MUGA verses ECHO?

Chelee · 08-13-2006, 10:43 PM

Why does it seem to me that oncologist send more women for MUGA's then they do ECHO's? Is a MUGA more reliable and accurate then a ECHO?

I have been doing ECHO's...in fact I have one this Tuesday. From what I hear with a MUGA you have to have that radioactive dye. Why be exposed to that if you can do a ECHO which has no risks to it?

Is MUGA that much better? And if its not...I would think more women would request their doctors let them get ECHO's instead since its quicker and non-invasive.

Chelee

Becky · 08-14-2006, 08:29 AM

Muga is an objective test with a sure, hard number. Echo is a subjective test and relies on the cardiologist reading the test to give it a number. This is why with an Echo, you might get a reading that says 55% - 60% but a muga will say 58% .

I asked my onc about this once and he said, he does muga on the older people and folks who also already have heart issues because he wants an exact reading. With younger, healthy individuals, echo is fine (and there is no radiation involved).

Kind regards

Becky

janet/FL · 08-14-2006, 06:32 PM

I asked for and was given a MUGA just before Herceptin began. My score was 61 and I felt good so asked for the echos as follow ups to avoid the radiation. I am finished with Herceptin and all seems fine--no heart issues. My oncs didn't appear to have an opinion one way or the other.
Janet

Chelee · 08-14-2006, 06:50 PM

Becky, Your right..one of my ECHO's did say 65 to 70%. In fact I always wondered WHY it was like that versas just one number? Now I see. Thanks so much for providing that information. I knew there was something to this. It all makes sense now.

Chelee

Bev · 08-14-2006, 08:32 PM

I switched to Echos from MUGA's per my request. I'm a little claustrophobic. The Echo's are a big improvement for me. BB