Screening Method Discrepancies

@tomcgauley

Thanks for your reply.

I don't dare get my hopes up until the CT scan, that initial diagnosis of 47 mm has had a major impact on me.

I am hardened by all kinds of severe setbacks in my life, but not when it comes to my health.

How much longer do you have to wait before you qualify for surgery? I assume that because of that bicuspid aortic valve, they aren't going to wait until 55 mm?

@wanneram I have been fortunate to be seen by some good cardiologist and it's more about symptoms than size.

(This coming Saturday, I have another ultrasound at someone else's (private clinic), and on March 31st, I am going to the hospital for a very extensive examination based on the results of the first MRI scan. I will come back to the differences in the measurement results)

On Saturday, March 28, I went to another (private) clinic for my second ultrasound. I requested that extra attention be paid to the diameter of the ascending aorta and the root.

The results were double-checked; the findings are root 41 mm and ascending aorta 39 mm. The valves are functioning well, and blood pressure is good.

On March 31, I finally went to the hospital for an intake at the cardiology department. I indicated there that there was a large discrepancy between the MRI and the two ultrasounds. According to the cardiologist, the difference is too large. So, something went wrong somewhere.

I also had a very comprehensive ultrasound here, and an ultrasound from the same hospital from 2015 was also available for comparison. The echocardiogram was performed by two radiologists who checked each other's readings. The measurement was subsequently verified by the radiologists and the cardiologist re-measured everything thoroughly for extra certainty, and this also came to 40 mm for the ascending aorta.

During the results discussion, the cardiologist indicated that, given my BSA and age, there is nothing unusual going on. However, I did suggest that, for the sake of my anxiety and uncertainty, it would be better to have a CT scan performed for 100% certainty.

The cardiologist complied with this, and I will have the CT scan at the hospital on May 18th.

The cardiologist did indicate that he did not doubt the three echocardiograms, which showed 40 mm, 39 mm, and 40 mm respectively—taken in three different clinics and by different radiologists and cardiologists, and all double-checked for diameter.

What I do find strange is that various publications mention different ultrasound results if the scan is performed by different radiologists and at different times. These results correspond quite closely.

I am now waiting for the scan on May 18 and will share the result here.

@tomcgauley

Often there are no symptoms associated with an ascending aortic aneurysm until an emergent situation arises.

@wanneram
Maybe I'm. Wrong if it's 4 or 3.9 it seem more very large. Are they looking for problems with valve.

@wanneram
Maybe I'm. Wrong if it's 4 or 3.9 it seem more very large. Are they looking for problems with valve.

@carlwgordon

For my BSA (2.42 m2 Du Bois, 115 kg and 190 cm) and age (53 y), 40 mm is just at the upper limit. According to the cardiologist, no follow-up is needed for this. However, I did insist on a CT scan with contrast for 100% certainty. My valves have now been checked three times in one month and fortunately no abnormalities were found.