MUGA vs. echo

Becky · 03-24-2007, 06:42 PM

A muga is a precise reading done by a computer. Usually you get a number, let's say 62. An echo's ejection factor is "read" by a cardiologist and is usually a range, lets say 60-65 (as an example if the muga said 62). The echo is just as accurate, especially if the same person is reading it everytime. Also, your parents are right about the bit of radiation involved with Muga - who needs it if it is not necessary.

A muga could be called for if a person is on the borderline of 50 and is also either elderly, ill or has known heart problems. That is when an oncologist might want a precise number versus a range.

If your mother continues to tolerate Herceptin (and it gets better and better over time) do not discourage her as it is a life saving drug. Of course, if there a life threatening problems in taking the drug and her doctors want her off, that is another story all together.

Bottom line to your question, there is very little difference between muga and echo.

Hope this helps

Barbara2 · 03-24-2007, 08:30 PM

My onc said a MUGA or echo, either one was fine. If the numbers are getting low and you want a precise number, then the MUGA would be used. Otherwise, the echo is fine.

I prefer the echo, it's easier and less invasive.

jhandley · 03-25-2007, 12:24 AM

Hi
I have recently switched to echos because they are less invasive. The echo picked up a small area of fluid in/around the heart (I can't remember where exactly) that the MUGAs did not. I know it wasn't there in 2001 when I had an echo to get on the taxotere trial. So this fluid is possible due to adriamycin (highly likely) or taxotere, CMF, taxol or herceptin.

I am having another echo on 2nd April so will be interested to see if the fluid has increased.
Jackie

MCS · 03-25-2007, 04:45 PM

I have a picky onc. He would not tolerate the echo because he wanted a number to accutarely monitor the heart.

It is not hard to do. The port can be used for MUGGAs.

MCS ( maria)

suzan w · 03-26-2007, 09:04 AM

My oncologist felt that the MUGA was a more accurate measure so that's what I had.

concerned · 03-26-2007, 06:08 PM

Thank you all for your input. Mom is feeling better and the pain left sometime Sat. She met with the dr today and found out that her thyroid showed a nodule and she will need a new cat scan next month. Trying to believe it's nothing.....

03-27-2007, 05:36 AM

Hi,

The Muga isn't that precise either. My last MUGA was done twice; first result was 57, second was 61; and the final reading from the radiologist was 63. Tech told me it can vary by five points--mine varied by six. Also, if you have difficult veins a MUGA can be very stressful. First time, I had large black and blue marks on arm and hand.

I've had three MUGA's, and this time I'm going for an echo, mainly because my last MUGA mentioned possible right ventricle problems but couldn't be precise, as a MUGA is used mainly to view the left ventricle. My cardiologist recommended an echo so we can check the right ventricle as well as the left. Other good news about an echo, for me anyway, is I don't need an approval from my insurance.