MUGA vs. echo

Further to Muga vs Echo. I just had an echo and my LVEF, measured three times, was 63, 61, 62, which is just about what my Muga's have been showing. The technician also looked extensively at right ventricle and the full heart, contractions, etc.,but I don't yet have the radiologist's report on that, which is my main concern. However, the technician did tell me that they don't measure right ventricle flow, as it would be too difficult to measure, and that the left is really the important measurement with respect to EF. And, finally, the echo was so much easier to do, no needles, and no approvals needed from my insurance. So echo is the way I plan to go in the future.

[Barbara2]

The following is from the current issue (Spring 2007) of the CURE magazine:

Monitoring the Heart
Patients receiving potentially cardiotoxic cancer therapy should be carefully monitored both during and after treatment. An echocardiogram (heart ultrasound) is the primary tool used to monitor heart health, but other tests may also be done, including blood tests, electrocardiograms or multiple-gated acquisition (MUGA) scans, which produce a moving image of the heart muscle.

M.D. Anderson Cancer Center's department of cardiology recently sponsored a panel discussion of oncologists and cardiologists to discuss how to best monitor a patient's heart function. Concerning the issue of whether to use non-invasive echocardiogram or time-consuming yet genearally more precise MUGA, the panel determined either imaging method was acceptable depending on the expertise of the radiologists and cardiologists at a particular cancer center.

Following treatment, survivors should have a yearly checkup to identify any long-term consequences of cancer therapy. Those at higher risk for heart complications may need more frequent monitoring.

I finally received my report from my echo (which was done in lieu of a MUGA as my last MUGA indicated that I had right ventricle hypokinesis). The echo was much easier on me (my veins were protesting) and the echo report gives more information than the MUGA did. LVEF is down some, 60% from 63%, which is fine, and all my other measurements were in the normal range. New to me though was the pronouncement that I have "prominent epicardial fat," so another thing to worry about. And how did I feed that worry?--with a large piece of iced pound cake. Tomorrow . . .

[Bev]

I asked to be switched to echo's when I saw others here were doing it. The only reason for a muga in my mind would be if you were fresh from surgery and couldn't tolerate the transducer being rubbed on your scar. I've done at least 2 of each and echo has my vote. BB