echo vs muga

rinaina · 12-04-2006, 08:05 PM

Before starting chemo, A/C, I had a muga and my score was 61%. Then I had another muga prior to Herceptin and it was 64%. I just had an echo and will get the results tomorrow. My onc wanted me to get an echo this time because he felt it gave more info than a muga as well as it being more accurate than a muga. Does anyone have any opinions on this or know of any documentation supporting one over the other? Thanks for your help once again.

Bev · 12-04-2006, 09:19 PM

Hi Rinaina,

I switched from muga to echo because the muga was making me claustrophobic and I saw others on board were doing echos.

I know my echo tech did complain that it was really hard to get a good view of my heart between my closely spaced ribs. I would guess bones are transparent to mugas.

I go in this week for another echo. I do find echos easier and less time consuming. I'll see if the tech knows what the difference is.

I'm curious too. BB

tousled1 · 12-04-2006, 09:46 PM

I have been getting echocardiograms to monitor my LVEF since starting Herceptin. With the MUGA I believe that some sort of dye is inserted into your vein. As far as I know both tests give good results.

rinaina · 12-05-2006, 06:09 AM

yes tousled, with the muga they have to take your blood and then mix it with some radioactive material and it has to sit and mix for a bit in the lab and then they re-inject it into you before doing the muga so it is a process and the muga definitely takes longer. supposedly the echo gives more info such as how the blood is flowing.

cathy34 · 12-05-2006, 10:29 AM

Hi,
Initially when all this started I got MUGA's and they were too much of a hassel. I had really small, rolling veins and I used to leave there looking like a pin cushion.
I told my onc. and she said she preferred ECHO's over MUGA's anyway. She said they are show more.
I think an ECHO is the way to go.
Good luck!!!!

rinaina · 12-05-2006, 10:45 AM

Thanks Cathy and I agree with the muga's being a hassle. They take longer and why keep getting that radioactive junk injected into us, we have enough problems to deal with as it is. I did have to get an IV though for my echo in order for them to get good contrast but that was no big deal. Thanks for your input. I value the experience of the forum members.

Chelee · 12-05-2006, 06:12 PM

rinaina, I know I have always wondered which one actually is more accurate? The two oncologist I have had order ECHO's for me. When I first started it seemed more women on the boards were getting MUGA's. Its a toss up to me as to which might be better?

However one thing I like about getting an ECHO is no radioactive dye is being used. I get enough of that during PET/CT scans.

Let us know what the results of your first ECHO is when you find out. Good luck to you.

Chelee

rinaina · 12-06-2006, 06:21 AM

I agree with you Chelee about echo over muga simply because of the radioactive dye alone. It did seem like more people on here were getting mugas and that is one reason why I asked the question muga vs echo.

I got my echo results and my EF was 60% so I can continue on with herceptin knowing my heart is doing okay. Everything else was perfect too they said.

Bev · 12-06-2006, 08:00 PM

Tech had limited English so I didn't ask. It did occur to me that if you recently had surgery on the left side, you would not want them pressing the ECHO transducer into your surgical site. So perhaps once they start with MUGAs they stick with them. Hmm.

Chelee · 12-07-2006, 12:46 AM

rinaina, Thats great to hear your ECHO was up enough to continue on herceptin. Its always nice to get good news. At least no inturruptions this way. I think Bev might be on to something when it comes to the MUGA's. Many women have bilat mastectomys or at least a left side mastectomy...so that would make it almost impossible to use a ECHO. She might be right as to why most oncologist seem to do MUGA's.

If your reading this Bev...that makes sense. I think you just might be right on the money here.

Chelee

tousled1 · 12-07-2006, 06:53 AM

Chelee,

I had a bilateral mastectomy and my oncologist has always ordered echocardograms. I have no problem with getting the echo since my surgery. I had my surgery in June and had echos in July and October. I had large breasts (D cup) and now I think it's easier since they don't get in the way. I still think it's just a personal preference for the doctor as to whether you get a MUGA or echo.

newgg · 12-07-2006, 08:00 AM

The best thing about the ECHO.....is no sticks ! Also had a bilateral and it has not been a problem getting accurate ECHO. Sometime have to change position ... inhale and hold or exhale and hold. The ECHO is NO sticks and faster from start to finish.
Hugs, Bonnie

Donna · 12-08-2006, 06:46 PM

Hi Rinaina,

I talked to my oncologist about his today and here's her answer:
the MUGA is not subject to human interpretation as the ECHO is and so it is more reliable. A cardiologist interprets the ECHO and each cardiologist may interpret it differently, whereas the MUGA is a machinated process measuring the muscle that is the problematic reason for the test in the first place. She said there are ways to make the ECHO work, but that the best test in her opinion is the MUGA.

I am scheduled for my third MUGA on the 29th so I was interested to know and I am so glad you brought it up so I could ask about it.

Best to You,

Donna

rinaina · 12-09-2006, 02:54 PM

Thanks for the input on muga vs. echo. I think I remember reading things along those lines as well about the mugs. I suppose either way, it's close enough to what they are concerned about hopefully. Good luck on your next muga.

Chelee · 12-09-2006, 04:12 PM

Donna, Thank you so much for explaining the difference between MUGA & ECHO. I for one appreciate it. I have always gotten ECHO's. I have really questioned my latest one? That day the lady that did my ECHO had a brand new machine to learn. So someone was teaching her how to use it while doing my ECHO. Right in the middle of my ECHO a total power outage! Then they had back-up generators kick on. They mentioned losing SOME of my results during the blackout. (Again, NEW machine.)

So they finished up and when I recieved my last ECHO it states my EF rate at 70%. Thats exactly what my FIRST ECHO was BEFORE the start of chemo/herceptin. (I also over heard the two women saying that the parameters had NOT been set for this machine yet and they were going to have to WAIT till the doctors did that, and agreed on what they would be.)
I'm hoping the doctors got this right because I really find it hard to believe my EF is exactly the same as the day I started herceptin 10 months ago? But if it is...sounds great to me.

But it sounds like a MUGA might be more accurate although its more invasive due to the radioactive dye. I might ask if I could have at least one MUGA to compare to my EHCO's.

Chelee