Qln 1977, two months after I had a myocardial infarction with blockage of the circumflex artery, I underwent cardiac catheterization. During the next three years I had three thallium stress tests. In June 1980 a second cardiac catheterization, done because results of a rest and exercise thallium stress test were abnormal, showed 60% to 70% blockage of the left anterior descending artery (LAD). Since I was asymptomatic, my physician recommended a Bruce protocol treadmill test. There was no evidence of ischemia. In a recently repeated treadmill test with thallium, my performance equaled 11.6 minutes with 1.9 mets of exercise. Because of the increased blockage of the LAD from 30% to 60% in three years, I have been advised to undergo repeated cardiac catheterization in three months. (Incidentally, I am taking triamterene-hydrochlorothiazide [Dyazide], one capsule per day, for minimal labile hypertension, and disopyramide phosphate [Norpace], 100 mg twice a day, for transient unifocal premature ventricular contractions that occurred in 1978 and have not recurred.) I have the following questions: (1) How much radiation is received from cardiac catheterization and from thallium scans? (2) Are there any data regarding the effects of repeated radiation exposure? (3) In view of the exercise test results and my asymptomatic state, how often is cardiac catheterization indicated?
MD, WisconsinThis inquiry was referred to a cardiologist (Dr Hutter) and a radiologist (Dr Saenger).A The risk of ischémie heart disease is related more to the anatomic extent of coronary artery disease and left ventricular function than to any other factors.Although the lesions described would indicate "two-vessel disease," there is considerable individual anatomic varia¬ tion, especially when the LAD is involved. There is strong evidence for the concept that mortality risk in patients with coronary artery disease and the need for possible coronary artery bypass surgery are related to the amount of live cardiac muscle jeopardized by any one lesion.' Thus, if the LAD is huge, supplying a large portion of viable myocardium in addition to the infarcted area, one would certainly be more aggressive and consider coronary artery bypass surgery (assuming the vessel is suitable). Con¬ versely, if the area supplied by the stenotic LAD is modest, continued medical therapy would appear war¬ ranted. In the latter case, repeated cardiac catheterizations probably are unnecessary if serial exercise tests and the clinical course remain stable.