Stress Test vs. Angiography

[Davidc6h12o6]

To what extent would an angiogram be capable of picking up coronary atherosclerosis that would tend to go unnoticed by a nuclear stress test?  Would an angiogram offer greater risks than a stress test? How great would that additional risk tend to be?


This discussion is related to Stress test accuracy.

[Sweetwaterguy]

Another alternative that should be discussed is a 64 slice CT scan.  I had three nuclear scans in three years prior to my successful ablation for a fib.  All indicated good blood flow to the heart.  I wanted a CT scan to rule out any artery disease as a contributor to my a fib, but my cardiologists told me it was not medically necessary.  I finally convinced them that it was for my peace of mind even if they thought it was unnecessary, and I would pay for it.  The scan, a very simple and quick procedure, suggested I was 40-70% blocked in two arteries.  It was useful information and I am now adjusting my diet, exercise, and cholesterol meds to respond to that new found information.  
   As earlier stated, the angiogram is the gold standard--but with risks.  The CT is very good, noninvasive, and has only the very slight risk associated with radiation.  

[erijon]

A nuclear stress test is about 85% accurate in finding CAD whereas a angiogram is 100% accurate. The angiogram also carries a 1 - 3% risk of complications, the most common risk, although very rare, is having an artery dissected during the procedure which results in emergency bypass surgery. Having said that, if I was told I needed one I would do it without hesitation. It is the gold standard of heart tests to determine if CAD is present. I have had 2 nuclear stress tests in the past three years that were normal so I never needed a cath, but would galdly do it if my cardiologist said it was necessary.

Good Luck,

Jon