This is the second post in Affair of the Heart, a series that takes place at the intersection of a highly-experienced science writer and the medical system.
A few months after my brother almost died from an aortic dissection, when his aorta began to break down right where it emerges from the heart, I was in the office of a respected Washington cardiologist to get myself checked out.
He ordered a stress test, which I completed with no sign of any problems—I was a dedicated runner, after all. But when I asked him whether a stress test would indicate precursors to aortic dissection, he agreed it probably wouldn’t. That would require an echocardiogram—ultrasound imaging that shows the structure of the heart and aorta and, thanks to the Doppler effect, displays the flow of blood through the heart chambers and major blood vessels in hues of red and blue. It so happened that an echo machine was available in his office at that moment, so I had the procedure there and then. The cardiologist left to see another patient, saying he would be very surprised if the echocardiogram showed any abnormalities.
The next morning, however, he called to say the imaging had turned up something: a mild dilation of the aortic root. He prescribed a beta blocker, a drug that lowers blood pressure, slows the heart rate, and reduces the strength of the heart’s contraction, relieving some of the stress on the aortic root. And he recommended a follow-up echocardiogram in 6 months.
The follow-up echo apparently showed little or no change, and another one a year later also showed no further dilation. So I became complacent. I let the time between supposedly annual imaging stretch out a couple of years–or more. Continue reading





