What are Healthy Survivors to think when they read that Cardiologists Debate Expensive Heart Scans? What's the debate about? Whose judgment should patients trust?
Conventional angiography is the gold standard for diagnosing blockages of coronary arteries. This requires the insertion of a catheter (plastic tube) into a vessel in the groin and weaving it up to the heart, injecting contrast media (dye), taking x-ray pictures (with radiation), and interpreting the pictures.
CT angiography skips the catheter insertion part. But it still requires exposure to both dye and radiation. In fact, it uses more radiation than traditional angiography. And the pictures obtained still require interpretation by cardiologists.
In general, "non-invasive" is preferable to "invasive." Anytime you invade the body with catheters or scalpels, you take the risk of complications like bleeding and infection. But in controlled circumstances, these complications are usually manageable.
More importantly, being "non-invasive" does not necessarily mean it is safer than the "minimally invasive" or even the "overtly invasive" options. Complications from minimially invasive or non-invasive procedures may be harder to detect and/or treat. And the increase in other risks, such as risk due to radiation exposure, may outweigh the decreased risk of immediate complications.
The key word is "all." Healthy Survivors work with their physicians to compare all the short-term and long-term risks and benefits of each option before making a decision. And I'm referring to decisions about diagnostics, as discussed in Only a Click Away as well as treatments, as discussed in Happiness in a Storm.
Excellent points made here. Weigh all the options and risk factors. Thanks for bringing it to public attention.
Posted by: Debby | December 04, 2008 at 07:19 AM