lactate/pyruvate interpretation

[Guest guest]

You might want to call the lab that did the testing and ask about the

differences in range and result perameters.

I think you are going to have to wait for doc to find out the

significance of results. I know waiting is hard.

laurie

>

>

>

> I just got results back from a lactate/pyruvate test my neurologist

> ran. Lactic acid reference range was 0.4-2.0 mmol/L, and my level

> appears normal at 0.7. The reference range for pyruvate is listed as

> 0.30-0.70 mg/dL, and my level is listed as 0.03 L. I don't understand

> why the units for the reference range (mg/dL) appear different from the

> units for my reading (L). Should I ignore that? If so, does that mean

> that I have very low pyruvate? If so, can anybody help interpret the

> results? (My primary care doc's out of town, and my neurologist

> strangely told me the results were fine before they even came back yet,

> so I was hoping to get some thoughts from this forum). Thanks!

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Medical advice, information, opinions, data and statements contained herein

> are not necessarily those of the list moderators. The author of this e mail

> is entirely responsible for its content. List members are reminded of their

> responsibility to evaluate the content of the postings and consult with

> their physicians regarding changes in their own treatment.

>

> Personal attacks are not permitted on the list and anyone who sends one is

> automatically moderated or removed depending on the severity of the attack.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Does the (L) following 0.03 perhaps stand for " low? " That's the symbol my

lab reports use when results are outside the reference range. L for low and

H for high, with L or H in bold following the number. But of course, Laurie

is right. Check with your doctor.

B

_____

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf

Of rpanton24

Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 10:19 AM

To:

Subject: Lactate/pyruvate interpretation

I just got results back from a lactate/pyruvate test my neurologist

ran. Lactic acid reference range was 0.4-2.0 mmol/L, and my level

appears normal at 0.7. The reference range for pyruvate is listed as

0.30-0.70 mg/dL, and my level is listed as 0.03 L. I don't understand

why the units for the reference range (mg/dL) appear different from the

units for my reading (L). Should I ignore that? If so, does that mean

that I have very low pyruvate? If so, can anybody help interpret the

results? (My primary care doc's out of town, and my neurologist

strangely told me the results were fine before they even came back yet,

so I was hoping to get some thoughts from this forum). Thanks!

Medical advice, information, opinions, data and statements contained herein

are not necessarily those of the list moderators. The author of this e mail

is entirely responsible for its content. List members are reminded of their

responsibility to evaluate the content of the postings and consult with

their physicians regarding changes in their own treatment.

Personal attacks are not permitted on the list and anyone who sends one is

automatically moderated or removed depending on the severity of the attack.

_____

[Guest guest]

As I understand it:

1) Lactate is normal, good.

2) Lactate/pyruvate = 0.7/0.03 = ~23 (over 20 is considered higher

than normal I was told)

My lactate/pyruvate was as high as 120 with lactate normal, and was 60

once with lactate above normal.

L doesn't mean the units, it means " low " and H would mean " high " , as in

lower or higher than the reference range.

When I first had my lactate and pyruvate checked, the nurse told me

everything was fine, but when the results went back to the doctor, the

doctor calculated the ratio and realized that 120 was well above

normal. BUT, some doctors seem to think the ratio is unimportant if

the lactate is normal or low.

YMMV,

RH

>

>

> I just got results back from a lactate/pyruvate test my neurologist

> ran. Lactic acid reference range was 0.4-2.0 mmol/L, and my level

> appears normal at 0.7. The reference range for pyruvate is listed as

> 0.30-0.70 mg/dL, and my level is listed as 0.03 L. I don't understand

> why the units for the reference range (mg/dL) appear different from

the

> units for my reading (L). Should I ignore that? If so, does that mean

> that I have very low pyruvate? If so, can anybody help interpret the

> results? (My primary care doc's out of town, and my neurologist

> strangely told me the results were fine before they even came back

yet,

> so I was hoping to get some thoughts from this forum). Thanks!

[Guest guest]

I'm not a doctor of course, just my experience. The message is that

doctors seem to have different opinions on lactate and pyruvate. I

agree that interpretation of lab results is the doctor's realm, but

it is frustrating to wait.

Did they release the results to you without telling you if they were

abnormal or normal? My understanding is that common practice is to

not release results until they are interpreted by the doctor. It is

possible your neuro had the results online as preliminary results, so

knew they were " okay " in their mind, but couldn't release the

paperwork to you.

Take care,

RH

> >

> >

> > I just got results back from a lactate/pyruvate test my

neurologist

> > ran. Lactic acid reference range was 0.4-2.0 mmol/L, and my level

> > appears normal at 0.7. The reference range for pyruvate is listed

as

> > 0.30-0.70 mg/dL, and my level is listed as 0.03 L. I don't

understand

> > why the units for the reference range (mg/dL) appear different

from

> the

> > units for my reading (L). Should I ignore that? If so, does that

mean

> > that I have very low pyruvate? If so, can anybody help interpret

the

> > results? (My primary care doc's out of town, and my neurologist

> > strangely told me the results were fine before they even came

back

> yet,

> > so I was hoping to get some thoughts from this forum). Thanks!

[Guest guest]

Thank you RH

Joanne