Can Someone Explain Medical Term

[KHJH]

I just received my husband medical records where he had a Quadruple bypass in 1990.

I don't understand this part: Old and occluded right coronary artery, marked stenosis proximally in the LAD vessel. Inspection of the heart showed old inferior right ventricular scarring.

Thanks

Kathy

[jlshand]

Kathy,

LAD means the Lower Arterial Descending artery which is one of the main arteries feeding the heart muscle. running approximately north to south. Stenosis means blockage and in this case the terminogy suggests significant blockage within this artery. Old and occluded also refer to a not so good condition of the artery Proximately means close to or in the neighborhood of

The scarring of the left ventricle(one of the four main chambers of the heart) means there was some damage done to that chamber at some point and the scarring is the hearts attempt to repair that damage.

If this report is from current tests he really needs additional attention to that LAD to determine the extent of the "stenosis" or blockage since this is a very important artery.

[KHJH]

My husband received a C&P reevaluation for his back, hip and knee 9 months after discharge in 1971. On the radiographic report during the C&P the findings were:

2 M CHESTOGRAM, pa and lateral views 6/30/71, shows no consolidative lesion. Heart shadow appears abnormal in that the aortic knob is hypoplastic, (small) and there is prominence of the main pulmonary artery ( convex border instead of concave) and there is suggestion of some increased roundness of the left ventricle without any evidence of cardiac enlargement. One should rule out possibilities: 1. Aortic valvular disease? 2. Bronchial asthma? Lung fields show no hyperaeration or any depressed diaphragm and peribronchial markings are within normal limits. He was not told about these findings and did not know he had heart problems until his heart attack in 1990.

They also did an EKG during the Exam but I can't find where they addressed the results of the test.

On the Report of medical examination under cardiovascular the results were: Normal to P&A

I thought that any medical problems found within a year of discharge it should be service connected.

Would there be any chance of getting his heart service connected by using the results of the C&P in 1971 and his report from his Quadruple bypass in 1990.

1990 Quadruple bypass report: Old and occluded right coronary artery, marked stenosis proximally in the Lad Vessel. Inspection of the heart showed old inferior right ventricular scarring.

Thanks

Kathy

[jlshand]

My husband received a C&P reevaluation for his back, hip and knee 9 months after discharge in 1971. On the radiographic report during the C&P the findings were:

2 M CHESTOGRAM, pa and lateral views 6/30/71, shows no consolidative lesion. Heart shadow appears abnormal in that the aortic knob is hypoplastic, (small) and there is prominence of the main pulmonary artery ( convex border instead of concave) and there is suggestion of some increased roundness of the left ventricle without any evidence of cardiac enlargement. One should rule out possibilities: 1. Aortic valvular disease? 2. Bronchial asthma? Lung fields show no hyperaeration or any depressed diaphragm and peribronchial markings are within normal limits. He was not told about these findings and did not know he had heart problems until his heart attack in 1990.

They also did an EKG during the Exam but I can't find where they addressed the results of the test.

On the Report of medical examination under cardiovascular the results were: Normal to P&A

I thought that any medical problems found within a year of discharge it should be service connected.

Would there be any chance of getting his heart service connected by using the results of the C&P in 1971 and his report from his Quadruple bypass in 1990.

1990 Quadruple bypass report: Old and occluded right coronary artery, marked stenosis proximally in the Lad Vessel. Inspection of the heart showed old inferior right ventricular scarring.

Thanks

Kathy

Kathy

The VA 's claims process is unpredictable, as you have undoubtedly read here, it can follow rules ,not follow rules or just plain make up rules. One rater can see things one way as opposed to another,so......when in doubt it doesnt hurt to give it a try!!!!!!

Given what you have stated tho and just in my humble opinion, you would need the cooperation of at least a cardiologist to review all husbands records, do some updated testing and be willing to draw a "nexus" between the original issues as set out in 1971, the heart attack in 1990 and his present heart conditions TOUGH , Very Tough!

Even then you would face two (at least) huge issues

1. Are you claiming the service negligent in failing to advise you all of the problems noted in the 1971 physical? and not taking medical action for them? Can you prove you were not notified of these problems ( ie did he sign off on the results somewhere?)

2. The passage of time between 1971 -1990 and the present time. (ie is there a record of continuing private or VA care for these conditions thru both of these periods of time?)