Well it looks like this article has stirred up quite a few people. This was not my intention but it was no doubt my result.
First, I want to say I have vey much enjoyed this forum, the people posting their experiences are great and the information shared is valuable.
That said, I'd like to share a story...
I have family members that are members of a very conservative fundamentalist Christian church. Very good people who truly believe in their churches' teachings.
One day at a cookout, a couple of them began discussing how "liberalism" was destroying America and leading to the destruction of America's children.
Their example was that in San Francisco, the bastion of Liberalism in America, there's a law that allows people to ride the city busses naked.
And what could be more traumatizing and moral decaying to America's children than seeing someone riding the bus naked, right?
I couldn't think of anything.
I was a little taken aback by this, though, so I questioned the existence of this "Law".
Their response: Everyone knows this is true. One relative turned to the other, both shaking their heads and confirming that everyone in their church knows this. It's been talked about many, many times. In fact, it's common knowledge everywhere, except the "Main Stream Media", and to prove it, I could just go to San Francisco myself and ride the bus and I would indeed see naked people.
They were so confident in their answers that I actually googled this to find out if somehow this could possibly be true.
It wasn't.
Now back to this forum...
I'm sure the following will probably stir up a lot more people but it seems this forum is beginning to have an echo chamber vibe that will eventually stifle an otherwise good, supportive place to discuss heart valve issues and lead to disinformation that could harm people.
And I don't think it's intentional. I think it just happens when a few people discuss over and over their beliefs. The beliefs then become solidified and unquestionable.
I see time after time people telling others that "no valve choice is the wrong choice" and then ithey mmediately proceed to tell them why their choice is/was wrong. I'm not sure they realize what they are doing this but this is what I see happening.
I've also seen many postings that question cardiologist's motives by saying cardiologist's are probably taking money from valve makers when they recommend someone choose a valve the poster doesn't agree is best.
These same cardiologists that have dedicated their lives to saving our lives are now not to be trusted because they are obviously on the take for a few dollars if they recommend something other than what the poster "knows" to be best? To me this is a huge turn off.
The reality of this is that people who have the drive, intelligence and the skill to become world class heart surgeons are surely talented enough to go into any field they want and make as much money as the wish. I just don't believe it's about the money with them.
And before anyone says, "Yeah, but a study showed a cardiologist was on the take once", yeah, probably, but overall I'd bet 99.9% of world class heart surgeons are not "on the take" and I'll take my chances with their experience and knowledge over any internet forum poster.
One poster here questioned who my heart surgeon was how he could recommended my specific Inspiris Resillia valve, here's the link to his bio:
https://providers.keckmedicine.org/provider/Vaughn+A.+Starnes/205280
Point being that I think it's obvious that these surgeons/people, who we have placed our lives in their hands and they gave us many more good years of life than we would have ever had without them, are much more qualified and much more knowledgable than anyone posting on an internet forum.
I think it's actually dangerous for new people coming to this forum when making their decisions to be told to disregard the opinions of people like the above Dr. Starnes and be sidetracked by internet researchers or forum posters telling readers they know more than their Drs.
Now, if people are still open to hear the "other side" after reading the above, I believe the article I posted has value in many ways:
1. Many posters on this forum are often perplexed about why their cardiologist recommended a biological valve over a mechanical.
Read the article, maybe this is why?
Maybe trust your cardiologist or surgeon knows more than an internet poster?
2. If the statistics show only 45% of people receiving a biological valve at 50 and 25% at 60 will ever end up having a re-operation for another valve or that less than 20% of people under age 70 who receive a biological valve will have a redo within 15 years, then that's just what the numbers say.
Will you fall somewhere close to these figures? Probably.
Will you be an outlier? Probably not, but who knows. Dick is living proof it can happen and everyone wants to be Dick and go 50 years. I know I do.
Will I be as lucky and seriously as tough as Dick? Hopefully, but probably not. It's just reality.
People also go to Las Vegas by the millions all planning to win big. Do they end up winning big? Yeah some do, but the vast majority don't.
3. If warfarin is no big deal, there would not be literally thousands of posts here and hundreds of thousands of posts all over the internet trying to help people figure it out. Enough said.
If you're en engineer or someone with the mindset of one, great, it probably is no big deal at all.
For the average person, judging by the sheer number of postings, it does seem to be a big deal.
And there are many more "average" people than engineers. There just are.
4. As far as quality of life issues, I'll give an example from my own experience:
A month or so after I had my valve replacement, my wife of 35 years placed her head on my chest in bed for the first time since the surgery and then pulled away a few minutes later. When I asked her what was the matter, she said, "It doesn't sound like you". That bothered both me and her. It's real.
Luckily, it has since quieted down but I don't know how it would have affected both of us if there was a constant and even more "foreign" ticking sound 24 hours a day.
If it doesn't bother you or yours, great, but it may bother others. Again, reality.
5. Another thing that stuck out to me in this article that I think is very valuable to know in making your valve choice is the claim that the average quality of after surgery health with mechanical valves is "Fair" and with biological valves is "Good".
I know posters will tear into the article"s claim with "peer review" questions, how the study was set up, etc., etc. and how the claim is not true because they can climb mountains, etc. (which I have no doubt is true, I just question how typical that is for the average replacement valver)
NOW HERE'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT:
If cardiologists and actual heart valve researchers are correct, I think that knowing the difference in quality of health after surgery is very important information to know when deciding and weighing tradeoffs between both valve types.
Let's say the cardiologists and researchers actually do know what they are talking about and you get 15 years out of a biological valve and "good" health before a replacement re-operation.
Let's also disregard the 10% re-operation rate on mechanical valves and say a mechanical valve will give you "fair" health and will never wear out.
Now you're basically weighing 30 years +- of "good" health plus one more high success rate operation against an undetermined number of years of "fair" health plus daily warfarin, etc. and no more operations.
Maybe not so cut and dry when you look at it like this?
Was this valuable information in a heart valve forum?
(Note also that if you choose the Inspiris Resillia, it's supposed to last longer (but who knows for sure yet) and it's made to accept a TAVR valve in valve that would probably give you another 8-10 years. Depending on my health at the time and whether or not a material like the FOLDEX is available, I would probably go new valve in 15 years and then do a TAVR later as TAVR seems to reduce capacity. That would bring me up to potentially 40 years with "good" health, and one additional operation.}
Quality of health for me was/is a huge issue. I do know that I was ready for some "good", worry free health when my time came after a number of years of tough sledding and I'm very thankful for it. It has changed my life tremendously.
I also think of posters like Paleowoman and her problems with a mismatched valve and her resulting "poor" health she's had to endure for many years. I think she would probably be very interested in and eager for a chance at as many years of "good" health as she could possibly get.
So moral of the story, which option is best?
Individuals need to choose for themselves but it's not as cut and dried as many here make it out/are convinced it to be. Both are valid options.
I also see a danger in this forum becoming an echo chamber and new people coming here for information and answers only to be told that their cardiologists and surgeons are not to be trusted and that warfarin will not be problem for them when it may be.
SO TO THE NEW PEOPLE READING THIS FORUM: The posters on this forum, while well-meaning and knowledgable, are not cardiologists or surgeons. Your decision is life altering, please listen to your cardiologists and surgeons when they tell you something and take these posters advice and experience for what it is, advice and experience from well meaning people, not cardiologists and surgeons.