One Response to “PET vs EBCT”

1. admin says:

   December 31, 2009 at 6:02 pm

   In <331B4581.5…@ix.netcom.com> Alvin Stroyny <astro…@ix.netcom.com>
   writes:
    I am a 45 year old male and just diagnosed with CHD following a stress
   test using a Gates blood pool technique.  I have begun Dr. Ornish’s
   vegetarian diet.  In his book he recommends having a PET scan to
   measure the degree of blockage and progress in reversing plaque
   build up.
   Recently I have seen ads for an Electron Beam Computer Tomogrophy(EBCT)
   test by Heart Check America (1-800 NEW TEST) that claims the test is
   more sensitive than a PET scan.  The people at the 800 number read an
   explanation from a printed sheet and cannot answer any technical
   questions.  
   Can someone explain more about these procedures and
   recommend one for following the progress of my CHD?

   I would recommend:
   1. Read the literature by Dr. Lance K. Gould out of the
   Univ.of Texas-Houston Heath Science Center.
   2. Have the PET scans. A few insurance companies are now paying for
   them. In the past it was considered "experimental" and they would not
   pay.
   3. Have at least 1 cardiac catheterization within a 2 year period.
   The PET cannot actually measure the stenosis. Software with the cardiac
   cath or in a research lab can measure the artery and tell you the
   percent (%)stenosis (both area and diameter), stenotic flow reserve,
   etc. If you will be comparing the measurements year to year you must be
   sure the pictures are taken exactly as the first (same angles, etc).
   What part of the country are you in?