Aa
MRA / Echocardiogram Results
26 year old / Male / 6'1" / 160 / good family history
Last month a had an echocardiogram done which showed 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 at 3.9). I'm not sure if this is the 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 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 mention anything about my ascending aorta. With the root measurement at 2.6 and no sign of dissection (according to MRA results), 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 (according to MRA) do I still need to check the size of the ascending aorta?
Last month a had an echocardiogram done which showed 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 at 3.9). I'm not sure if this is the 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 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 mention anything about my ascending aorta. With the root measurement at 2.6 and no sign of dissection (according to MRA results), 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 (according to MRA) do I still need to check the size of the ascending aorta?
I'm no expert, but I've been told that 5.0 cm is the point at which they may operate to replace the aorta root. I'm 62 and mine is 4.9cm. See my posts on this.
This would need to be in the Heart forum for an answer from an MD.
It's hard to post there, try every day from 8a to 10 or 11a EST for the best chance. Keep trying.
It's hard to post there, try every day from 8a to 10 or 11a EST for the best chance. Keep trying.
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the Men's Health Community
Top Men's Health Answerers
London, United Kingdom
Indore, India
Southwest , MI
STDs can't be transmitted by casual contact, like hugging or touching.
Syphilis is an STD that is transmitted by oral, genital and anal sex.
Discharge often isn't normal, and could mean an infection or an STD.
Chlamydia, an STI, often has no symptoms, but must be treated.
Bumps in the genital area might be STDs, but are usually not serious.
Get the facts about this disease that affects more than 240,000 men each year.
