Angiogram or MRI ??

sudzs

Somebody told me recently that a cardiologist suggested that angiograms are no longer the best way to check out the ticker. So would an MRI scan have any advantages or disadvantages over an angiogram if you wanted to see the degree of atherosclerosis or how the valves were etc. ?

etymon

MRI is better to show heart muscle problems, can be good if you are young and want to rule out coronary artery disease as it's non invasive but if you have a chance of coronary arterial disease or a classic presentation of angina/heart attack then angiogram is best as they can fix it while they do it. MRI is non-interventional so is a bit useless if they are expecting to find a blockage.

sudzs

etymon wrote: »

MRI is better to show heart muscle problems, can be good if you are young and want to rule out coronary artery disease as it's non invasive but if you have a chance of coronary arterial disease or a classic presentation of angina/heart attack then angiogram is best as they can fix it while they do it. MRI is non-interventional so is a bit useless if they are expecting to find a blockage.

That's what I was thinking too but according to this, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111222195007.htm an MRI can be better.

Though it doesn't seem to mention atherosclerosis specifically, just coronary heart disease. Though it does mention it's suitable for those with angina which is usually caused by atherosclerosis. So apart from having angioplasty done during an angiogram, which isn't always done, it could be a better alternative in terms of being non invasive??

shaz84

sudzs wrote: »

That's what I was thinking too but according to this, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111222195007.htm an MRI can be better.

Though it doesn't seem to mention atherosclerosis specifically, just coronary heart disease. Though it does mention it's suitable for those with angina which is usually caused by atherosclerosis. So apart from having angioplasty done during an angiogram, which isn't always done, it could be a better alternative in terms of being non invasive??

Atherosclerosis is the name given to the process of plaque build up seen in coronary heart disease, which can present as chest pain known as angina.

As Etymon says, there are advantages to using MRI technology as you can probably assess the function of the muscles supplied by blocked arteries better than in angiography, which would just show the coronary anatomy and any location of blockages. However, in clinical practice I doubt it would be used emergently as to my knowledge the technique is of diagnostic use only at this stage and not therapeutic like angiography. And even in a more elective setting it would be difficult to see it transitioned in as the standard diagnostic process for coronary artery disease given the long waiting times for MRIs in the public system at the moment!

etymon

I worked on cardiology for 3 months and MRI was only ever booked for patients who were (a) young, with health insurance and came in with chest pain but had no cardiac risk factors, to rule out coronary blockage and (b) public patients who had a cardiomyopathy with reduced function already shown on echo, to assess the degree of scar tissue in the heart. Cardiac MRI is only done in Blackrock, Bons and Mater Private as far as I know so either you would have health insurance or the public system would buy it if you really really needed it. If there is any question of coronary blockage it's useless.