Back after a second opinion, different diagnosis. Grrr, tricuspid stenosis?!?!

[DeuxofUs]

Thanks to all of you who suggested I go get a second opinion after getting "sketchy" readings from my first cardiologist. She had me at 1.6, then a year later down to 1.0 then back to 1.5 after telling me some BS that "sometimes measurements change due to overall experience with aortic valves" She had told me that the measurments had recently changed overall within the medical community but I felt something was off. Many of you thought she misread my echos and didn't want to ADMIT she messed up. Well, looks like that was the case. So, I FIRED her.

Found myself a GREAT cardiologist and this time my gut wasn't screaming at me about this guy. LOVE LOVE LOVE him. I told him about my experience. He even had me do a CSCAN which I always thought my other cardio should have done but her response to me asking for one was "oh you don't need one, I can see enough on the echo".... WTH??? EVEN I KNOW, that you can't and that a CAT scan is the only way to make sure there isn't an aneurysm. By the way there is only mild enlargement.

After waiting a week for my new echo results, my cardio finally called me. He said "it wasn't pretty" but that my numbers are OK. He said I am 1.6 and my velocity and all that stuff is mildly elevated but nothing I need to freak out about. What's even more interesting, he thinks I have a Tricuspid valve. He said he even had some of his cardio buddies look at it and they think so too. He said he could do a TEE but at this point, it wouldn't change anything. He said there is calcification on the valve.

My question is... has anyone heard of tricuspid stenosis?!

 

[karla]

Which valve are you referring to? Aortic?

 

[karla]

Never mind - I see it is your aortic valve.
My guess is that your doc is saying that you don't have a bicuspid aortic valve (2 flaps) - you have a tricuspid aortic valve. He had some buddies double check and they agreed. Normal aortic valves are tricuspid ( 3 flaps) so that is good news! Many people with normal tricuspid aortic valves do get calcifications and get stenosis but normally at a later age than someone who has a bicuspid aortic valve.
Your risk of having an aneurysm should also be less with you having a tricuspid aortic valve instead of a bicuspid aortic valve.
I think you got very good news!

 

[dick0236]

My original diagnosis in the 1960s was "aortic stenosis" due to probable Rheumatic Fever. It is not uncommon for certain infections to destroy and calcify a normal tri-cuspid valve. A couple of doctors have mentioned to me that my valve may have been bicuspid, but my more experienced cardios feel that it probably was a diseased tri-cuspid valve from infection of some kind, and not bicuspid at birth. I have no evidence of an aneurysm which often follows those with bicuspid valves, which may be more indication that it was a tri-cuspid valve. Unfortunately, almost all of my early medical records have disapeared, so there is no way of really knowing what the problems really was. Either bicuspid or tricuspid, surgery corrected the problem.

 

[Ovie]

Glad you went and got a second opinion. When you find the right Cardiologist, I think you just "know". I had the same thing happen, my first cardiologist was very sketchy, and I always left not knowing what was going on until he said I needed surgery, went and got another opinion and fell in love with him. He takes his time, has others look at my results and really puts forth an effort because he cares. I've been seeing him on billboards and tv commercials so he must be doing something right. I always give him crap about it, he just laughs.

Sounds like you know more of where you stand, and are comfortable, that's a great thing! I really hope things continue to be good and you do t meet the table TOO soon.