Breakthrough ReValving Device Developed by CoreValve, S.A.

[Jack]

"ReValving--that is, percutaneously implanting a new heart valve over a defective valve instead of cutting it out--redefines the way valve replacement is performed, changing it from a very complex surgical procedure to a relatively simple, less invasive one. In short, ReValving is the next-generation cath lab therapy for interventional cardiology."
"We believe that CoreValve has redefined the way heart valve replacement will be performed in the future. The ability to resolve a patient's aortic stenosis by performing the CoreValve ReValving procedure in a cath lab is truly a revolutionary event for interventional cardiology. Indeed, we believe this ranks in importance alongside the first angioplasty performed in a human 27 years ago by Dr. Andreas Gruentzig," said Dr. Jacques Seguin, chairman, CEO and founder of CoreValve.

-- Jacques Seguin, MD, PhD, Chairman, CEO and Co-Founder, CoreValve, S.A.

http://home.businesswire.com/portal...d=news_view&newsId=20040720005586&newsLang=en

 

[Phyllis]

That's great news - have been telling Dick who had a Magna bovine aortic valve replacement in 12/03 that the next one down the road (hopefully in 20 years at the age of 90), they would have a simpler procedure - call us optimists, but his Dad is 100, living on his own and in perfect health.

 

[tobagotwo]

Thank you for sharing this information. We are all interested in this.

A few things strike me, though. Heart valves were implanted through catheters in humans several years ago in New Jersey. I posted an article about it at the time. As such, this is not actually a first.

They don't have much on their website except a press release, and some "this sounds like a good idea" statements made by interventional cardiologists (cath specialists, of course).

I would like to know what it's made of, what its useful life is, etc. I also want to know about flow restriction, which could be a thorn with this approach. The assumption is that it's made of a plastic of some sort, perhaps a polyurethane, and requires anticoagulation therapy.

I ain't agin' it, and I think it's going in the right direction, but I am concerned that all the details are so sketchy. There's no depth here yet.

Watchful waiting....

 

[catwoman]

Bob's raised a question that immediately came to my mind --- flow restriction.

Over the years, I've looked at a lot of press releases. Lots of smartly worded praise for a product. Would like to see an independent report in a medical journal about the procedure. But... that's several years down the line.

 

[epstns]

I, too, saw the info a couple of years ago. If I remember correctly, the implanted valve tests were performed on patients who were not candidates for conventional replacement surgery -- due to other health issues, etc. I think they admitted that there would be some flow restriction, as they were limited in the size of valve they could safely implant, but they felt that a small valve would, in some cases, be better than allowing the incumbent valve to fail. I guess it would be like offerring a very sick patient the choice of having, effectively, moderate aortic stenosis or just deteriorating until death. I know which one I'd opt for. . . but at that time the catheter implantation was not yet ready for use on patients who were candidates for conventional valve surgery. Some day, maybe. . .

 

[Mike From Michigan]

I showed the article to my surgeon and he said that this technology is only for special cases (people too weak for surgery). In addition he said that there is a VERY high mortality rate (>80%) for these types of surgeries - similar techniques have been tried in the past.

Nevertheless, we agreed that it is just the tip of the iceberg - remember that the first conventional open heart AVR surgeries 40-50 years ago had a very high mortality rate also - now it is down to about 2 to 3%. Who knows how this technology will develop in the next decade?

As an engineer I have high hopes for the new technological advances to prevail - AVR surgery in 15 to 20 years will be much different than it is today...

 

[mjd414]

Mike I'm betting that you are right!....I had my AVR on 7/14 and my surgeon presumed that I would want a mechanical valve because at 54 years of age, deciding on a tissue valve would mean that a new valve would be necessary by the time I am 70.

What the surgeon did not know was I found VR.com and had educated myself on the entire process, not just the valve itself. After much research and soul searching, I determined that tissue was the only viable option open to me. My fear of dealing with Coumadin was greater than the fear of having a second operation. I also factored in the presumption that medical advancements would be such that in 15+ years from now the procedure would be much "easier". Had I not found this website in time to gather info and make an "educated" decision, I would have assumed the mechanical valve was the only option and I believe I would have made a life long mistake....thank god I found this website and was encouraged by those valvers who ascended the mountain before me to make my own mind up and not just go along for the medical ride!

Mark
Ft. Lauderdale