|
Home > Archive > Medicine transcription > February 2005 > Echocardiogram Reports For Dummies
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Echocardiogram Reports For Dummies
|
|
|
| Are there any online resources that would help a lay person learn how
to read an echo report (i.e., what the various abreviations mean, how
to interpret the data, etc.)? Thanks!
| |
| djgordon 2005-02-15, 8:23 am |
| Here's one, but I don't see a lot of abbreviations and such on it:
http://www.und-fraud.com/UND/Medici...gram_report.htm
It's about all I could find, and actually it's a bit disturbing considering
the reason this actual report is posted on the Internet. The name of the
patient is on it....scary-and it is written on it that this is the actual
report and apparently is the actual patient and apparently is supposed to
teach about confidentiality, but shouldn't they have removed the name to
teach?
Dani
"Bill" <bmcneir22111@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1108270331.689549.149000@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Are there any online resources that would help a lay person learn how
> to read an echo report (i.e., what the various abreviations mean, how
> to interpret the data, etc.)? Thanks!
>
| |
| Ed Chait 2005-02-15, 8:23 am |
|
"Bill" <bmcneir22111@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1108270331.689549.149000@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Are there any online resources that would help a lay person learn how
> to read an echo report (i.e., what the various abreviations mean, how
> to interpret the data, etc.)? Thanks!
>
It would be difficult for a person not knowleadgeable in cardiology to
understand the findings even if they knew what the abbreviations stand for.
For instance, most people will see an ejection fraction of 55% and think
that this indicates poor left ventricular function, while this is really
within the normal range.
I've been performing echos for a long time, and I can help you decipher the
report if you would like. Please feel free to email me with any questions.
ed
| |
| Eliyahu Rooff 2005-02-15, 8:23 am |
|
"Ed Chait" <edchait4remove@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3786n3F5aavr7U1@individual.net...
>
> "Bill" <bmcneir22111@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1108270331.689549.149000@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> It would be difficult for a person not knowleadgeable in cardiology to
> understand the findings even if they knew what the abbreviations stand
> for.
>
> For instance, most people will see an ejection fraction of 55% and
> think that this indicates poor left ventricular function, while this
> is really within the normal range.
That's good to know -- mine was 80%, and I was wondering...
Eliyahu
| |
| Ed Chait 2005-02-15, 8:23 am |
|
"Eliyahu Rooff" <lrooff1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9wDPd.9156$oc1.6505@fe06.lga...
>
> "Ed Chait" <edchait4remove@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3786n3F5aavr7U1@individual.net...
>
> That's good to know -- mine was 80%, and I was wondering...
>
> Eliyahu
The normal range is from about 55-75%, so what they reported is just
slightly above the upper range of normal, which, barring hyperthyroidism,
anemia or dehydration, is perfectly normal.
The most accurate way to evaluate EF on an echo is still eyeball estimation,
so a plus/minus 5% deviation is the norm. When people try to get fancy and
use computers to try to estimate it, the deviation is actually greater.
ed, who likes it when humans are more accurate than computers
|
| |
|
|