Hello. I posted before. I had two previous echoes read my EF as 45% and 47%. I was concerned because familial dilated cardiomyopathy runs in my family and four years ago my echo read 60%. My cardiologist sent me for a MUGA scan for a more accurate EF. The MUGA just came back and showed my EF is at 65%. The cardiologist says the MUGA is more accurate than the echo. I am happy to go along with this belief, but wonder if there is a difference of opinion when it comes to comparing the MUGA scan to the echo? My 24 hour holter monitor showed a lot of PVCs, but no other abnormalties. Cardiologist says the PVCs go along with my mitral valve prolapse and are not serious enough for medication. Good news for me. I have to go for annual echoes because of my family history of dilated cardiomyopathy and would like to know what anyone has experienced with MUGA scans vs. echoes. It would also be good to hear from others with FDCM in their family. Thanks.