73 year old woman just diagnosed with dialated assending aorta 3.9 cm

I am 72 and was diagnosed with a 4.2 in August of this year. I was told six years ago that I had it, then was told it was "overread." Found out it was true after all. Good news is hasn't grown in six years! I am thankful. They will check it again in a year. My cardiologist said, if it doesn't change, no surgery or medication! From what I've read, don't need surgery unless it's 5.0 or larger. Don't worry about it all of the time, just live each day and enjoy life!!

Your PCP should refer you to someone s/he thinks is appropriate to monitor it. My PCP referred me to a surgeon and it's monitored by their office. His office does a chest CT to monitor its size. I saw a PA after the first measurement. It grew some and I last met with a surgeon. Mine is still well below the surgery threshold. At 3.9, typically you'd have many years before it was anywhere close to the lowest surgery threshold. As the previous poster indicated, it never grows for many people.

Some people are monitored by a cardiologist rather than a surgeon. Some are measured by echocardiogram rather than CT. The CT is more accurate, but exposes you to radiation. They'll also ask you questions to determine whether there is a history of aortic aneurysm in your family. Your physician will then decide how to monitor its progression -- CT vs. echo, interval between scans, etc.

Good luck! As the previous poster indicated, not too much to worry about.

You certainly should see a cardiologist but you should probably consult your primary-care physician first. He/she might refer you to someone good. Welcome to the club of aortic aneurysms. You'll be okay. The important thing is to know about it and have it monitored routinely.

After two years I go next week for my next "contrast photo" (my fun name for it). I am hoping there is no growth (4.3) and I can carry on smartly. This is the first one in two years rather than the one-year time frame. They found my TAA when I had regular x-rays for a suspected pulled chest muscle (stop lifting heavy things--went through my mind). At 73 I am not doing anything more than what I was doing two years ago. Although I no longer "sneak" before my husband catches me in lifting large heavy boxes, leaving it to my husband like he prefers. My primary-care physician has been great with other issues and he scheduled this "dye job" for me at the appointed time. My annual physical is in January and I planned to talk to him about a cardiologist. When I found out I spoke with my husband's Cardio Surgery team and felt good with the advice I received. Yep, I get nervous sometimes but it does not stop me from booking cruises. I hope all will be well with you.

So is a dialated ascending aorta also considered to be an aneurysm?
I thought that the definition of aneurysm was that it was a bulge in a certain section of the aorta. Is the measurement referred to (3.9,4.3, etc) the diameter of the entire aorta or just the section that the aneurysm is located? Thanks!

My understanding is that there are two kinds: fusiform and saccular. The saccular is what I always had in mind for an aneurysm before I got one. It's like a berry hanging off a vine sort of. The fusiform bulges on all sides. You can find pictures online.

When my thoracic aorta has been measured, it's at standard locations along its entire length, not just at the section the aneurysm is located at. However, the "size" the doctor refers to is at the largest part (of the ascending and aortic root in my case). I don't have any experience with abdominal aneurysm measurements.

It seems like the use of dilated versus aneurysm is inconsistent. Here's something from the ACC/AHA guidelines for managing aortic disease.

The conventional definition of an arterial aneurysm is any artery that is dilated to at least 1.5 times its expected normal diameter. This definition applies well to the abdominal and descending thoracic aorta. However, it has long been recognized that this definition fails when it comes to defining aneurysms of the aortic root and ascending thoracic aorta. For example, a man in his 40s would be expected to have an average aortic root diameter of 3.5 cm; applying the standard definition of ≥1.5 times reference diameter, his aortic root would have to reach 5.25 cm before it would be considered an aneurysm, whereas most experts would consider his aorta to be an aneurysm well below that diameter. Indeed, if this patient had Marfan syndrome or a familial thoracic aortic aneurysm, aortic repair would be recommended at a diameter of ≤5.0 cm, a size that would not even be large enough to be termed an “aneurysm.” ... It follows that the increase in risk at 4.0 cm to 4.4 cm justifies defining an aorta of this size “dilated,” and the abrupt increase in risk at a diameter of ≥4.5 cm justifies defining an aorta of this size as an “aneurysm.”

Sorry, I have no idea and can not answer your question. I just know my doctor's diagnosis of TAA and my tests results. In addition his handout which pretty much states the same as what I have read online. " A thoracic aortic aneurysm is a bulge in a blood vessel (aorta) in the chest. The bulge occurs in a weak spot in the vessel." Perhaps someone else with more knowledge from present and past circumstance could give you an answer to your question. Thanks bitsygirl for giving an answer to your question.