Don,
I thought about replying to this privately but I think we all need to
see this and think about it. Patient confidentiality is important.
Think Farrah Fawcett. We should never ever mention the name of a
patient, especially on such a public forum as Flow Net. People lose
their jobs for these kinds of breaches. Don't want to sound like a
crab, but it is so easy to forget that we might be breaching a
patient's right to privacy.
Jeff
On May 27, 2009, at 5:18 PM, Don Ridgway wrote:

>
On May 27, 2009, at 5:18 PM, Don Ridgway wrote:

> My then co-worker Kathleen Bower got to do a carotid scan on John
> Carradine (Stagecoach, preacher in Grapes of Wrath, hundreds of
> other movies, father of those other Carradines). And we took care of
> Olaf Wieghorst (very highly-regarded Western artist) and his wife.
>
> But the folks across town at Scripps Green did Mother Theresa, so
> they all kind of glow now.
>
> Once when I visited Jean at Cedars, we saw Stewart Granger walking
> along in a bathrobe. I think you have to be pretty old to care about
> him (or John Carradine) unless you watch a lot of TCM channel.
>
> Don Ridgway
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: UVM Flownet on behalf of Crafton, James W
> Sent: Wed 5/27/2009 12:55 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: arterial duplex criteria
>
> Hi Don
> Now Don, don't you get a few stars at Grossmont!
> Take Care
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: UVM Flownet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Don
> Ridgway
> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 2:09 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: arterial duplex criteria
>
> Jean Ellison at Cedars-Sinai (the hospital of the stars) long ago
> validated stenotic:prestenotic ratios of 2:1 for 50% and 4:1 for
> 75%. I was under the impression that these are still widely used; we
> do, either combined with or not with 200 cm/sec and 400 cm/sec PSV
> for the two levels of significant stenosis. If you get the 400 cm/
> sec and/or 4:1 ratio, it seems reasonable to call it high-grade vs.
> just >50%.
>
>
> Don Ridgway
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: UVM Flownet on behalf of Jeff Stanley
> Sent: Wed 5/27/2009 12:03 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: arterial duplex criteria
>
> I tend to use the greater/lesser than 50% most of the time since our
> surgeons are basically looking for significant disease that would
> correlate with the pt's symptoms. I'll usually comment that it may
> be >75% if the EDV is over 100 cm/sec. We use the 100% increase in
> velocity (ratio of 2.0) or more to say it is significant, along with
> change in waveform. Reversed flow component should be lost distally
> to say a stenosis is significant.
>
> Anyone using the 20-49% category (velocity increase of 30%-100% with
> spectral broadening and visualized stenosis)?
>
> Jeff Stanley BS,RVT
> The Surgical Clinic
> Nashville, TN
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: UVM Flownet on behalf of Combs, Kristin
> Sent: Wed 5/27/2009 1:16 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: arterial duplex criteria
>
>
> Hello all-
> Just wondering if people are still using the diagnostic criteria for
> arterial duplex that has >50% stenosis being 100% increase in
> velocity when compared with the proximal non diseased segment. < 50%
> as being less than 100%. Is anyone out there quantifying stenosis
> categories >75%? I have seen some articles recently that seem to be
> promoting just <50%, and > 50%.....
>
> To unsubscribe or search other topics on UVM Flownet link to:
> http://list.uvm.edu/archives/uvmflownet.html
>
>
> To unsubscribe or search other topics on UVM Flownet link to:
> http://list.uvm.edu/archives/uvmflownet.html
>
> To unsubscribe or search other topics on UVM Flownet link to:
> http://list.uvm.edu/archives/uvmflownet.html
>
>
> To unsubscribe or search other topics on UVM Flownet link to:
> http://list.uvm.edu/archives/uvmflownet.html

To unsubscribe or search other topics on UVM Flownet link to:
http://list.uvm.edu/archives/uvmflownet.html