deeoeraclea
New Member
For a few months, I have been feeling tightness in my chest when walking up hills. So, I decided to have a stress test done (first step was actually and ECG, which was normal). After doing the stress test, rather than sending me home, a cardiologist entered the room and told me she though I should be admitted to the ER, as my stress test was abnormal. Upon being admitted to the ER, they sent me to the cath lab, where they found partial blockages in three arteries leading to the heart. The recommendation now is to either have stents put in to open the blocked arteries or have a bypass operation.
Putting stents in is a very simple procedure, which can be done without a hospital stay, and which would allow me to return to full activities within just a few days. The bypass, on the other hand, is a major operation, which would be done under general anesthesia, require a 5 day hospital stay, and which would take months to recover from. So, all else being equal, the stents seem like a much better option -- both because of the shorter recovery and the lower risk of complications during the procedure.
But, the surgeon I spoke with said that, because I am young (42), the bypass would be a better option, as it has a superior long-term outcome. I'm not sure exactly what that means. But, what I think I gathered is the bypass is far more likely to be a one and done thing, whereas the stents may require further stents in the future, which doesn't seem so bad, given how simple the stent procedure is. But, I think there may be some limit to the number of times one can put in a stent before all bridges have been burned.
Anyway, all of this is just to ask: do any of you have strong opinions on which of the two options (stents or bypass) is best for a young male that wants to remain active? Any information you can provide or resources you can point me to would be appreciated.
Putting stents in is a very simple procedure, which can be done without a hospital stay, and which would allow me to return to full activities within just a few days. The bypass, on the other hand, is a major operation, which would be done under general anesthesia, require a 5 day hospital stay, and which would take months to recover from. So, all else being equal, the stents seem like a much better option -- both because of the shorter recovery and the lower risk of complications during the procedure.
But, the surgeon I spoke with said that, because I am young (42), the bypass would be a better option, as it has a superior long-term outcome. I'm not sure exactly what that means. But, what I think I gathered is the bypass is far more likely to be a one and done thing, whereas the stents may require further stents in the future, which doesn't seem so bad, given how simple the stent procedure is. But, I think there may be some limit to the number of times one can put in a stent before all bridges have been burned.
Anyway, all of this is just to ask: do any of you have strong opinions on which of the two options (stents or bypass) is best for a young male that wants to remain active? Any information you can provide or resources you can point me to would be appreciated.