Lab results - looking for opinions [PLEASE READ 1ST POST]

What even is UIBC... I’ve got a UIBC of 20.6... is that actually good or am I screwed?😉

Jose Ruiz2 said:What exactly is UIBC? I’ve got a reading of 20.6... is that actually a good thing or should I be worried?😉

Think of UIBC as your body's "empty seats" for iron—it basically shows how much capacity you have left to pick up more iron and move it around.
That value is below the limit (the lower bound is 25), but you should check the lab report to see what their specific reference range is. It should be listed right there on the results—sometimes there are slight differences in ranges from one lab to another.
So, what’s your iron level looking like, and how about your TIBC?
By the way, you might see a lower UIBC pop up with certain types of anemia, among other things...

Could someone maybe explain what people actually mean when they talk about "younger granulocytes"?
So, I’m currently pregnant and just had my CBC done. For the most part, everything looks fine—my hemoglobin and red blood cell counts are slightly low, but I suppose that’s pretty standard during pregnancy. However, under the "cell morphology" section, it mentions "younger granulocytes?" I was wondering if anyone might know what that could possibly signify, if you wouldn't mind explaining it to me.🙂
Thanks!

urbantinker8 said:Could someone please break down what they actually mean when they talk about "immature granulocytes"... like, what's the deal with that?
So, I’m pregnant, and I just got my CBC results back... most of it seems totally fine, though my hemoglobin and erythrocyte levels are a little on the low side, which I guess isn't exactly a shocker given that pregnancy is basically a marathon for your blood supply... but then I hit this part under "cellular morphology" that says "younger granulocytes?" and now I'm spiraling a bit... if anyone actually knows what that implies, please, help a girl out...🙂
No problem at all! Happy to help... just let me know if you need anything else later on...

So, basically, it means there are fewer mature leukocytes in the blood—keep in mind that granulocytes are just a specific type of leukocyte, which includes things like neutrophils, basophils, and eosinophils... and having a lower count usually points toward some kind of inflammation going on somewhere, though honestly, it doesn't necessarily mean anything's actually serious. Now, as for whether this could just be a normal physiological shift during pregnancy, I'm really not entirely sure... 🙂

wearybison35 said:So, basically, having fewer mature leukocytes in the blood—and since granulocytes are just a specific type of leukocyte, we're talking about neutrophils, basophils, and eosinophils—usually points toward some kind of inflammation, though I suppose it doesn't necessarily have to be anything serious. Now, as for whether this could just be a normal physiological shift during pregnancy... I guess I'm not entirely sure. 🙂

Oh, wow, thanks so much! I really appreciate that.🙏
I couldn't find anything useful online, and since my appointment with the doctor isn't until next week, I guess I'm just sitting here on pins and needles for now.

I was wondering if someone might be able to help me make sense of my mom's coronary angiography results. We received them in the mail today and, well, we aren't exactly clear on what they mean... Something feels off, but we just can't put our finger on it...

The report reads as follows:

Height: 5'6" (168 cm)
Weight: 143 lbs (65 kg)
Referral Diagnosis: CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE
Procedure: Coronary Angiography; Left Ventriculography

Left coronary artery: main trunk is thick and short, normal morphology.
LAD: atherosclerotic changes in the proximal segment. Bifurcation lesion type 0.0.1 with 95% stenosis.
LCx: 95% stenosis at OM1.

Right coronary artery: dominant, 90% stenosis in the proximal segment, 90% stenosis in the distal segment, and a severe CTO in the PL branch. Post-occlusive flow is shown via well-developed heterologous collaterals.

Left ventriculography: akinesis in part of the inferior segment.

LV: mmHg
AO: mmHg
LVEDVI: mmHg
LVESVI l/m2
EF 65%

Conclusion: Atherosclerotic disease of the left and right coronary arteries with significant stenoses in D1, OM1, and RCA, along with collateralized CTO in the RCA PL branch. Systolic function of the left ventricle is well-preserved.

What does all of this actually imply? What kind of surgical procedure are we looking at here? And how serious is this diagnosis overall?...

I am kindly asking if anyone could help explain these findings... Thank you, thank you so much! 🙏
My apologies if I've misstated anything...

I think this looks more like something for cardiothoracic surgery, specifically bypasses...

urbantinker8, have you checked in with your doctor yet? It would be wise to have a finger-prick CBC performed at the pathology lab to properly clarify the morphology, as this particular term isn't merely a quantitative result.

Hannah Kim94 said:urbantinker8, have you actually seen a doctor yet? It might be worth getting a finger-prick CBC done at the pathology lab just to clarify the morphology, since that term isn't really about quantitative results.

I did, actually, and my doctor basically told me it was nothing to worry about and that I should just ignore it.🤷
Anyway, like I mentioned before, everything else is sitting right within the normal range—including my leukocytes—except for my hemoglobin and erythrocytes, so they put me on some iron supplements for those.

Does anyone happen to know what it means when heart test results show things like "pericardium bo" or an "ST junction bo"... specifically, what does this "-bo-" part signify? Thanks!

Without much fanfare, I managed to pull it off 😁

It’s Friday, and I just got my blood work results back. Since I can't actually talk to my doctor until Monday, I'm feeling a bit uneasy about these numbers and was hoping to get some perspectives here.
Just for context, I’m a big guy—about 6'7" and roughly 230 lbs.
My cholesterol is sitting at 9.2 (the target is usually 5.0).🤷>
Triglycerides are at 2.1 (target is 1.7)
...and then there's the stuff that's really bothering me.
My bilirubin is 24 (normal range is 3-20)
S-AST 30 (normal 12-48)
S-ALT 59 (normal 11-38)
S-GGT 121 (normal 11-55)

So, yeah, that's the list.
I don't drink, I don't smoke, and I was recently under the weather, so I took a dose of Tylenol, but that's it.

Anyway, thanks in advance for any insight you might have.

Regarding your cholesterol, you’re probably going to need to start on some lipid-lowering meds—maybe even a combo of two different ones—since your level is pretty high at 9.2. Your triglycerides are just slightly elevated, though. You can probably nudge those down a bit just by cutting back on pasta and bread; honestly, I wouldn't jump to medication for that quite yet. As for your bilirubin, it's right on the edge, and those ALT and GGT numbers suggest there might be some mild liver irritation. It's most likely just lingering from that recent illness you had, but it could also be from alcohol or certain medications. Don't sweat it too much, though; there's no huge rush here. Just get your labs redone in about 2-3 weeks (specifically AST, ALT, GGT, and bilirubin), and then check your cholesterol and triglycerides again in 1 to 3 months. Actually, waiting 3 months might be better so we can really see how well that new cholesterol med is working.
Hey there, 👍

I had an X-ray done on my knees yesterday and just got the results back. It says here:
"Images of both knees show normal bone structure and mineralization. There is mild bilateral narrowing of the joint spaces, suggesting early-stage bilateral gonarthrosis and femoropatellar osteoarthritis."
Could anyone help me out and explain what this actually means? The radiologist obviously didn't have much time to break it down for me.
Thanks in advance!

silvergull45 said:Bilirubin is borderline high, and those ALT and GGT levels suggest some liver irritation—nothing crazy, just a little nudge from the body—probably just leftover fallout from that recent illness, though obviously, alcohol or certain meds could be playing a role too.

It’s most likely just the Sumamed doing its thing, but yeah, I agree, better to run the labs again just to be sure... 🙂

As for the cholesterol situation, honestly, just get moving more, try to drop about 20 pounds, maybe start with long walks if you aren't ready to go full marathon mode yet, then move on to harder stuff once you're feeling it... there's a ton of workout programs online specifically designed for people dealing with this kind of stuff. Statins aren't exactly "candy" either—they definitely work on the lipids—but it's much better to manage things through exercise rather than just immediately popping pills left and right... 😉

Hey, I'm just checking in! Hope everyone's doing alright today. Just wanted to say hi and see how things are going with you guys. Maybe we can catch up soon? Anyway, talk later! kaže:
Maybe it’s just because of the Sumamed, but I'm with you—definitely worth getting those tests redone. 🙂

When it comes to those lipid levels, honestly, just try to move more. I mean, maybe aim to drop like 20 pounds? If you aren't ready to start running, just walk first—seriously. Then later on, you can step it up to harder, longer workouts. The internet is basically flooded with exercise programs specifically designed for people dealing with this kind of stuff. And look, hipolidemics aren't exactly harmless drugs; they definitely work on your fats, sure, but I guess it’s way better to manage things through exercise rather than just immediately loading up on pills. 😉

I’m with you on everything, I just... I don't know, I find it hard to believe that diet and exercise alone are gonna budge a cholesterol level of 9.2. But hey, maybe they will, you never really know, right? 🙂

Where can I go in the US to get AST and ASTA blood work done?

hiddenheron292 said:Where can I get AST and ASTA blood work done in the US area?

I had mine done at the local clinic. Just so you know, I had to go there in person to set it up. They won't take orders over the phone, so you'll have to head down there yourself...

I have a quick question regarding an EKG. I'm wondering—should I be waiting for a formal report to come back, or is "that" pretty much the final word right now?

rowdyotter65 said:I have a question about an EKG. Do I need to wait for the results, or is it basically done right then and there?

It's usually instant 🤷 if you're seeing a primary care doctor—they'll just look over the results right away. Even with a cardiologist, it should be immediate since the machine spits out that paper strip showing your heart rhythm the second it's finished.