 |
 |
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