There are times we need to see how things are working and other times we need to know what things look like. See the different tests called “heart scans.†They are ranked by complexity and cost and separated into two categories (physiologic and anatomical)
A)Physiologic (how things are working) An EKG looks at the electricity going through your heart and sees what has happened, but rarely predicts the future. Scans often do.
1) Treadmills Pros: These see how the heart responds to stress. They show how long people can run compared to others, how fast the heart beats compared to other people at the same level of stress, they show if the heart beat becomes irregular under stress, and the doctor and computer look for signs of strain in the EKG (ST segments) under stress. This is probably the best bargain of all the tests. They predict really well who will and who won’t have a heart attack in the next year or two. They are done at SBFMG offices.
Cons: There must be about 80% blockage in the coronary arteries before these show a strain pattern and some people can’t walk fast or long enough to perform the test. As with all tests, there are no guarantees, only predictions with treadmills.
2) Echocardiograms (Echos or ultrasounds of the heart): Using dopler techniques the doctor can see blood flow through valves and the aorta.
Pros: Excellent to see how valves and muscles work and whether they are stressed by blood pressure, age, wear and tear or diseases. No x-ray, needles or dyes are used and they are done at SBFMG several days per week. They are usually covered by insurance as “diagnostic†to monitor a problem such as a murmur.
Cons: Moderately expensive and don’t’ see coronary arteries (too small) so little value in predicting heart attacks
3) Stress Echos: Pros: more sensitive (more likely to find blockage of arteries) in predicting heart attacks than regular treadmills, done at cardiologists’ offices rather than hospital, have no x-rays, dyes, or needles. Usually covered by insurance if you fail regular treadmill
Cons: Expensive, requires cardiologist, requires fast walking
4) Nuclear studies (like Cardiolyte tests): Pros: can be performed either with exercise or IV chemicals to make heart work as if you were running. They are more sensitive than plain treadmills in predicting heart attack risks. Insurance usually cover if you fail a regular treadmill. It lights up areas of heart if adequate blood supply exists through the coronary arteries instead of looking at the arteries themselves.
Cons: Usually done in a hospital, requires injection of trace amount of radioactive substance (less than most common x-rays), and very expensive
B)Anatomical (what thinks look like, not how they work)
1) CIMT (Carotid Intima-Medial Thickness). Pros: Using ultrasound the carotid arteries in the neck are measured for hardening compared to people in same age group. Done at SBFMG. Inexpensive at $295, but not covered by insurance as it is considered a “screening†test. It is different from inexpensive blood flow tests that take only a few minutes to check for stroke risk. It is the up and coming test used by universities to see if medications to prevent heart attacks are working. No pain, x-ray or needles.
Cons: Looks at neck not heart arteries and, therefore, doesn’t make sense that it predicts the relative risk of heart attacks (it does!) Gives percentile, not percentage of blockage (on a scale of 1 to 100, we know where you would stand relative to a problem, not what percentage each of your own arteries are blocked)
2) EBCT (now replaced by 64 slice CT scanner) Pros: Using x-rays the coronary arteries, which when blocked cause heart attacks, can be seen without dye or needles. It is inexpensive (about $395, but not usually covered by insurance) and “makes sense†because is looks directly at the heart’s arteries.
Cons: Only the calcium can be measured. It takes a few years of plaque being present before you can see the calcium deposits. The inside diameter, or amount of blockage, can’t be seen. As with CIMT a computer calculates what “percentile†(not percentage of blockage) the patient’s arteries are in and allows the doctor to determine if you are high, medium or low risk for a heart attack compared to others your age.
3) Echocardiogram (also described in physiology section) sees anatomy of muscles and valves, but not the coronary arteries
4) CT Coronary Angiogram: Pros: this adds intravenous dye (contrast) to the scan in #2 and allows us to find what percentage of blockage exists in the arteries. The arteries themselves are not punctured and it takes only an hour or two. Recent studies (i.e. Mayo Clinic) show it correlates really well with a conventional angiogram (#5)
Cons: It requires contrast (dye) to be placed in your veins and you could be allergic (rare). You must have a blood test first to be sure your kidneys are working well enough to get rid of the dye. It is rarely covered by insurance, costs at least $1,200 at current centers and has x-ray exposure.
5) Angiogram: Pros: this is the “gold standard†to see the anatomy of your coronaries and is needed to see if and where stents should be placed. It sees exactly how much blockage you have in your coronary arteries. It is almost always covered by insurance
Cons: requires all day in hospital, artery in groin is punctured (risks bleeding) through which a tube is maneuvered up to your heart to place the contrast right into the coronary openings. Allergic reactions, bleeding, x-ray exposure are all risks involved, but bleeding requiring transfusions is rare.