Copyright ©2025 IMAGINE ECHO. All Rights Reserved
As someone with 15 years of experience in ultrasound imaging, working alongside cardiologists, interventionists, and radiologists in both clinical and cath-lab settings, I've developed strong beliefs about the best ways to evaluate heart function and coronary artery disease (CAD). In my opinion, nuclear exams like cardiac PET and MRI Calcium score (Ca+) exams don't always provide the most straightforward answers for patients. In cardiac imaging, echocardiograms (echo), cardiac PET scans, Heart MRI, and cardiac CT scans each offer unique insights into heart health. While each modality has its strengths, the choice between them often depends on the specific clinical question at hand. Here, I'll explore the benefits and limitations of each, highlighting why a cardiac CT might be preferable to a cardiac PET scan and why an echo is superior for functional assessment.
Echocardiography provides a comprehensive evaluation of cardiac function, assessing heart chamber size and wall thickness, valve structure and function, and the overall pumping strength of the heart. It detects a wide range of abnormalities, including valve stenosis or regurgitation, structural defects like septal defects, and signs of heart muscle disease. This enables the diagnosis of conditions such as heart failure, mitral valve prolapse, and left ventricular hypertrophy. Furthermore, echocardiography plays a crucial role in monitoring the progression of chronic heart conditions like congestive heart failure (CHF), allowing physicians to adjust treatment plans based on real-time assessments of cardiac performance.
Recent advancements in echocardiography include the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms for automated ejection fraction (EF) quantification. These AI tools improve the speed and accuracy of EF measurements, reducing variability and enhancing diagnostic confidence. Beyond EF, echocardiography contributes significantly to the early detection of heart conditions by identifying subtle changes in cardiac structure and function that may precede overt symptoms. For instance, diastolic dysfunction, a precursor to heart failure, can often be detected early with echocardiograms, enabling timely interventions to prevent disease progression. Similarly, stress echocardiograms can uncover underlying coronary artery disease before a major cardiac event occurs.
Cardiac PET scans offer several benefits, particularly in their ability to provide detailed insights into myocardial perfusion and metabolic activity. The high resolution and accuracy of PET imaging allow for the detection of subtle abnormalities in blood flow, even at the microvascular level. This can be especially valuable in complex cases, such as diagnosing cardiac sarcoidosis or assessing myocardial viability after a heart attack, where precise evaluation of tissue perfusion is critical. Additionally, PET scans can help differentiate between ischemic and hibernating myocardium, guiding decisions about revascularization strategies.
However, cardiac PET scans also have limitations. They involve radiation exposure, as they require the injection of radioactive tracers. The complexity and time-consuming nature of the procedure, often lasting several hours, can be inconvenient for patients. Furthermore, the cost of PET scans is relatively high compared to other cardiac imaging modalities, which may limit their routine use. While PET imaging provides valuable information about myocardial perfusion, it may not always be necessary for initial screening or in cases where other non-invasive tests, such as echocardiography or cardiac CT, can provide sufficient diagnostic information.
MRI calcium scores are ordered to assess the amount of calcified plaque in the coronary arteries, which can be an indicator of atherosclerotic disease. However, a high calcium score doesn't directly indicate coronary artery disease (CAD) because calcium itself isn't plaque but a marker of calcified arteries or calcified plaque. The presence of calcium suggests that there has been plaque formation and stabilization over time, but it doesn't provide information about non-calcified, potentially unstable plaques that are more likely to lead to acute coronary events. I’ve seen cases where people with a Ca+ score of 1000 (extremely high) had zero CAD, and cases with a calcium score of 0 had significant CAD. While calcium scoring can improve risk stratification, particularly in intermediate-risk patients, it doesn't replace the need for other diagnostic tools that assess the functional impact of coronary artery disease, such as echocardiograms or stress tests. In many cases, cardiac CT angiography (CTA) is preferred over cardiac PET scans for anatomical assessment because it provides detailed images of both calcified and non-calcified plaques without the need for radioactive tracers. Still, the dye injected into the coronaries is toxic to the kidneys. For those of you with CAD or suspected CAD – request an echo for function and a CT for coronary artery disease.
Echocardiograms (and Stress Echocardiograms done by an experienced Sonographer) remain superior for evaluating heart function, offering real-time insights into cardiac performance without radiation exposure, making them a valuable tool for assessing the functional implications of CAD.
Cardiac CT scans, particularly CT angiography (CTA), offer exceptional anatomical detail, making them ideal for evaluating coronary artery disease. They provide clear images of coronary anatomy, allowing for the assessment of stenosis and plaque characteristics. Unlike PET scans, CT scans do not require radioactive tracers, reducing the patient’s radiation exposure. CT scans are also faster and less invasive, making them more patient-friendly.
In many cases, cardiac CT can replace PET scans, especially when detailed anatomical information is needed without the functional insights that PET provides. For instance, CT is excellent for ruling out coronary artery disease in low to intermediate-risk patients, providing a comprehensive view of the coronary arteries.
While cardiac PET scans offer functional and metabolic insights, their use is often limited to specific clinical scenarios due to their complexity and radiation exposure. Cardiac CT scans, on the other hand, provide superior anatomical detail with less invasiveness, making them a more practical choice in many cases. Angiograms are now becoming utilized only for interventions (stents) rather than evaluating for CAD. MRI Ca+ scoring will tell you if your artery is calcified, but not if there is any blockage. Echocardiograms remain the gold standard for functional assessment, offering real-time insights into cardiac performance without the risks associated with radiation. Ultimately, the choice of imaging modality should be guided by the specific clinical question and patient needs, with echoes and CT scans often being the preferred options for functional and anatomical assessment, respectively.
-Hesham Halteh, BS, RDCS, CCT
