MSCT scan

Hey, are you a medical professional too, Scott Allen10?

The internet is seriously driving me insane. I spent some time digging into info about dental bridging, and now everything looks terrifying.
I haven't quite wrapped my head around what the doctor said, though.
Indeed, it’s anyone's guess whether I even need it in the first place.

Scott Allen10 said:Hmm... I don't know, it's not quite that simple in practice... For a CT coronary angiogram to even work, you have to hit certain hemodynamic markers first. The big one is heart rate... if the patient is experiencing tachycardia, the whole thing is pretty much pointless. You have to monitor the patient constantly, which makes the process a lot more complex than people realize. Plus, a radiologist isn't going to step in to medicate a sudden spike in heart rate; you need a different specialist on hand to handle that, and so on... it's a bit more involved than that. At least, in my experience, it is. I'm not saying other places do it differently, but here in the States, when we do a CT coronary, there’s an anesthesia team right there with monitoring gear, ready to give a mix of sedatives and beta blockers via IV to get everything stable enough for a clear shot.
And another thing... a CT coronary isn't some magic substitute for a real-deal coronary angiogram. It's more like a high-tech way to get a general idea of what's happening in the coronary arteries. Honestly, it would be pretty risky to plan any major surgery or jump to a final conclusion based solely on what a CT scan shows.

edit:
My bad, I just realized you already mentioned beta blockers and tachycardia earlier... mea culpa!

Of course it isn't simple 🙂 and naturally, by global standards, a CT coronary scan is a joint effort between a radiologist and a cardiologist; however, from the patient's perspective—once the preparation is complete, including premedication, the EKG, and setting the technical parameters depending on whether they are using prospective or retrospective gating—the whole process isn't actually all that daunting, and the time spent inside the CT gantry shouldn't be particularly long at all.🤷
In my opinion, the most demanding part doesn't even happen until later during the post-processing phase.😬

I didn't mean to imply that anyone would plan surgery based strictly on a CT coronary scan, but if the results look clean, I highly doubt anyone would feel compelled to opt for a traditional coronary angiography in that specific case.🤷

wanderingcobra76 said:Of course it isn't simple 🙂 and naturally, by global standards, a CT coronary scan is a joint effort between a radiologist and a cardiologist; however, from the patient's perspective—once the preparation is complete, including premedication, the EKG, and setting the technical parameters depending on whether they are using prospective or retrospective gating—the whole process isn't actually all that daunting, and the time spent inside the CT gantry shouldn't be particularly long at all.🤷
In my opinion, the most demanding part doesn't even happen until later during the post-processing phase.😬

I didn't mean to imply that anyone would plan surgery based strictly on a CT coronary scan, but if the results look clean, I highly doubt anyone would feel compelled to opt for a traditional coronary angiography in that specific case.🤷

👍...I'm with you there...all five of those points...especially when it comes to post-processing...😍....

Chloe Garcia10 said:Hey, are you a medical professional too, Scott Allen10?

The internet is seriously driving me insane. I spent some time digging into info about dental bridging, and now everything looks terrifying.
I haven't quite wrapped my head around what the doctor said, though.
Indeed, it’s anyone's guess whether I even need it in the first place.

Just stay off the web, because if you keep searching like that, you'll somehow manage to diagnose yourself with ten extra heart conditions...😁....just look at it this way—if your EKG and ultrasound came back fine, and your stress test was pretty much okay too... then there's a huge chance your coronary arteries are wide open like the falls at Niagara... and as for that MSCT they recommended, it could have been suggested or not, and a cardiologist still wouldn't have made a mistake by ordering it....

You're totally right about all that online searching. It does more harm than good. I've actually decided to hold off on the MCst for now... I showed my results to a friend who's doing his cardiology residency, and he thinks it's completely unnecessary. He's someone I actually trust, so I'm just going to try and relax and wait for my follow-up appointment in a few days.

Scott Allen10 said:Just stay off the web, because if you keep searching like that, you'll somehow manage to diagnose yourself with ten extra heart conditions...😁....just look at it this way—if your EKG and ultrasound came back fine, and your stress test was pretty much okay too... then there's a huge chance your coronary arteries are wide open like the falls at Niagara... and as for that MSCT they recommended, it could have been suggested or not, and a cardiologist still wouldn't have made a mistake by ordering it....

Just got my radiology report back and one part has me a little worried—anyone here know what this actually means?

"There is an anomaly of the inferior vena cava, featuring a duplicated inferior vena cava running on both sides of the aorta, from the level of the renal vein confluence moving caudally, where the common iliac veins are connected via a wide venous collateral at the level of the aortic bifurcation while maintaining flow.
"
So, I've got some kind of anomaly... but why does it matter? How does this affect me, and is it actually dangerous?

thanks 🙂

It isn't dangerous, nor will it cause you any actual trouble—really. The only thing that truly matters is ensuring that if you ever need abdominal surgery down the road, the surgeon isn't caught off guard by what they find.

wanderingcobra76 said:It isn't dangerous, nor will it cause you any actual trouble—really. The only thing that truly matters is ensuring that if you ever need abdominal surgery down the road, the surgeon isn't caught off guard by what they find.

Alright, thanks a ton 😍

Hey there.

Back on Nov 5, 2012, I had a CT scan of my abdomen. I didn't follow up on anything after that, even though I had appointments lined up for a colonoscopy. It wasn't until just now that I actually sat down and looked at what the report said.

The abdominal findings show focal lesions in the right lobe of the liver, specifically segments IVa/VIII and V, which most likely look like cystic changes? There's also a focal lesion in segment V that looks suspicious for a hemangioma? Unclear etiology? The report also points to a cyst in the left kidney, some mild changes in both kidneys, and a few individual lymph nodes around 8-12 mm in size.

Seeing this now has me seriously worried. Can anyone help me make sense of this?

boldranger9 said:Hey there.

Back on Nov 5, 2012, I had a CT scan of my abdomen. I didn't follow up on anything after that, even though I had appointments lined up for a colonoscopy. It wasn't until just now that I actually sat down and looked at what the report said.

The abdominal findings show focal lesions in the right lobe of the liver, specifically segments IVa/VIII and V, which most likely look like cystic changes? There's also a focal lesion in segment V that looks suspicious for a hemangioma? Unclear etiology? The report also points to a cyst in the left kidney, some mild changes in both kidneys, and a few individual lymph nodes around 8-12 mm in size.

Seeing this now has me seriously worried. Can anyone help me make sense of this?

To give you some immediate peace of mind, a hemangioma is a benign tumor, kidneys are naturally prone to developing cysts, and those enlarged nodes could easily be the result of simple inflammation.

You absolutely need to follow through with those additional tests—get that colonoscopy done, check your markers, and see an internist.
The report definitely shows some changes that need to be addressed, and you have to rule out the possibility that anything here is malignant.

Could anyone who actually understands radiology explain my father's scan? He's 64. MSCT of the upper abdomen:
The liver shows an inhomogeneous structure. Three hypodense lesions are visible within the liver. The largest lesion is located in hepatic segment V, measuring 6 x 3 cm. The second largest is in segment VIII, measuring 4.2 x 3.6 cm. The smallest lesion is in segment IV, measuring 1.5 cm. These described lesions, which are mostly necrotic, would primarily correspond to secondary deposits.
A 2.7 cm lymph node is visible in the hepatoduodenal ligament, along with a 1.4 cm interaortocaval lymph node.
The other parenchymal organs of the upper abdomen show no focal changes.

Searching online, I've come across that secondary deposits indicate metastases—m.t. [meaning] cancer. However, his primary care physician insists that isn't the case—that some might just be cysts—but instead of referring him to an oncologist, she's sending him to a gastroenterologist, and he won't be seen for another two months 🙄. Otherwise, he feels fine; he had the MSCT because a blood test showed certain changes in the liver.
Thanks in advance for any help!

Based on the description, it unfortunately seems to be primarily about metastases. Does the report mention anything regarding how the lesions behave after the contrast agent is administered?

Generally speaking, patients with newly discovered liver metastases are often referred to a gastroenterologist first—who then coordinates the follow-up to pinpoint the primary tumor and confirm if those changes are truly metastatic—but waiting two months is simply far too long.
In principle, these patients really ought to be admitted to a hospital for a full workup as soon as possible.

wanderingcobra76 said:Based on the description, it unfortunately seems to be primarily about metastases. Does the report mention anything regarding how the lesions behave after the contrast agent is administered?

Generally speaking, patients with newly discovered liver metastases are often referred to a gastroenterologist first—who then coordinates the follow-up to pinpoint the primary tumor and confirm if those changes are truly metastatic—but waiting two months is simply far too long.
In principle, these patients really ought to be admitted to a hospital for a full workup as soon as possible.

Thanks for the reply. Yes, unfortunately, I had to pull some strings just to get a hospital gastroenterologist to walk me through the results. I’m posting this for anyone else who might feel as desperate as I do and is looking for answers. I was told that metastases over 4 cm aren't surgical candidates—and that maybe I have a year or two left with medication. If anyone has any experience with this, please let me know, thanks.

Hey everyone... I'm scheduled for an MSCT of my heart, and they're suggesting an aortography too. I was just wondering what that actually looks like—what are they going to do to me? Also, how much radiation am I really getting? Back when I was staying at the oncology ward, they told me that if I ever had a CT, I'd need to be isolated from any kids under 18 for about 48 hours. I guess I'm wondering if there's any truth to that.

restlessraven44 said:Hey everyone... I'm scheduled for an MSCT of my heart, and they're suggesting an aortography too. I was just wondering what that actually looks like—what are they going to do to me? Also, how much radiation am I really getting? Back when I was staying at the oncology ward, they told me that if I ever had a CT, I'd need to be isolated from any kids under 18 for about 48 hours. I guess I'm wondering if there's any truth to that.

Sorry, I managed to find the answers myself. I gave the hospital a call and asked them to clarify the whole radiation thing and the procedure itself. It turns out the folks over at oncology gave me the wrong info. After an MSCT, I won't be radioactive or anything; that's only after a PET/CT scan. This heart stuff, the MSCT... it's pretty quick and painless, I guess.

Does anyone happen to know which facility in Chicago has the shortest wait time for an abdominal MSCT if I have a referral?
I just got a call from Northwestern Memorial, and they’re already booking out as far as October, which is just great.

Tyler Davis2 said:Does anyone happen to know which facility in Chicago has the shortest wait time for an abdominal MSCT if I have a referral?
I just got a call from Northwestern Memorial, and they’re already booking out as far as October, which is just great.

Honestly, your primary care doctor should be able to see all that info right in their system...
It’s probably handled through that specific provider network they use to schedule patients directly..

My blood pressure is through the roof right now.
I’ve been pumped up with air dozens of times because of all the surgeries I've had... just constant stuff.
Since I can't go near an MRI, I'm stuck getting a CT scan on my kidneys and adrenal glands the day after tomorrow—they didn't say anything about any special prep work though.

So, what am I looking at here? How long does this thing take?
Do I need to follow some weird diet tomorrow?
And should I take my regular meds in the morning before the scan, or just skip them?

There's a lot of radiation involved, but look, I had kidney surgery 27 years ago—dealing with chronic pyelonephritis, hydronephrosis, a massive stone, and they suspect an adrenal adenoma. Honestly, it'll probably do more good than harm at this point...

Thanks.

I think I hit the nail on the head with this topic. I just had a brain CT. The report says: "Incipient atrophy of the frontal cortex." How does that actually show up in real life?