jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (7 posts)

Is it possible to have had a blood clot that would not be detectable by a vascul

  1. BizGenGirl profile image90
    BizGenGirlposted 6 years ago

    Is it possible to have had a blood clot that would not be detectable by a vascular ultrasound?

    The other day, I had an excruciating pain in my left calf. It felt like a 3" balloon was inflating then deflating inside my leg and it pulsed. I cant even describe how painful it was. It cont'd to fill up and then deflate for 10-15 minutes and got worse every time until it stopped. It hasn't happened again, though my calf is now very sore and stiff. Though no bruising, discoloration or apparent swelling.

    My dr did a vascular ultrasound and said my veins look fine. Is it is possible they couldn't see anything because it passed already? Or is there something else that could've happened?

  2. IntimatEvolution profile image79
    IntimatEvolutionposted 6 years ago

    An air emboli could be undetechabled.  Anything can be possible in the medical profession.  That was the first thing I learned in this field.  So..., it very well could have.

  3. BizGenGirl profile image90
    BizGenGirlposted 6 years ago

    Thank you IntimatEvolution. That is still more than what the docs gave me. They suggested it could have been a muscle spasm, but I have had plenty of those to know what that feels like, looks like and acts like. Not to mention, it doesn't make any sense for my calf muscle to only spasm where a large vein is located.

    Also, I'm 7 months pregnant, and it looks like Air Emboli do happen on occasion during pregnancy, so you could be right on about that. I'm gonna keep researching that and see what's up. It's hard to know what to do, when you aren't sure what happened, lol.

  4. profile image50
    Lisadrozposted 5 years ago

    Yes. It's possible. As a Physician assistant in the vascular surgery specialty for 8 years, it's often recommended to repeat an Ultrasound (especially in the lower extremities) after a week if the imagining studies are clouded by anatomical anomalies, or even prosthetic devices such as knee replacements or fixation rods. The reason to repeat the study would be to see if there has been propagation of the clot, which means the clot is growing and moving upwards. Also, u/s below the knee is generally not as accurate. If you have a clot below the knee, generally no treatment is indicated anyway.

    1. BizGenGirl profile image90
      BizGenGirlposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you LisaDroz! It's been a while since I asked, but from time to time I still get painful lower leg pains that worry me. I'd love to see a hub explaining why clots below the knee often don't need treatment smile  Thanks again!

    2. profile image50
      Lisadrozposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The reason blood clots below the knee are not usually treated are because they rarely embolize (which means to break off and travel toward the lung (known as a pulmonary embolism). Also, lower leg veins are really small so U/S isn't as reliable.

    3. BizGenGirl profile image90
      BizGenGirlposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Interesting. My aunt recently got a bad clot in her upper leg. They gave her a bunch of warfrin treatments, but when she stopped, now she has lower leg clots a lot... weird?

 
working