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)
Should poor quality ( per doctor ) be redone?
Answered by
Cleveland - OH
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.
Should poor quality ( per doctor ) be redone?
by jdm, Jun 05, 2005 12:00AM
I was told ten years ago that I had "very minor" aortic regurg. This assessment continued up until my last echo a month ago when I was told it's now "mild to moderate". In the past I was never given any further information but asked for the physician's report this time.
I have no symptoms of aortic insuff. at present. I take 25 mg attenolol daily for IST. BP is normal to low for my age, non smoker, non drinker , other factors favorable.
What does this report mean? Should I ask for another echo since the doctor said this is "poor" quality? They have told me to request another echo in 2 1/2 years. Is this reasonable?
Date of study: 4/27/05
Quality of study: Poor to fair
Age of patient: 55
Clinical Diagnosis: Aortic insuff
Rhythm: Normal Sinus
Aortic valve: mild brightnies, trileaflet LAd 41x62 (nl <42mm) Aod 38 ( nl <38)
Mitral normal, Pulmonic, normal, tricuspid probably normal
ventricular dimen: LVd 48 ( nl<56 ) RVd 34 LVd 27 with a fractional shortening of 44
Global LV func normal (est EF 50-65% ) approx 65 to 70%. No wall motion abnormalities.
Wall thickness" LV1d 10 ( nl <11mm ) lvpd 10 ( nl <11mm)
doppler analysis: Mild moderate aortic regurg, trace mitral,trace tricuspid, est pa pressure could not evaluate, est RA (cvp) pressure normal
no pericardial effusion
summary: poor to fair quality study performed in sinus rhythm, normal bivengricular size and systolic function, mild to moderate aortic insuff is slighlty worse when compared to last report of 7/30/01 Of note Lv chamber size now 48 and was 53 on last study.
I have no symptoms of aortic insuff. at present. I take 25 mg attenolol daily for IST. BP is normal to low for my age, non smoker, non drinker , other factors favorable.
What does this report mean? Should I ask for another echo since the doctor said this is "poor" quality? They have told me to request another echo in 2 1/2 years. Is this reasonable?
Date of study: 4/27/05
Quality of study: Poor to fair
Age of patient: 55
Clinical Diagnosis: Aortic insuff
Rhythm: Normal Sinus
Aortic valve: mild brightnies, trileaflet LAd 41x62 (nl <42mm) Aod 38 ( nl <38)
Mitral normal, Pulmonic, normal, tricuspid probably normal
ventricular dimen: LVd 48 ( nl<56 ) RVd 34 LVd 27 with a fractional shortening of 44
Global LV func normal (est EF 50-65% ) approx 65 to 70%. No wall motion abnormalities.
Wall thickness" LV1d 10 ( nl <11mm ) lvpd 10 ( nl <11mm)
doppler analysis: Mild moderate aortic regurg, trace mitral,trace tricuspid, est pa pressure could not evaluate, est RA (cvp) pressure normal
no pericardial effusion
summary: poor to fair quality study performed in sinus rhythm, normal bivengricular size and systolic function, mild to moderate aortic insuff is slighlty worse when compared to last report of 7/30/01 Of note Lv chamber size now 48 and was 53 on last study.
Doctor's Answer
by Cleveland Clinic, Jun 05, 2005 12:00AM
, Jun 05, 2005 12:00AM
jdm,
thanks for the post.
The echo qulity describes the overall study, so your physician may be able to see some parts of the echo betterr than others. It is impossible to comment on the echo without seeing it.
Generally aortic regugitation is followed unless there are symptoms or evidence on the echo of structural damage from the regurgitation such as increasing chamber diameter or decreasing LV function.
I would discuss your specific concerns with your cardiologist.
good luck
thanks for the post.
The echo qulity describes the overall study, so your physician may be able to see some parts of the echo betterr than others. It is impossible to comment on the echo without seeing it.
Generally aortic regugitation is followed unless there are symptoms or evidence on the echo of structural damage from the regurgitation such as increasing chamber diameter or decreasing LV function.
I would discuss your specific concerns with your cardiologist.
good luck
I am so glad that you finally got your question posted through. I hope you get the answers you are seeking. Good luck from the bottom of my heart, believe me I understood your frustration.
I am not a medical doctor , but i know that trivial mitral and tricuspid regurgitation is generally considered a normal finding and is seen on about 20-30% of all echos.I understand that aortic regurgitaion even when mild is not a normal finding, but doesn't necessarily raise a red flag, just needs watching in most, the good news is that your aortic valve is trileaflet and not bicuspid, thats a plus in itself. Remeber this is my opinion only from the literature i have read, I am not a doctor and my interpretations could be completely wrong, so rely on the advice of your cardiologist or trusted doctor.
Have a nice day.