OBJECTIVES: The use of
cardiovascular imaging is growing inexorably and concerns have been expressed about its cost and radiation safety.
METHODS: In this study, the relative environmental impact of MRI, single photon emission tomography and cardiac ultrasound (echo) for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease were examined.
RESULTS: The results emphasise that echo causes the least environmental impact at each stage of its life cycle. The effect of one echo on human health, ecosystem effects and resource use was of the order of 1-20% of those of the alternative methods.
CONCLUSIONS: Although there are circumstances in which one imaging modality is preferred on clinical grounds, when everything else is equal, these results support the selection of echocardiography as the preferred test on environmental grounds.
Imaging Institute and
Latest posts by Schoenhagen Paul (see all)
- Ischemic Conditioning: The Challenge of Protecting the Diabetic Heart - December 8, 2014
- Our Preoccupation With Ultra-Low Dose Radiation Exposure: Low Contrast Resolution and Cardiovascular CT Imaging - December 8, 2014
- Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Versus Transthoracic Echocardiography for the Assessment and Quantification of Aortic Regurgitation in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation - November 24, 2014