

Accepted Answer

Based on your symptoms and age, it is less likely to be a heart attack or angina. However, chest pain should never be ignored. It is important to rule out any serious conditions. You may be experiencing musculoskeletal pain or acid reflux. I recommend taking over-the-counter antacids like Tums for stomach ache and trying ibuprofen for pain relief. If the symptoms persist or worsen, please consult a healthcare professional for further evaluation and management.

More Cardiology Health Queries

I'm curious about my pulse after exercising. I did a brisk walk for about 3 kilometers, which took me around 30 minutes, and when I checked my pulse rate right after, it was between 130 and 135. Is this considered normal? My resting pulse usually sits between 70 and 80. Should I be concerned?

Health Articles for you

Guide to Sudden Cardiac Arrest

Low Blood Pressure Symptoms

Comprehensive Guide to Ischaemic Heart Disease

Key Heart Disease Causes to Know About

Can Heart Disease Be Reversed? Steps to Reclaim Heart Health