The ECG is a very good study but it has many limitations. It is very reliable at detecting problems that interrupt or change the electrical energy paths through your heart. The heart has two major systems though - the pumbing and the electricity. Sometimes one systems affects the other but sometimes not, too. There are plenty of true heart attacks, for instance, that demonstrate no or very little change on the ECG. As well there are plenty of benign conditions that change the electricity (from "normal") and turn out to be nothing more than a congenital malformation in the way a person's heart works. Finally ECG's are a moment in time - they are very poor at predicting what might happen in the future.
In short, just because you had a normal or abnormal ECG, it may or may not mean anything and it certainly doesn't tell you what might happen tomorrow. It needs to be assessed in context of other markers or symptoms.
2006-11-11 02:58:57
·
answer #1
·
answered by c_schumacker 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Ecg Accuracy
2016-10-29 05:21:49
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
An ECG basically picks up electrical rhythms that your heart produces. It is able to pick up the abnormal electrical impulses that are present when part of the heart muscle is short of oxygen (ie. in ischaemia or a heart attack), or if the heart rhythm is not regular. However, an ECG is not able to visualize the heart. In other words, it is not able to pick up structural heart defects, such as valve prolapses. You will need a 2D echocardiogram to diagnose structural defects.
2006-11-10 21:32:47
·
answer #3
·
answered by thelittleprinz 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
depending on the heart problem
it is excellent to detect rhythm abnormalities,bundle branch block,ischemia,dilatation of the heart chambers,however it can not detect for example ;angina (unless you present to the doctor while you are having the chest pain).or sometimes it can not detect pulmonary embolism
in medicine it is usually a combination of methods to reach to the diagnosis .but the ECG is very good initial tool to work with cause it is easy,cheap,non invasive and available
2006-11-11 06:04:25
·
answer #4
·
answered by going-to-light 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
It only tells part of the story. I had EKG, and ECG, which looked ok and still had a heart attack, It can't see blockages which is what my problem was.
2006-11-14 07:54:20
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
ECG cannot give the hundred percent diagnosis. You must do stress tolerance test, to determine that you are free from heart ailment.
2006-11-10 21:24:02
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
A resting EKG can give a lot of information on old and new infarcts and ischemia as well as enlargement and rhythm. Add exercise and under stress ischemia not otherwise detected can be seen.
Rate and rhyhm are easily seen.
2006-11-11 02:39:57
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It can't see inside your heart. An echo gram can see the blood flowing through the heart and can also see if the heart valves are opening and closing OK. Also a stress test can be done and a solution is injected. Afterwards you lay on a table and pictures are taken to see how well blood is flowing.
2006-11-12 15:40:23
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Nope, that's why we have stress tests, cardiac ultrasound and cardiac catheterization. Hard to pursue this further without insurance though. At your age and fitness level, I wouldn't be too concerned about rare transient angina. It's very possible it could be something else entirely.
2016-03-19 06:23:29
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋