 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Hepatitis / August 2007Blood Test Results
Hope this isn't really serious: AST (GOT) 99 ALT (GPT) 92 Quick index: 125 T.T.P.S. 36 Globulins Alfa 2 1.04 The rest of the results were normal. The damn nurse lost the vial for viral load check so there's no results for that. Thanks,  SignatureCody To email me, remove shoes first >Hope this isn't really serious: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Thanks, Well, it ain't great, you're around 2X high normal with those. So your liver is the site of the battle between the virus and your immune system. I wager there are plenty of folks coming 'round here that have had (or still have) way higher LFTs, but LFTs are only an indicator of the current level of inflammation and do not relate to the amount of accumulated liver damage. To know if this is "really serious", you need a biopsy. And your nurse did not "lose" the vial for the VL check. Nurses do not simply "lose" vials of blood. She either used the wrong type of vial, or failed to put the right vial properly and immediately on ice. Either way, it got punted. You probably ought to get a VL count, but the biopsy is the answer to all the questions.... Cheers /greyhackles >> Hope this isn't really serious: >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > higher LFTs, but LFTs are only an indicator of the current level of > inflammation and do not relate to the amount of accumulated liver damage. Good to know. > To know if this is "really serious", you need a biopsy. > > And your nurse did not "lose" the vial for the VL check. Nurses do not simply > "lose" vials of blood. She either used the wrong type of vial, or failed to > put the right vial properly and immediately on ice. Either way, it got punted. Not sure, really. > You probably ought to get a VL count, but the biopsy is the answer to all the > questions.... > > Cheers > > /greyhackles I know and, hopefully, when I see the liver doc on the 12th of September, she will schedule one. Thanks for the assessment. SignatureCody To email me, remove shoes first >Hope this isn't really serious: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Thanks, Those numbers suck to be honest. I really hope you get a biopsy soon to find out the present condition of your liver. The virus is actively attacking your liver and there's a pretty fair chance given your age, the length of time you've been infected, and inflammatory activity that some degree of fibrosis is present. Don >> Hope this isn't really serious: >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Don The doc who did the cat scan said the liver wasn't inflamed at all. I hope to have the biopsy done soon. SignatureCody To email me, remove shoes first >>> Hope this isn't really serious: >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >The doc who did the cat scan said the liver wasn't inflamed at all. I >hope to have the biopsy done soon. I weep for the state of internal medicine today. And I thought it was an ultrasound exam, which can't see inflammation, either... /greyhackles >>>> Hope this isn't really serious: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > /greyhackles I don't know what the name of the procedure is. The guy put some gel on my stomach and then ran a scanner over my abdomen and produced some x-ray like film for me to take to my liver doc. SignatureCody To email me, remove shoes first Hi Cody, What you've described is a sonogram or ultrasound examination. That's routine, and in my experience means that you would have probably been lined up for the next step which is the biopsy. (the exceptional cases experience some pain from biopsy, but from what I have seen, these cases are truly exceptional) Referenced pain is a term used to describe where the pain from a liver injury (such as a biopsy) is transferred to the upper area of your chest, just an inch lower than your right side collar bone. Perhaps you didn't know that? The modern biopsy is quite accurate and should involve the use of the sonogram to ensure the hollow needle is on the correct path. ahem. The biggest drag for me, being impatient patient and concerned was with the Time laying around and me not doing nothing in an outpatient ward while they monitor your BP and check to ensure that there is no internal bleeding. The meds they give you take about 4 hrs to wear off, and as the body has received a major insult and there is shock to the system, your reflexes and attention span are temporarily impared while your body adjusts. I think that the sonogram is only used as a general diagonistic tool, to eliminate the possibility of cirrhosis. The sonogram results in my case were something like you described in yours. Fuzzy, blurry areas could mean steatosis, (Fatty Liver) and is not necessarily associated with how big you are. Livers of alcoholic patients would show fatty liver evidence because (I think) of the insults the alcohol has induced on the Liver. Alcohol is poison, the Yogis are right about that. And other things in your metabolism such as how your body processes lipids and this is where I fall off the knowlegeable track, such as it is ..... :) take care of yourself, Cody Cactus Jammies ---- Bob >>>>> Hope this isn't really serious: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > stomach and then ran a scanner over my abdomen and produced some x-ray > like film for me to take to my liver doc. On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 02:03:24 +0200, Cody <mpcody@shoesgmail.com>, in message ID <ifpzi.38389$224.5149@news.ono.com>, in the newsgroup alt.support.hepatitis-c wrote: >The doc who did the cat scan said the liver wasn't inflamed at all. I >hope to have the biopsy done soon. My ultrasound did not reveal any abnormalities either in spite of early bridging fibrosis. Yes, you really must get that biopsy done. I would still say that even if all your blood test results had been normal. >The doc who did the cat scan said the liver wasn't inflamed at all. I >hope to have the biopsy done soon. Whether the procedure is a cat scan or an ultrasound which it appears you had, inflammation cannot be detected that way. That's what my doctors said. In fact, cirrhosis can often not be detected using those methods. That's why biopsies are still necessary. If there is no inflammation you shouldn't see elevated liver function tests like AST and ALT. However, yours indicate otherwise. There is some damage going on. I don't know whether there's a misunderstanding with your doctor, he's an idiot, or they just don't want to treat you for some reason. But an ultrasound exam most certainly cannot detect whether a liver is inflammed and elevated LFTs suggest inflammatory activity. Don >> The doc who did the cat scan said the liver wasn't inflamed at all. I >> hope to have the biopsy done soon. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Don I see the liver doc on Sept. 12. I will insist on a biopsy if she doesn't say anything about it. I think the "doc" that did the ultrasound was just trying to make me feel good which I don't really appreciate as I want the truth. SignatureCody To email me, remove shoes first On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 18:12:35 +0200, Cody <mpcody@shoesgmail.com>, in message ID <2yYzi.38471$224.8377@news.ono.com>, in the newsgroup alt.support.hepatitis-c wrote: >I see the liver doc on Sept. 12. I will insist on a biopsy if she >doesn't say anything about it. I think the "doc" that did the ultrasound >was just trying to make me feel good which I don't really appreciate as >I want the truth. I think the most likely truth is that there is some liver damage Cody. When you consider that people with liver damage often return normal LFTs, the fact that some of your test results are some way outside normal range increase the odds that there is *some* damage. Of course it's not possible to assess how much damage without a biopsy so I think you are right to insist on one. Like you. I prefer the truth as well, even if it does sometimes feel a bit brutal. > On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 18:12:35 +0200, Cody <mpcody@shoesgmail.com>, in > message ID <2yYzi.38471$224.8377@news.ono.com>, in the newsgroup [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Like you. I prefer the truth as well, even if it does sometimes feel a > bit brutal. Well, I'll see her on the 12th and, hopefully, she will push for a quick biopsy after seeing my blood test results. SignatureCody To email me, remove shoes first Hey the bullshit never stops, we know that. :) cj > Hope this isn't really serious: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Thanks, On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:03:38 +0200, Cody <mpcody@shoesgmail.com>, in message ID <qSkzi.38381$224.15087@news.ono.com>, in the newsgroup alt.support.hepatitis-c wrote: >Hope this isn't really serious: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Thanks, Blood tests aren't usually conclusive. However, ALL my early test results were either within normal range or very marginally outside. However, the biopsy revealed what was somewhere around stage 2, grade 3 damage to the liver (scoring system is different here so I had to translate it). Anyway, even with normal blood test results, there were signs of fairly early bridging fibrosis. Your ALT is a fair way outside normal (I think "normal" is within the range 0 - 42 or thereabouts) but some people with hep-c have much higher scores. If your ALT score is caused by hep-c, it wouldn't surprise me if you need to treat it but you can't really tell for sure without biopsy. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.