Hi Liz,
Discuss it will your EP, the CT is better for some images and Ultrasound is better for others. I know they use ultrasound often for Carotid artery intima media thickness and plaque build up detection, and also use CT and even MRI for some vascular imaging as well.
It also has a lot to do with the quality of the CT or Ultrasound and, in particular, the experience and accuracy of the interpreting radiologist. Your treating physician should have much more experience with both methods and can reassure you best.
For example, for the uterine fibroid and ovarian cyst that were discovered originally via contrast CT during my wife's kidney tumor screening scans, the head gynecological oncologist/surgeon at MD Anderson, had Magdalena then get a confirming Ultrasound on these soft tissue structures as that perspective is better suited for really diagnosing and planning on what to do, if anything when dealing with those areas of the body.
The same may not be true for cardiovascular plaque and arteriosclerosis issues, so check back with your EP with your concern and he will explain why he is comfortable with the Ultrasound results since he has seen both the CT and Ultrasound and apparently told you not to worry.
Also, remember, a high precision device like a CT or MRI can find all sorts of artifacts that they will take note of and report on as a matter of discovery, but that doesn't mean that everything they mention detecting is clinically relevant .. in fact most such finding are indeed benign artifacts overall. Perhaps the Ultrasound helps sort out what scenarios are worth treating and what are not worth bothering or with or worrying about? In any event, your EP should be able to easily sort that one out for you and set you mind at ease.
Shannon
