Myocardial stress test vs Ct Angiogram

[oxer]

Hi I want to know whitch one of theses two test are better at pinpointing a block or lack of blood flow.. Also I've done a myocardial two three years ago witch was negative buy continue to be short of breath. A differnt cardiologist suggested a CT angiogram and I want to k ow if this is a better test??

[ed34]

I don't think they know the actual cancer risk. All I do after any procedure involving radiation, is to drink lots of my favourite drink over a few days so I urinate very often. Flush the stuff out as much as possible is my motto.

[oxer]

Hi yes I'm having the 64 slice.. It does us contrace.. My other concern is the large amount of radiation the scan will expose me too. I've had three other ct scans in the past and my last one was a myocardial scan.. So this would make it Four and now I'm really concerned for future cancer developing.. I'm I ok good to go?? I mean is this still safe amounts.. How many ct scans before they become to much radiation?? Thanks

[ed34]

Just to add something. I know that a CT angio is not the preference of many Cardiologists, perhaps it's just what they are used to. I do remember one cardiologist refusing this over a gold standard angiogram saying "they are no good for really small vessels". I have no idea what she meant really. If your cardiologist is recommending a ct angio, then he/she must be confident it will give the required info. I would stick with that decision.

[ed34]

I do believe there are different types of ct angio. There is the calcium score but there is another type too which I believe is more specific to looking at arteries. I had a failed triple bypass which the Doctors didn't believe at first. However, they agreed to perform another gold standard Angiogram. They could see one of the grafts, but not the other two. If there is no blood in a vessel during an angiogram, the vessel is invisible which can be a drawback and requiring a different test. I was then booked for a CT angio which did show the two other grafts, but empty of blood. All I know is that I was laid back on a bench, sitting up at about a 30 degree angle. I had two largish, what looked like some kind of cylinders next to my shoulder and a tube from these into my arm. I had to communicate via a microphone and speaker in the scanner. Sometimes they would say hold my breath, other times to expect a warm sensation in my body. I think it lasted about 15-20 mins, and there really was no discomfort at all.

[oxer]

Also I'll be paying for thi test out of pocket because my insurance is not covering.. And that's why it's a CT Angio and not the more normal more expensive Angiogram gold standard invasive one.. $570vs  $4,000

[oxer]

I meant CT Angiogram !??

[oxer]

I'm hoping that someone who has had a Cy Angiogram can offer there person experience and maybe help me understand more clearly what this test can detect.. And also if this test is at all helpful in finding blocked arteries in the heart..

[ed34]

I agree with the others, the only true way to know for sure what is going on, or IF there is an artery issue, is to get inside the arteries with an angiogram. Yes it is invasive, but the risks are low and if it has the possibility of discovering a potential heart attack, then it's worth it.

[ed34]

A nuclear scan is pretty much useless on its own. What it does is aim at the heart muscle rather than the arteries. An area of heart muscle can look great but may be fed by collaterals with your native arteries being a real mess. I have a nuclear scan which showed the heart of an athlete. I had 2 blocked native arteries and lots of collaterals, but my angina was awful.
I'm just wondering if you've ever had a lung function test?

[Occupant]

As far as I am concerned a 64 clice CT-A is pretty much useless. I've come to that conclusion after reading several posts in this forum that said :"They completely missed the soft plaque". A standard CT (without the "A") can do that just as easily. However, a 128-slice or even a 256-slice CT-A might be a different story since the resolution is so much better. And a CT_A is not "none invasive" as it involves injection of a dye same as the Nuclear Stress Test except there it is a Thalium isotope.

[oxer]

Yes I am referring to a nuclear stress test.. I had one done 3years back, and was negative.. But I cOntinue to have shortness of breath with mild chest disconfert. I saw a new cardiologist at a different hospital and he thinks I should have a CT Angiogram.. A CT Angiogram is a none invasive procedure, it takes 3d pictures of the heart using a ct scane 64 slice method. The scane can pic up blocked blood flow and narrow blood vessels.. But I would like to know witch one of the two is more reliable test.. Considering I had a negative nuclear stress test.. Will the ct angiogram be a more persised test at pinpointing and finding a possible problem.. Or is the nuclear stresst test just *** good.. The both look for blocked blood flow to the heart just in differnt ways.. Well I'm scheduled for my ct angiogram this week and I hope it's not going to be another test that gets me nowhere and I'm exposed to mores armful  radiation for nothing. That's why I'm asking my question!?

[Flycaster305]

By a myocardial, are you referring to a nuclear stress test?

An Angiogram is the gold test for heart arterial blockages.  It wouldn't show any problems with valves other that note some abnormalities in heart pressure, etc., but if you are having unexplained breathlessness, I'd go that direction.