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

Sophia Adams63 said:I was gonna say I use olive oil for everything, but honestly, I don't even trust that it isn't hydrogenated itself.
My blood pressure is sitting at 100/60 right now—totally perfect, like a newborn baby.

Thanks, though maybe I’m just undernourished since I went all out on this healthy lifestyle thing.

Hehe, it's totally possible. Seriously, don't overdo anything! Just try tweaking your diet a bit, then after a few months or so, get some blood work done to see if you've found a routine that actually works for you. Sure, meds exist, but whether they're worth it just to bump up your HDL cholesterol is debatable when you consider the side effects. Basically, live healthy, don't go overboard with anything, eat well, and you should be fine! 🙂)

Hey there,

Since I haven't heard back from anyone yet, I figured I’d try posting this one more time. Maybe someone out there actually knows what they're talking about.

I'd love to get an expert opinion on these ECG results:

sinus rhythm
left atrial abnormality
abnormal left axis deviation
S1, S2, S3 pattern
left anterior fascicular block
incomplete right bundle branch block
rvh with repolarization abnormality

I'm 32 years old. I recently did a stress test and everything was fine—my fitness level is great and I don't have any other health issues.
Regarding my health, I still need to go in for an echocardiogram.

Thank you

restlessrider17 said:Hey,

Nobody replied, so I’m throwing this out there one more time. Maybe someone actually knows what they're talking about here,

I need some expert eyes on these ECG results:

sinus rhythm
left atrial abnormality
abnormal left axis deviation
S1, S2, S3 pattern
left anterior fascicular block
incomplete right bundle branch block
rvh with repolarization abnormality

I'm 32kg—wait, I mean 32 years old. Did an exercise stress test, everything was fine. Great cardio, zero other health issues,
but I still have to go in for an echocardiogram,

thanks

There's a ton of stuff about this already posted. The big question is: why did you even bother with the stress test? What symptoms actually sent you to the doctor, if you don't mind me asking? Was this ECG taken while you were resting or during the actual stress test? Any current health issues? Any family history of heart disease? Blood pressure? Just looking at an ECG readout without any context doesn't tell us much, which is probably why your doctor is sending you for an echo. Most importantly, the doc needs to look at the actual tracing itself; this printed list from the machine alone isn't enough to reach a conclusion. We're just guessing here. I can translate and break down what's written, but again, an ECG by itself is pretty useless without the full picture.

sinus rhythm: that's normal, basically means your heart rhythm is steady.
left atrial abnormality: a pretty vague term; could suggest an enlarged left atrium (needs an echo to confirm).
abnormal left axis deviation: the electrical axis is shifted left. Could be anything from high blood pressure to conduction issues...
S1, S2, S3 pattern: sometimes seen with left ventricular enlargement (like from hypertension).
left anterior fascicular block: often linked to that leftward axis shift.
incomplete right bundle branch block: just a partial blockage in the right side of the conduction system.
rvh with repolarization abnormality - hypertrophy of the left ventricle.

The bottom line is that a professional needs to review the actual ECG in the context of your symptoms and overall health. You could spend all night Googling this, but you won't get anywhere without a full workup, likely from a specialist cardiologist!
;D

Thank you for getting back to me,

This ECG was from a routine checkup at my occupational health clinic, taken while I was just lying there resting.
They actually sent me off for a stress test, which turned out to be totally unnecessary since everything came back perfectly fine. Honestly, my fitness levels are pretty impressive.
I haven't had any pain, shortness of breath, or palpitations. My blood pressure is steady too—120/90 at rest and 160/90 during exertion, with a normal heart rate. There’s no history of heart disease in my family either. I’m at a healthy weight, I don't drink, I don't smoke, and I really don't feel like I fall into any high-risk category.
If I hadn't gone for that routine work physical, I wouldn't have even known about these abnormalities. Until a few days ago, I felt completely healthy—actually, I felt great—and now, according to this report, something is wrong.
I’m honestly a bit nervous about what the ultrasound might show. Maybe it would have been better if I hadn't even done the ECG; life would be a lot easier right now, wouldn't it?

rose123 said:Your results look good, there's nothing to worry about... why did you get the Holter monitor done?

It’s just because every once in a while my heart starts racing intensely for a second or two for absolutely no reason at all... sometimes when I'm just lying down doing nothing, and other times when I'm performing light tasks, so no physical exertion or stress involved, nothing that would typically trigger it, I just wanted to be safe and proactive... I'm 26 years old

restlessrider17 said:thanks for the reply,

this ECG was from a routine checkup at my occupational health clinic, taken while I was just lying there resting.
They sent me for a stress test, which turned out to be a total waste of time because everything came back perfectly fine—honestly, my cardio is actually pretty impressive.
No pain, no shortness of breath, no feeling winded, blood pressure is totally normal too—sitting at 120/90 at rest and hitting 160/90 during exertion, pulse is steady. No history of heart disease in my family. Weight is normal, I don't drink, I don't smoke, and I really don't feel like I fall into any high-risk category.
If I hadn't gone to that routine work checkup, I wouldn't even know about these abnormalities. Until a few days ago, I felt completely healthy (and young), but now according to this report, everything is messed up.
I'm honestly dreading what the ultrasound will show. Maybe it would've been better if I never had the ECG; life would be a lot easier right now.

Look, a report is just a report—it's just numbers, letters, and a machine... has anyone actually looked at that ECG? Mistakes happen, they can misread things, I'm guessing! In occupational medicine, anything is possible. The most important thing here is how you actually feel and whether you're having symptoms. If you're feeling fine like you say, it's hard to link an ECG like that to your overall good health, especially since your stress test results were solid. Was the ECG during the stress test normal, or was that the one from the clinic? Did you get a referral from a cardiologist for the ultrasound after the stress test? Either way, an ultrasound is a great tool for the heart; it lets a doctor see structural changes, if the heart is enlarged, and stuff like that... basically, most of what’s noted on that ECG gets backed up or cleared by an ultrasound, which is often the preferred method anyway. Given how healthy you say you feel, your BP, and your fitness level, I'm hoping the ultrasound shows nothing bad, but definitely go get it done so you can stop worrying!

I NEED HELP RIGHT NOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!
Can someone please convert an FT4 of 0.53 ng/dl into pmol/l? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am freaking out!!!!!!!

Karen Sullivan40 said:I NEED HELP RIGHT NOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can someone convert an FT4 of 0.53 ng/dl to pmol/l !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am soooo worried!!!!!!!

The conversion factor is 12.87, so:

FT4 [pmol/l] = FT4 [ng/dl] x 12.87

That works out to:

FT4 [pmol/l] = 0.53 x 12.87 = 6.82

Essentially, the FT4 levels are low. Reference ranges vary slightly depending on the lab, but a general guide would be:

FT4 9-23 pmol/l or 0.7-1.8 ng/dl.

In any case, please consult with your doctor. For some moral support, you can check this thread:

Best regards. 🙂

Thank you, thank you, thank you! :-DDDD I just really hope those numbers aren't as bad as they look!!!! Thank you !!!!

Could someone please explain what it actually means when an eye swab test comes back with "sterile" listed as the result for Gram bacteria? I am assuming this is a good thing, but I figured I would ask here just to be sure since my follow-up appointment isn't for another week...🙂

wearydriver13 said:Can anyone tell me what it means when an eye swab test comes back "sterile" for Gram-positive bacteria? I'm assuming that's a good thing, but I figured I'd ask since my follow-up appointment isn't for another week...🙂

That’s a fair assumption, but "sterile" just means there are zero bacteria present and everything is as clean as a whistle. 😉

Urinalysis results
Bacteria count: 10^4 CFU/ml
Multiple bacterial species present
Contamination from normal flora

Can someone explain what this actually means?

swiftangler91 said:urine test results
bacteria count: 10^4 CFU/ml
multiple types of bacteria
contamination with normal flora

can someone please tell me what any of this actually means???

So, 10^4 CFU/L is just an estimate of how many bacteria are in the sample. Usually, the microbiological cutoff for an actual infection is 10^5 (100,000) CFU/L.

Having multiple types of bacteria just means one specific strain isn't dominating the sample, which almost always happens when a sample gets contaminated during collection.

As for the "contamination with normal flora" bit (hands, genitals, etc.)—it basically means some bacteria from your body's natural flora ended up in the cup. Most likely, the sample was collected a bit sloppily and things got mixed in.

The report says

Functional imaging of the lumbar spine. Flexion and extension ranges are reduced. No break in the posterior intervertebral line during flexion and extension. Reduced IV space at L5-S1 due to osteochondrosis here. Also, a reduced dorsal portion of the IV space at L4-L5 during flexion and extension. L2 shows an anteclip shape (Genant Grade 1)

This is the report from four months after my disc was removed. From what I gather, osteochondrosis is either bone mass building up or disappearing. And now, in this specific case, I’m guessing it's bad because the diameter of the IV canal is shrinking...
I have no clue what the intervertebral line is, or what an anteclip shape or those Genant grades actually mean...

Can someone explain?

Sam Flores4 said:The report states

Functional imaging of the lumbar spine segment. Flexion and extension ranges are somewhat reduced. No disruption of the posterior intercorporeal line during flexion or extension. Reduced disc space at L5-S1 with osteochondrosis present here. Also, a reduced dorsal portion of the disc space at L4-L5 during flexion and extension. Wedge-shaped L2 (Genant Grade 1)

This is the finding four months after my discectomy. As I understand it—is osteochondrosis the formation or loss of bone mass? In this case, I assume it’s bad since the diameter of the disc space is shrinking...
I am not quite sure what the intercorporeal line is, or what a wedge shape and Genant grades imply...

Any clarification?

The posterior intercorporeal line is the line traced along the back surfaces of the vertebral bodies—it needs to remain continuous, meaning there shouldn't be any forward or backward shifting that would compress the end of the spinal cord, such as nerve endings, or cause spinal instability.

The reduction in disc space width at those two levels means the disc thickness has decreased due to degenerative changes (which can start as early as your twenties)—as a result, the adjacent bone reacts, which is what we call osteochondrosis.

A wedge-shaped vertebra means the height has decreased in the front segment—this could be from trauma, osteoporosis, or even just general degenerative changes (Genant 1 is simply the first of three total grades).

Crucially, the spinal canal itself isn't described as narrowed.

All in all, the findings suggest mild to moderate degenerative changes—nothing particularly alarming, though it's worth noting that if there were a herniated disc, a standard X-ray wouldn't show it; you'd need an MRI for that.

I had my hormone levels checked on day 3 of my cycle—since I've been trying to get pregnant for a little while now—and here are the results

LH 8.0
FSH 28.8
PROGESTERONE 0.4
PROLACTIN 223
TESTOSTERONE 0.28
ESTRADIOL 35.4
CORTISOL 155

Thyroid hormones

TSH 1.56
T3 1.6
T4 320

Could someone help me make sense of these? Could any of this be a potential reason why I'm having trouble conceiving?

Kate Newman2 said:I had my hormone levels checked on day 3 of my cycle since I've been trying to get pregnant for a while now. Here are the results:

LH 8.0
FSH 28.8
PROGESTERONE 0.4
PROLACTIN 223
TESTOSTERONE 0.28
ESTRADIOL 35.4
CORTISOL 155

Thyroid hormones

TSH 1.56
T3 1.6
T4 320

Can someone make sense of this? Could any of this be why I'm struggling to conceive?

It would actually be helpful if you included the standard reference ranges, because only people in the field can guess what these numbers mean without them.

Hi there,

I just had a major coagulation panel done, and everything looks fine except for a few things:
eosinophil granulocytes: 0.10 (ref range: up to 0.7)
fibrin monomers-ethanol test: 3+ (ref range: negative)
fibrinolysis-euglobulin test: 100 (ref range: 150 to 210)

I had these tests done to see if I could keep taking my birth control pills. My gynecologist told me to go ahead and stay on them.

But honestly, these deviations have me a little worried—does anyone know what this might mean?

Thank you!

Maria Ward said:Hey there,

I had a major coagulation panel done. Everything looks fine, except for this stuff:
eosinophilic granulocytes: 0.10 (ref range: up to 0.7)
fibrin monomers-ethanol test: 3+ (ref range: negative)
fibrinolysis-euglobulin test: 100 (ref range: 150 to 210)

I ran these tests because I wanted to keep taking birth control pills. My OB-GYN told me to just keep going with them.

But these deviations have me worried. What could this be?

Thanks!

Did your doctor actually look at the results? Because if she saw them and still told you to stay on the pill, then honestly, don't sweat it. These "deviations" are just numbers spat out by some machine; they don't mean anything on their own. If you did the exact same tests tomorrow, you might get totally different numbers. Those last two parameters are just checking one specific part of the blood clotting system, and those values can swing wildly due to all sorts of things—like inflammation, certain meds, pregnancy, injuries, or even just being on birth control. As for that first item, eosinophilic granulocytes, the ratio is barely off and doesn't point to anything significant.

wiredcanyon2 said:Has your doctor looked over the results yet? If she did and told you to keep taking your pills, then there’s really nothing to worry about. These deviations are just tiny fluctuations calculated by "some machine"—they don't mean anything on their own. If you ran the tests again tomorrow, you might get totally different numbers. Those last two parameters are just checking one part of your blood clotting system, and values can shift due to all sorts of things, like inflammation, certain meds, pregnancy, injuries, or even birth control... As for that first item, those eosinophil granulocytes are only slightly elevated, which doesn't indicate any issues at all.

Thank you so much for the reply and all the help!

My OB-GYN reviewed everything and said I'm good to keep going with the pills.