A "mild" dilation should not be considered "harmless". The use of such descriptive words gives a false sense of security. Mild, moderate, and severe are used to describe the function of heart valves. They should never be used to characterize the aorta. Unfortunately some physicians are adopting this practice, and I only hope that it will not continue or become wide spread. It is not safe for patients!
The aorta should be accurately described not by words but by its dimensions, and the best way to determine that is by MRI or CT scans that are measured by someone with expertise in the aorta. The ability to measure the aorta properly is unfortunately not a very common skill.
Aortic tissue that has begun to thin and bulge is abnormal, lacking the proper elasticity that allows expansion and contraction of the walls as blood surges and wanes with each heart beat. Please don't let anyone describe abnormal aortic tissue as benign. And don't settle for less than state of the art treatment. Anything less can be very dangerous.
Actually, although it seems like everything should be easier to see looking into the chest itself, during surgery is not the best time for assessment of the aorta. One of the reasons why so many individuals end up in trouble with their aorta following valve surgery is that it was not properly imaged/measured prior to surgery and appeared relatively normal to the surgeon's eye during surgery.
I recently was told about a woman who ended up with aortic dissection only a year after her aortic valve replacement surgery. She was lucky - she survived not only the crisis but a second surgery. It should not have happened. She should have had the proper solution during the first surgery.
I want to encourage anyone who reads this to be very careful about their aorta and the surgery that they are offered. While the final decision regarding a valve may be made during surgery, the aorta should be well imaged, measaured and the surgery planned before going in.
Best wishes,
Arlyss
