MUGA shows 100% higher EF vs. Echo

[malden2]

Just wonderedd if anyone has seen a large difference between an echo and a MUGA test.

My echo three weeks ago showed an EF or 25%, while my MUGA indicated a 55% EF.

Why the difference? I am assuming the MUGA is more accurate, but why rely on an echo at all if this is the case?

[dobis]

I also have been told I have an EF of 15% for two years.  Panic I am and I am now going out of country for stem cells.   Just got a MUGA and low and behold it says I have an EF of 48%  I am befuddled and have been basing my decisions on the 15%  This has been up held by 3 hospitals and 2 years this 15%    Yet the MUGA says 15 and a third hospital says EF by echo is 35 to 40%  

[Sirenet]

Hi. As you are probably aware, echos are known to be very 'Tech dependent". In other words, how good they are at getting good images for measurements, etc..
  The large variance in your tests results, makes them almost meaningless. Typically, a difference of upwards of 10% is acceptable.
   I would have to wonder as to the rest of results of tests would indicate which may be more correct. For instance, if echo stated "global hypokinesis", that would validate the lower EF. An EF of 55% would pretty much be considered normal . ( the low end of normal,  55-75%)
   I would think your cardio would have to have tests redone for more conclusive results. Wish you well, Steve