To: John R Resseger who wrote (2339 ) 4/6/1998 12:52:00 AM From: Steven Durrington Respond to of 3725
John, This U/S technique is a developing technology and is not in clinical use yet. It does sound interesting though for future applications. It does not detect heart attacks. What the article meant was that it could be used to demonstrate the calcification of small atherosclerotic plaques in the coronary artery wall, which is an early, but relatively subtle sign of developing cardiac disease. If these changes are detected early, then preventative measures (lifestyle changes, medication, patient education) can be implemented to lessen the risk to the patient and hopefully, prevent or delay the development of significant cardiac disease. If the plaques are left to progress unchecked, they slowly increase in size, and reduce blood flow through the vessel, eventually leading to a complete blockage, and starvation of blood to the heart muscle (myocardial infarction = heart attack). or can break off and travel to another part of the body, causing a stroke elsewhere. The technique described in the article uses a principle called "resonance". This is where certain types of atoms/molecules respond to a specific frequency (in this case, a frequency of sound). MRI uses the same principle, using radiofrequency pulses. I'm kinda guessing that calcium has a certain resonant frequency to Ultrasonic waves, and that the return resonant echo from the calcium found in atherosclerotic plaques and breast tumours will alert physicians to its presence. You may want to read my previous post about "gold standards". I wouldn't make comments that any one imaging modality is "better" than another, at least until there are some clinical trials and published results. You may find that the applications of this technique are very limited (e.g. there is often normal calcification of the breast ducts, which may be indistinguishable from the cancerous calcium, unless a mammogram is done for more information). What I'm getting at is that often, techniques such as this U/S and perhaps IMAT's scanner are used as screening tools for obvious pathologies, but a positive initial result still may require that the "gold standard" test is performed for more confident and specific information. I don't want to appear too anal on this thread. I realize that I have certain insider knowledge about Medical Imaging techniques that others don't fully appreciate, but I don't want to get into the habit of correcting laymens statements too much. Sorry if I jumped the gun prematurely, and thanks for drawing our attention to this interesting concept. If anyone want to ask questions about Medical Imaging/Radiology techniques in general, please feel free to e-mail me privately, and I'll answer as soon as possible. As for IMAT, I'm still largely ignorant of the specifics, and I'll put in my 2 cents worth when I'm better informed. Regards, Durro