Hey Dano
I hope that all goes well on the 7th as I believe it should
I dunno if 64 i I see your year of birth or not but if it then that's mine too (ahh, it is I see because the needed information wasn't in your bio it was on a "profile post"). Like you I got about 20 years from a homograft which was still functional and would probably have done another few years were it not for the 5.6cm aneurysm. But unlike you I had my homograft (almost) 10 years earlier at 28.
Unlike you my situation was that
I'd already had a surgery at 10 years old to 'split the cusp" on my native bicuspid aortic valve. That functioned sufficiently to give me 10 good years and then a number of years of decline until I got my homograft.
So at that time I was facing my 3rd surgery (you are now facing your 2nd) and so that makes a difference. This means I was "one up" on surgery count.
I was advised (and I believe quite rightly) to take a mechanical because in the words of my surgeon: "good surgeons will not be lining up behind you to do your 4th"
That made sense to me (knowing what I already knew well about scar tissue, infections and what not). I think its fair to say that my childhood experiences had a strong influence on my doing biochemistry and microbiol as my Science Degree when I graduated school. It was not least to study and understand me but to try to learn about "will I pass this on to any children" (the answer was a probable yes).
So when I read this I feel vexed:
I feel vexed about this point of being "a bit defensive" ... why is that?
I've been on this site a lot for around 10 years, I knew Ross personally (via online chats and emails, we never met of course because I was either in Australia or Finland) and have had many conversations with him and others about how toxic this site was in the past with many big fights between "the tribes" to the extent that older regulars here still have knee jerk reactions.
When I joined the site the
primary sponsor was On-X valves and I would occasionally point out to rabid anti mech valve haters (yes, they were around) that before bashing mech valves as relentlessly as they were they should look up to the top banner and ask "will the sponsor feel an appropriate benefit from having their name associated with a site which was for quite a few years
rabidly against mech. I was unsurprised when Hank lost that sponsorship.
In particular the most fierce arguments have come when advice for "pro tissue" people come from people who were over 60 at operation and being given to a poster who is under 50 (sometimes under 40). These people are projecting their situation and decision (or lack of it) onto a person who will then need another operation as a result of this.
Since then there has been an ongoing attack on anyone (usually me) who stands firm on their opinions, this varies from outright character assassination to hundreds of sly passive aggressive barbs over the years. Usually when arguments are demonstrated as not logical or misconceived they end in "
there is no wrong choice" (so why ask) or "
none of us are doctors here" (except some are).
Stepping back a bit from the past (which perhaps you missed) my view here has always been this set:
- if you're above a certain age there is no compelling reason to have a mechanical valve in the data (and the further above that age you are the less compelling it is)
- if you are not going to follow your ACT management properly then get any other valve because in the long run that will not harm you as much (from reoperation) as failure to comply with ACT will (from a stroke or an amputation)
- anyone under a certain age and who will comply with ACT then the case is very strong that (aneurysm being taken out of the equation) you will never need another surgery on that valve
If that makes me "biased" then I'll wear that shirt.
Stats suggest that the average age for AVR is over 65 and that greater than 75% of surgeries are bioprosthesis. This data fits what I see here
and means that you and I (and a few others here)
are data outliers.
That there are more "mech valver" participants here is also an expectable thing because unlike tissue valvers who go their merry way and fall nicely into the follow up for their next surgery, mech valvers need to manage INR and many are confronted by the biggest obstacle to that: the medical system in the USA.
Accordingly they come here seeking assistance and or to vent frustration and so their population is perhaps over represented (although I don't think that's the case). Being in the main younger patients they are perhaps more articulate and well researched (*younger means median age of 50 instead).
They (I) may make a case to anyone who asks about valve choice that the decision to discount mechanical is often based on
misinformation, and if you are younger than 60 that the "
Surgical Guidelines" would suggest that a younger patient should consider a mechanical first and
only on informed choice pick a tissue prosthetic.
So (speaking for myself) I'm here to help with them seeing that actual information and not the misinformation, because sadly there are many myths and false preconceptions about ACT. People can either accept that information or reject it. I don't mind and I stand nothing to lose or gain from their decision.
But to (all but) accuse us of being tribal is pretty unwarranted IMO.
Best Wishes on the 7th