Sorry for the lack of blog yesterday, as I said on Monday I am up in Darwin for work at the moment, and sometimes getting online to post a blog is just a little bit tough. So it was yesterday. But never fear, today I have found time.
Way back on Monday I mentioned that I have some health updates and that it felt like a Wednesday sort of blog. Well it still does and so here we are.
There hasn't been a lot of progress with my heart, however, but there have been a few developments with respect to tests etc.
I think I wrote a while ago about having a signal average ECG, which is a bit like an uber ECG where they do about 120 ECGs and then overlay them to cancel out noise and see if any patterns emerge (at least I think that is what it does, after all I am not a doctor). I haven't heard anything from Dr Stobie regarding that test, which I am choosing to interpret as good news, or at least the absence of bad news.
Then last week I had some genetic testing done. Or more accurately I had some blood taken with which they are going to do the genetic testing. As the Doctor doing the testing explained, the testing bit is quick, but the analysis afterwards can take months. So last week I started that process. I am not expecting results anytime soon.
The reason for the genetic testing is they are trying to get an idea of whether or not I might, perhaps, maybe have a genetic conditions called Arrhythmogenic Right Ventricular Cardiomyopathy (say that 10 times fast) or ARVC to its friends. The reason I say they are trying to get an idea of if I might, perhaps, maybe is because genetic testing is far from certain. It can help give an idea of whether it is likely or not but not a concrete diagnosis.
Why test for ARVC? Well, the symptoms I have sort of fit the diagnosis. I am not a doctor (obviously) but this is my understanding. Diagnosing ARVC is very difficult (even with genetic testing) so they tend to do it based on symptoms. More recently (2010 I think) there has been a check list developed that indicates whether or not ARVC is likely. Using this checklist they can diagnose ARVC whether the genetic markers are there or not. I don't tick many of the items on the ARVC checklist, but I tick more than none. Enough to make it worth checking.
Again, Why?
Well, whether or not they think I have ARVC or not dictates the forward treatment. If they come out and say odds on you have ARVC then I need to avoid competitive sport going forward. In fact I need to pretty much limit myself to 30 minutes of moderate exercise 5 times a week for the rest of my life. Not ideal, but to be honest at this point I have sort of come to terms with that. Doing competitive sport puts me at risk of sudden cardiac death, which is an option that I feel is worse than not doing exercise. Might just be me.
If the diagnosis comes back and says you look like you probably don't have ARVC then that is different. Studies are showing that as the popularity of endurance sports increases there seems to be an increase in the number of people displaying ARVC type symptoms but who don't have the genetic markers. There seems to be a bit of uncertainty about it in the medical world, but people are thinking there could be a link. Once again, I am not a doctor so I am far from an expert on these things.
Following on from that, some studies seem to indicate that in cases on non genetic ARVC if people detrain the symptoms seem to subside. This is exactly why I am currently detraining. Besides I need to wait several months to get the results of the genetic testing and so that is going to force me to detrain anyway. Kills two birds with one stone really, potentially getting a diagnosis and working on a solution at the same time.
Anyway, so that is about that. There is of course another question about, if I have a genetic condition why was I able to train for years without problems before they flared up this year, and there is potentially some answers around that. But I think that might be a blog for another day.
No comments:
Post a Comment