Aneurysm measurement confusion.

[DavesMom]

Hi all,

I've been having CTs for the past decade to follow an ascending aortic aneurysm. (I had an AVR/aneurysm repair in 1999.) From 2008-2016 the aneurysm measured anywhere from 4.3 - 4.6 cm. In 2017 it appeared to have shrunk, measuring only 3.8. My cardio double checked with the radiologist, who said it was difficult to measure due to a "tortuous aorta." I figured it was just a glitch until last month's CT scan only referred to a "notable dilation." No aneurysm, no measurement.

So it's gone from around 4.5ish to 3.8 last year and now only a "notable dialation?" Is it just me or does this make no sense? I wonder if something has changed that's made the annie even more difficult to visualize. How could that happen? I have my year appointment with the cardio this week, so would appreciate any thoughts on this. The report says stable, which is good, but I still don't feel comfortable not having an exact measurement.

Thanks in advance for your opinions and hope everyone's well.

 

[pellicle]

Hi

Hi
the answer is found in your words

I've been having CTs for the past decade to follow an ascending aortic aneurysm. (I had an AVR/aneurysm repair in 1999.) From 2008-2016 the aneurysm measured anywhere from 4.3 - 4.6 cm.
In 2017 ...measuring .. 3.8. My cardio double checked with the radiologist, who said it was difficult to measure due to a "tortuous aorta."

measuring these things is not like reading a number off the side of a tape mesaure (and people still get that wrong)

I figured it was just a glitch until last month's CT scan only referred to a "notable dilation."

where as I'd put it down to

1. improvement in diagnostic accuracy
2. a more competent and experienced radiologist

No aneurysm, no measurement.

happy days

So now just go back yearly and watch

...so would appreciate any thoughts on this. The report says stable, which is good, but I still don't feel comfortable not having an exact measurement.

if you want clarity in life you'll have to ask a politician like Donald Trump ... the rest of us have to deal with the fact that many things are not "black and white"

Sounds like you got a good outcome if you ask me. Now all you have to do is break the habit of being worried ... and humans are creatures of habit.



Best Wishes

 

[nate99]

congratulations! If only we were all so lucky

It is definitely concerning, because hanging out at 4.6 cm, depending on your height and if you had access to a great surgical place like Cleveland Clinic, they might have already suggested surgery. Would it have been unnecessary? Would they have actually found there was an aneurysm and the more recent measurements were wrong?

This sort of ties in with the other thread I started, but may I ask, do you feel like you were doing anything during those 8 years to manage your "may or may not be aneurysm" whether it be diet or exercise or medication?

 

[DavesMom]

Pellicle and Nate - Thanks so much. Pellicle, I'll admit I'm a worrier when it comes to this, especially since I have a congenital condition that puts me at a higher risk for dissection. So I appreciate your positive spin on things. I realllllyyyyy needed that. : )

Nate - haven't really done anything except take Coreg and do light exercise. Yes, I'm very short and small, so 4.6 is getting up there. But that's what has me really confused - are the earlier measurements correct or the ones from the past couple of years? From everything I've read aneurysms certainly don't shrink, so can't imagine it's miraculously disappearing.

Thanks again for the replies. Take care.

 

[nate99]

I would be skeptical as well, particularly because the readings had been so consistent over time. I guess you won't really know until you have another one, which they say is in a year's time. Either

1. everything before this reading was off
2. this reading is off
3. it's all accurate and you somehow stumbled upon a way to shrink ascending aneurysms

 

[pellicle]

Hi

P...Thanks so much. .... So I appreciate your positive spin on things. I realllllyyyyy needed that. : )
.

all good ... actually I wasn't doing a "positive spin doctoring on it" , that's just literally how I see the real risks. I'm always a "tell it to me straight" kinda guy.

But (as I see it) the risks as you understood them before have been reduced. Its possible you may not need surgery at all (can't comment on the probability of that as I've not investigated the rates / dialation to intervention stuff. Either way I reckon its just the hassle of remembering you have those appointments every year (calendar) and forget about it between.

Do give up smoking if you happen to do that thou ...

Best Wishes

 

[user 16827]

Hi Davesmom

2nd similar story in a week, nice to read things like this, its good to be skeptical i get that but
enjoy the sunshine while its lasts

best of luck