4.5 cm aortic aneurysm/dilation

[Bigred]

I got some conflicting info at the beginning of the week. I was planning to wait until I receive a copy of my medical records but this has been bothering me.

Background info again, had an echo, ct scan (w/out contrast) and t.e.e. done in '01. I was not told my aorta was dilated at the time. I had a visit 3 weeks ago and was told the dilation at the time was 4.0 cm by the staff cardiologist. I had a ct w/contrast done and got the results this week. 4.5 cm which according to the ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines and Deborah is within safety limits until it reaches 5.0cm (as I'm sure most of you are already aware of).

Here's the problem, the fellow (resident) that saw me w/the staff doc gave me the info. He said well that's good, it actually went down some. Huh? I asked what he meant and he said that from '01 my chart shows 4.9 and 4.7cm. I asked that since I didn't have contrast at the time that rather than it decreasing wouldn't the contrast just be a more accurate measurement. This really was meant as a question to him, I wasn't trying to play doctor, but he hurried me off the phone and said " well the most important thing is that it didn't get any larger".

I know I should be relieved that after 8 yrs my aorta apparently has been stable but considering the fact that I was not aware it was dilated until 3 weeks ago, this is still some uneasing news. If my readings were 4.7 and 4.9 cm (still don't know which tests measured what) is .4cm deviation considered normal?

Has anyone else had their aorta remain stable for a prolonged period of time? just wondering if this has not changed in 8 yrs if I'm looking at 10-15 yrs before I would have to consider surgery.

 

[Reddog]

My aorta diameter was pretty stable over the course of 10 years or so - it's kind of rare, but it does happen. Whenever I had a measurement that was lower than the previous year's, I asked the cardiologist whether my condition was improving, and the answer was always that the variation was within the degree of error for the test. Sigh.

 

[COLLEEN S]

My mom is at 4.7 for 4 months now. Waiting to get her COPD cleared up as much as she can b4 surgery.

 

[csutherland]

Jerry's aneurysm was "found" in Jan, 2005 and measured (echo & TEE) at 5.3. He's had 6-mo & then yearly CTs since then and the latest was just over 5.0. Supposedly they don't shrink; they explain it's all just in the angle of the scan and the eye of the tech or whatever. I don't know what they'd say if next time it was 5.5. So far, so good; we don't think about it much any more.

 

[pnwcoast]

I've been between 4.9 and 4.3 (depending on who's doing the testing and interpreting) for about two years now. I was having it checked by CT with contrast every six months. Last check was in January 2009 and I'm going to wait till January 2010 to have it checked again.
My Cardio thinks I'm stable. I sure hope he's right.

 

[R&N Brown]

Back as far as 2000 my measure was around 4.3 and stayed right around there up to a couple of years ago. In the late fall of 2007 it was reported at 4.8 and by spring of 2008 it had expanded to 5.6. 7 weeks later I was on a table for repair.

During that same time frame I had become more and more symptomatic too.
Don't play dodgeball!

Keep having it checked.

Rob

 

[vinny123]

Back as far as 2000 my measure was around 4.3 and stayed right around there up to a couple of years ago. In the late fall of 2007 it as reported at 4.8 and by spring of 2008 it had expanded to 5.6. 7 weeks later I was on a table for repair.

During that same time frame I had become more and more symptomatic too.
Don't play dodgeball!

Keep having it checked.

Rob

Rob, what mode of imaging was used (ie, echocardiography, CT scan, MRI) to measure the size of your aorta?

VInny

 

[R&N Brown]

First an echo, then both times followed up with a CT scan to confirm.

The on duty Radiologist is a customer/friend of mine and where he wouldn't go so far as to make a suggestion of surgery to me, he did show me picture on his computer of the results and explained what we were looking at.

I had a Cath a few days before setting my date of surgery and the tech on duty also showed me a recording of my issues. He was a little more descriptive in saying why surgery was most likely in my near future.

Rob

 

[vinny123]

Rob, were the echo results similar to the ones obtained by the CT?

 

[terodac]

They are guessing how big it is, until you have a cath done they really do not know. That is what my surgeon told me, also it was a little bigger when he went in to repair it than they thought. I would not wait, go have it fixed! Look at all of us we are just fine!!!!

 

[knoxbone09]

The accuracy of certain tests coupled with differing interpretations scare me. Making me think I should get everything double and triple tested with every diagnostic test.

 

[R&N Brown]

Vinny,

I could not say for certain. I am not great with all the terminology, when they did my echo in the fall of 2007 the results bounced me within a few days to a CT scan.
At the echo they talk more about gradients and more so measurements at the CT and Cath.

April of 08 they rescheduled both the echo and CT and apparently they had changed enough to order a Cath. It was really there that the tech showed me (with privacy and all) what a more normal aorta looked like and then showed me the size of mine.

My appointment with my Cardiologist the next day went something like "What are you doing next Wednesday"

The surgery was pushed off for seven weeks mainly because of my own stupidity.

Rob