B
bethanne
"The most common cause of aortic insufficiency (AI) is dilatation of the aortic root. Asymptomatic patients with AS or AI have a good prognosis. Once symptoms develop, however, the prognosis becomes poor. Operation should be considered to treat patients with symptomatic aortic valve disease. Operation should also be offered to patients with asymptomatic AS when the aortic valve area is less than 0.8 cm2, the mean systolic gradient is greater than 50 mm Hg, or the flow velocity across the valve by echocardiography is more than 4 m/sec"
This exerpt is taken from an article located : http://www2.us.elsevierhealth.com/s...searchDB&searchDBfor=iss&id=jsg993606&target=
granted I am a layperson trying to understand what I am reading here... Any feedback on how you would interpret this exerpt?
Over the past couple of months I have been trying to resolve my concerns over my diagnosis of aortic regurgitation and symptoms of fatigue increased with exercise, yet bi-cuspid aortic valve measurements are within acceptable range. August echo showed 60-70% EF however Feb echo shows decrease to 52%. My recent appointment with new cardio (second opinion) asked the question, "what does your aortic root look like?" therefore she plans for me to have an mri in the next couple of weeks. so I have been researching the significance of a dilated aortic root and interested on what info or experience others may have with this?
This new doctor was genuinely pleased that I was fairly knowledgeable about my condition and was therefore able to talk fairly openly about things.
Shouldn't the aortic root been observed during previous echo exams? and since this typically is associated with congenital bi-cuspid valvers should the status have been included as standard with test results. stating normal, dilated or otherwise? Although I am thrilled to have the MRI has this appears to be a very revealing non-invasive test.. It appears from what my cardio said last week that the aortic root should always be checked out with congenital bi-cuspid aortic valvers.
This exerpt is taken from an article located : http://www2.us.elsevierhealth.com/s...searchDB&searchDBfor=iss&id=jsg993606&target=
granted I am a layperson trying to understand what I am reading here... Any feedback on how you would interpret this exerpt?
Over the past couple of months I have been trying to resolve my concerns over my diagnosis of aortic regurgitation and symptoms of fatigue increased with exercise, yet bi-cuspid aortic valve measurements are within acceptable range. August echo showed 60-70% EF however Feb echo shows decrease to 52%. My recent appointment with new cardio (second opinion) asked the question, "what does your aortic root look like?" therefore she plans for me to have an mri in the next couple of weeks. so I have been researching the significance of a dilated aortic root and interested on what info or experience others may have with this?
This new doctor was genuinely pleased that I was fairly knowledgeable about my condition and was therefore able to talk fairly openly about things.
Shouldn't the aortic root been observed during previous echo exams? and since this typically is associated with congenital bi-cuspid valvers should the status have been included as standard with test results. stating normal, dilated or otherwise? Although I am thrilled to have the MRI has this appears to be a very revealing non-invasive test.. It appears from what my cardio said last week that the aortic root should always be checked out with congenital bi-cuspid aortic valvers.
