When the patients of Michael Boler, M.D. need cardiac monitoring, the Holter monitor is no longer his first choice. “The newer ECG devices we have now are so much less cumbersome. It’s like wearing a Band-Aid versus carrying a bulky device,” said the Greenwood, Mississippi internist. “My patients prefer the more comfortable, wire-free form factor, and the quality is as good as, or better, than the Holter,” continued Boler. “Plus, my patient compliance has increased. With the Holter, the leads sometimes come off. The patient may think the device isn’t working, so they take it off and we have to restart the process.”

As hospital imaging departments look to replace aging nuclear scanners with updated technology, many are asking if cardiac positron emission tomography (PET) might be a better option over the traditional single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) systems. There are several factors to consider when evaluating PET versus SPECT, including costs, speed, exercise versus pharmacological stress, access to radiotracers and what addition information PET can offer for a more precise diagnosis.

Transradial access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the United States has grown rapidly over the past 20 ...