F
FoolWithMoney
Guest
I had a Bruce protocol stress test done recently as part of a general physical unrelated to FAA.
I ended up going to just shy of 10 minutes, but significantly exceeded the target BPM in the final stage of the process (not sure why the tech allowed this). Otherwise, no problem at all.
All of the basic readings were fine, and the doc told me everything looked great, and I was above standard for my age.
A week later, I got a note saying that there was an indication on the ECG of "possible ischemia" at the very end of the test, when my heart rate was well above target. No diagnosis of anything. but a recommendation to talk to a cardiologist.
My father had something similar 20 years ago. He went through many many tests and procedures, including a heart cath that nearly killed him from an internal infection caused by the process. There never was any actual heart problem found, and the tests did a lot more damage than was warranted (ultimately resulting in his death). As a result, I take a very jaundiced view of any heart-based "indication" that is unclear, marginal, and/or has no related symptoms.
Since there is no actual diagnosis and no symptoms, am I safe to ignore this from a FAA perspective?
I ended up going to just shy of 10 minutes, but significantly exceeded the target BPM in the final stage of the process (not sure why the tech allowed this). Otherwise, no problem at all.
All of the basic readings were fine, and the doc told me everything looked great, and I was above standard for my age.
A week later, I got a note saying that there was an indication on the ECG of "possible ischemia" at the very end of the test, when my heart rate was well above target. No diagnosis of anything. but a recommendation to talk to a cardiologist.
My father had something similar 20 years ago. He went through many many tests and procedures, including a heart cath that nearly killed him from an internal infection caused by the process. There never was any actual heart problem found, and the tests did a lot more damage than was warranted (ultimately resulting in his death). As a result, I take a very jaundiced view of any heart-based "indication" that is unclear, marginal, and/or has no related symptoms.
Since there is no actual diagnosis and no symptoms, am I safe to ignore this from a FAA perspective?