B's Mom
Member
Hi all!
I have been lurking since 2010 when we found my 7 year old son had BAV and mildly dialated ascending aorta. This is such a great place to be if you need support or have questions. First, we found my sons BAV "by accident" when he was being screened for problems from strep....which were negative. He had no murmur or any other symptoms. We would still have no idea if it weren't for this screening. So, for that, I am grateful. Anyway, in 2010, first echo showed BAV, no stenosis and trivial/trace insufficiency and mildly dialated ascending aorta at 2.6 cm. He just got his 2 year check-up last Thursday and there is still no stenosis, trivial/trace insufficiency, however aorta showed more enlargement. Here is where I get confused and I am hoping the veterans on here can shed some light. Well, first the doc came in after peeking quickly at his echo and called the aorta moderately dialated now. He restricted very heavy weightlifting and nothing else. I wanted some numbers but he didn't have them at that point. A few days later I obtained the test results.......echo measurments and the doc summary to primary physician. The echo results from tech say.....no stenosis, no evidence of aortic insufficiency, and moderatley dialated ascending aorta of 3.1 cm. (up from 2.6 two years earlier) BUT, the summary the fellow wrote about the echo (actual doc did not view...just his fellow)..stated no stenosis, trivial insufficiency and mildly dilated ascending aorta at 2.8 cm. Why the two different readings?? Which is more accurate?? And..... What are "extreme valsava maneuvers"? (from which my son is restricted.)
Thanl you so much!!
I have been lurking since 2010 when we found my 7 year old son had BAV and mildly dialated ascending aorta. This is such a great place to be if you need support or have questions. First, we found my sons BAV "by accident" when he was being screened for problems from strep....which were negative. He had no murmur or any other symptoms. We would still have no idea if it weren't for this screening. So, for that, I am grateful. Anyway, in 2010, first echo showed BAV, no stenosis and trivial/trace insufficiency and mildly dialated ascending aorta at 2.6 cm. He just got his 2 year check-up last Thursday and there is still no stenosis, trivial/trace insufficiency, however aorta showed more enlargement. Here is where I get confused and I am hoping the veterans on here can shed some light. Well, first the doc came in after peeking quickly at his echo and called the aorta moderately dialated now. He restricted very heavy weightlifting and nothing else. I wanted some numbers but he didn't have them at that point. A few days later I obtained the test results.......echo measurments and the doc summary to primary physician. The echo results from tech say.....no stenosis, no evidence of aortic insufficiency, and moderatley dialated ascending aorta of 3.1 cm. (up from 2.6 two years earlier) BUT, the summary the fellow wrote about the echo (actual doc did not view...just his fellow)..stated no stenosis, trivial insufficiency and mildly dilated ascending aorta at 2.8 cm. Why the two different readings?? Which is more accurate?? And..... What are "extreme valsava maneuvers"? (from which my son is restricted.)
Thanl you so much!!