Echo or Muga, what's better?

Chelee · 03-26-2006, 01:48 PM

It seems most people get muga's rather then Echo's. My doctor had me do a Echo. Does anyone know which one is actually better? Or are they pretty much the same?

Chelee

-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Stage IIIA, Er & Pr positive, Her2/Neu 3 +++, Richardson scorce 9 of 9.
Diagnosed Dec. 9th 2005.

Diane H · 03-26-2006, 02:09 PM

Well, I am doing echo's which are very simple and quick and noninvasive. I believe you need an injection with the muga though I am not sure. My information was they are comparable? would be interested to hear others experience too.

Jackie · 03-26-2006, 03:34 PM

I had a echo before I started A/C chemo. I then had a MUGA at the beginning of my Taxotere/Herceptin and have these every 3 months. Yes, the MUGA's they take a little bit of blood and mix it with a radioactive substance and then reinject it into you. This helps with the contrast of the MUGA. It is not a big deal but it takes about 1-1 1/2 hours. The MUGA itself takes about 20 min. The rest of the time is waiting for the chemicals and blood to react. From reading on this site I think MUGAs are used more, but some do use the echo.

Jackie

tousled1 · 03-26-2006, 03:35 PM

My oncologist sends me for an echo every three months.

karenann · 03-26-2006, 03:40 PM

I get an echo every three months.

Karen

Sandy H · 03-26-2006, 03:46 PM

I get muga's. I think its the doctor's preference which one he likes. I would prefer the echo but mine happens to like the muga so have not pushed it. Don't if the cost is a reason or not. Sandy

suzan w · 03-26-2006, 06:36 PM

My onc thinks the MUGA gives a more accurate picture

Sue2001 · 03-26-2006, 07:04 PM

My oncologist has always called them echo's but I get an injection before each one. Does that mean it's really a MUGA?

Thanks, Sue

snoopy · 03-27-2006, 04:48 AM

Think either is acceptable - just need to measure LVEF (results between two I don't think can be compared).

I'm having echo with dopplers. I guess individuals will have their own preferences. I did ask the question echo or MUGA at one scan. The view was ECHO could give other measurements (vetricle wall size etc.) I'm sure MUGA advocates will have other answers.

sarah · 03-27-2006, 05:32 AM

I think we should get both but here in France they want the Muga - I've only had the echo when I've had heart pain - turned out to be fluid around the heart.
but they wouldn't give me Herceptin unless my Muga is above an acceptable level.
sarah

DeborahNC · 03-27-2006, 06:49 AM

My onc likes MUGA, my cardiologist says doppler 3-D echo is more accurate. I will personally push for the Echo from now on since I just walk up one flight of stairs from my onc's office to my cardio's office; quite convenient for me.

TriciaK · 03-27-2006, 12:58 PM

My cardiologist refused to give me a MUGA when I started herceptin, even though I'd just had a heart attack. (He'd never heard of herceptin, by the way!) Finally my oncologist ordered one about half way through. The EF was 58%. I think the cardiologist was a little put out that the onc ordered it. The cardiologist said he thought an echo was just as good, and he did order those for the next few months, every 2 months. Then when I was about 15 months into the herceptin, the echo showed an EF of 30%, and the cardiologist immediately ordered a MUGA, which confirmed the EF. The oncologist stopped the herceptin immediately. An echo a couple of weeks ago shows slight improvement, up to 35%. I have since decided to change cardiologists because I have never felt the one I was seeing was all that caring. I didn't pick him, he was just assigned to me when I had my heart attack. I always felt that he thought I would die of the cancer anyway so the heart was not worth being that concerned about, even though I have 2 blocked arteries and also partially blocked carotoids. I have an appointment with the new cardiologist April 10. Personally, I think a MUGA is important at first to establish a base before herceptin, but I don't like all the radiation. I would probably prefer an echo every few months, with a MUGA once or twice a year if on herceptin. I think the important thing is to have a doctor or doctors whom you trust and will work with you. That's my experience and opinion for what it's worth! Hugs, Tricia

Chelee · 03-29-2006, 11:37 PM

Sorry it took me a couple days to get back to you guys. I had my chemo and haven't felt very good. At first...I thought most got MUGA's verses ECHO's. But it looks like it just depends on the doctor. More get ECHO'S then I first thought. I orginally thought everyone was getting the MUGA's and wondered why my doctor had me have the echo. Now I see its quite common to get a ECHO and feel better about it.

I had no idea you have to have that radioactive dye for the MUGA. I have had that pre-surgery for my mastectomy. Injected in breast. That took a good two hours. So I think I would perfer the echo at this point.

Thanks a million to all of you that replied...its much appreciated.

Chelee

Becky · 03-30-2006, 08:00 AM

I asked my onc, who gives echos, why most give mugas and they don't.

He said that muga uses radioactive material but is a very objective and accurate reading of the ejection factor. With muga, you get a true, hard number. (But if you can get away without radioactive material, then you should).

Echo is subjective (but accurate if the same cardiologist is reading your test time after time). The ejection factor tends to be a range (ie: 55 - 60). He says this is good enough for most healthy women. He uses muga for older women who have some issues (cardiovascular wise) because he wants the most accurate number to make a decision on chemo or herceptin. He would also use muga if the number on echo is low/normal to get an accurate picture of ejection factor (lets say it came out at 45-50. What is the real number because at 45 you would get pulled off of herceptin but at 50, you would not).

Becky