Member Comments are provided by individuals and reflect their personal opinions only. Under NO circumstances should you act on any advice or opinion posted in this forum. ALWAYS check with your personal physician before taking any action regarding your health! MedHelp International and our partners, sponsors and affiliates have no obligation to monitor any comments posted on this site, or the content and/or accuracy of such exchanges. MedHelp International does not endorse the views of any user.
I was diagnosed with dilatedDilated cardiomyopathy cardiomyopathy 5 years ago with an ejection fraction of 25. Since then, all my ECHOs have showed 30 or 35. Recently, I had a nuclearNuclear ventriculography stress test, which showed I had an ejection fraction of 45. My cardiologist says this is good, but I can't help wondering if it's accurate, since my other tests have all been lower. Have any of you had similar experiences? Which test is more acurate?
The nuclearNuclear ventriculography tests are usually a littleLittle noses decongestant Little tummys better than the echos at getting an accurate measure of ejection fraction, so indeed this is very good news. The reason they're a bit more accuate is because the tracer they use allows the eye to see with more precision the amount of blood being ejected with each beat.
Your ejection fraction is not a static number, it changes constantly on a minute to minute, hour to hour and day to day basis the same as your blood pressurePressure ulcer changes. There is a margin of error in reading echos of 5 to 10 %. The reading really only gives an estimate of whether your condition is getting better or worse. It can vary by a lot even in the course of only one day as can your blood pressurePressure ulcer or pulse.
Congratulations on your EF improvements.