Member Comments are provided by individuals and reflect their personal opinions only. Under NO circumstances should you act on any advice or opinion posted in this forum. ALWAYS check with your personal physician before taking any action regarding your health! MedHelp International and our partners, sponsors and affiliates have no obligation to monitor any comments posted on this site, or the content and/or accuracy of such exchanges. MedHelp International does not endorse the views of any user.
Heart Disease (Expert Forum)
MRA / Echocardiogram Results
This forum is for questions and support regarding heart issues such as: Angina, Angioplasty, Arrhythmia, Bypass Surgery, Cardiomyopathy, Coronary Artery Disease, Defibrillator, Heart Attack, Heart Disease, High Blood Pressure, Mitral Valve Prolapse, Pacemaker, PAD, Stenosis, Stress Tests.
MRA / Echocardiogram Results
by rajah3366, Apr 04, 2006 12:00AM
26 year old / Male / 6'1" / 160 / good family history
Recently I had an echocardiogram done showing a "mildly dilated aortic root, including ascending aorta". All valves, etc. were normal though. I had my doctor fax me the report and the AO value was the only one listed outside of the normal range (it was 3.9). Is this number is referencing the aortic root or the ascending aorta? I had them also fax a copy of my echo from 2003, which had an AO value of 3.5 listed.
I was a bit concerned so I opted for an MRA. The findindgs came back normal with an aortic root of 2.6, "with no evidence of aneurysm or dissection". I thought this was great news, but my cardiologist still wants to monitor my heart every year with an echo. He also tells me to stay on my beta blocker and minimize weights. I don’t understand why?
So here are my questions/concerns:
1. Which is typically more accurate for aortic root / ascending aorta measurements (echo or MRA)? What could cause the values to be different?
2. The MRA did not reference my ascending aorta. With the root measurement at 2.6 and no sign of dissection (according to MRA), should I ask what ascending aorta size was on the MRA? Are these one in the same or completly different values? The only value outside of normal range on the echo was the "AO", which was listed as just one value (it wasn't broken out as aortic root or ascending aorta).
3. If the aortic root is not dilated and there is no sign of aneurysm or dissection, do I still need to check the size of the ascending aorta? Is this something serious to worry about?
Recently I had an echocardiogram done showing a "mildly dilated aortic root, including ascending aorta". All valves, etc. were normal though. I had my doctor fax me the report and the AO value was the only one listed outside of the normal range (it was 3.9). Is this number is referencing the aortic root or the ascending aorta? I had them also fax a copy of my echo from 2003, which had an AO value of 3.5 listed.
I was a bit concerned so I opted for an MRA. The findindgs came back normal with an aortic root of 2.6, "with no evidence of aneurysm or dissection". I thought this was great news, but my cardiologist still wants to monitor my heart every year with an echo. He also tells me to stay on my beta blocker and minimize weights. I don’t understand why?
So here are my questions/concerns:
1. Which is typically more accurate for aortic root / ascending aorta measurements (echo or MRA)? What could cause the values to be different?
2. The MRA did not reference my ascending aorta. With the root measurement at 2.6 and no sign of dissection (according to MRA), should I ask what ascending aorta size was on the MRA? Are these one in the same or completly different values? The only value outside of normal range on the echo was the "AO", which was listed as just one value (it wasn't broken out as aortic root or ascending aorta).
3. If the aortic root is not dilated and there is no sign of aneurysm or dissection, do I still need to check the size of the ascending aorta? Is this something serious to worry about?
Doctor's Answer
by CCF-M.D.-MJM, Apr 04, 2006 12:00AM
Hello,
1. Which is typically more accurate for aortic root / ascending aorta measurements (echo or MRA)? What could cause the values to be different?
It depends on who is reading it. If you are reading an echo in an experienced echo center like here and you have good echo windows, I would trust both of them. In less experienced hands or with poor echo windows, MRA should provide excellent pictures. The values can vary by the reader and also the quality of imaging. 2.6 vs. 3.9 is a very different interpretation. If you are concerned, one option is to have a second read of the echo by sending your echo tape here. I always feel bad saying that because the purpose of this website is not to drum up bussiness (we are busy enough). The issue is that I know and trust our staff echocardiographers here.
2. The MRA did not reference my ascending aorta. With the root measurement at 2.6 and no sign of dissection (according to MRA), should I ask what ascending aorta size was on the MRA? Are these one in the same or completly different values? The only value outside of normal range on the echo was the "AO", which was listed as just one value (it wasn't broken out as aortic root or ascending aorta).
AO is short for aorta, but I am not sure from that description where they measured either. You could ask them to comment of aortic size but if it was markedly abnormal they probably would have commented on it.
3. If the aortic root is not dilated and there is no sign of aneurysm or dissection, do I still need to check the size of the ascending aorta? Is this something serious to worry about?
I haven't seen your echo or MRA. If the MRA is correct, it wouldn't see that there is a need to repeat the echo. It may be worth a second opinion to put your mind at ease.
I hope this helps. Thanks for posting.
1. Which is typically more accurate for aortic root / ascending aorta measurements (echo or MRA)? What could cause the values to be different?
It depends on who is reading it. If you are reading an echo in an experienced echo center like here and you have good echo windows, I would trust both of them. In less experienced hands or with poor echo windows, MRA should provide excellent pictures. The values can vary by the reader and also the quality of imaging. 2.6 vs. 3.9 is a very different interpretation. If you are concerned, one option is to have a second read of the echo by sending your echo tape here. I always feel bad saying that because the purpose of this website is not to drum up bussiness (we are busy enough). The issue is that I know and trust our staff echocardiographers here.
2. The MRA did not reference my ascending aorta. With the root measurement at 2.6 and no sign of dissection (according to MRA), should I ask what ascending aorta size was on the MRA? Are these one in the same or completly different values? The only value outside of normal range on the echo was the "AO", which was listed as just one value (it wasn't broken out as aortic root or ascending aorta).
AO is short for aorta, but I am not sure from that description where they measured either. You could ask them to comment of aortic size but if it was markedly abnormal they probably would have commented on it.
3. If the aortic root is not dilated and there is no sign of aneurysm or dissection, do I still need to check the size of the ascending aorta? Is this something serious to worry about?
I haven't seen your echo or MRA. If the MRA is correct, it wouldn't see that there is a need to repeat the echo. It may be worth a second opinion to put your mind at ease.
I hope this helps. Thanks for posting.
Could the 2.6 aortic root size in the MRA be referencing the same part of the heart that the "AO" 3.9 showed in the Echo.... or are these two separate measurements? Thanks...
It is very important to have an ECHO in a good center with good techs and readers. Even some well known places (not CC) do not have the best doing/reading of Echo's. I know! My Echo's and Caths are headed off soon for another opinion. Good Luck.