expected longevity of 25-yearo

[dick0236]

To: Pizza-fan
I suggest that you not spend too much time on "life expectancy" or any of the other "what Iffs". With modern surgery your life expectancy will be almost as normal as anyone, and as others have posted, it may be better since you maintain a closer relationship with health care providers. And, if you need a followup surgery in the future, think of how improved surgery will be in 10, 20 or 50 years. My surgery was done when I was 31 because my doctors almost guaranteed me that I would die before age 40 without a valve replacement. THAT'S what you call a short life expectancy. It would be abnormal not to think about "life expectancy" etc., but do not dwell on it. I had those thoughts for many years and I can tell you now that I wasted a lot of productive time on thoughts that have yet to materilize. My MAV is now almost 40 years old and it is still going strong. In fact, I'm counting on it to get me thru 18 holes of GOLF tomorrow. Its going to be 75 degrees F.

 

[Philip B]

Life Expectancy???

Life Expectancy???

Hey Pizza Fan,

Roughly twenty-seven years ago a cardiologist guaranteed me that I wouldn't live past age thirty without an immediate AVR surgery. I figure the doc either needed money for his BMW payments or I really got really lucky.

Looking at the life expectancy issue can be a real downer. I spent a few years thinking about what that doc told me and let it affect me like some kind of death sentence. Some folks have offered some good thoughts here. Don't let the life expectancy thing mess with your head.

I also suggest not avoiding the problem like I did. I didn't even consider seeing a cardiologist until a recent trip to the ER for a cut finger resulted in the ER doc creating a fuss over the "washing machine" she heard in my chest. A little research, an echo, and a visit to a cardiologist brought me to the realization that I've hit the age range where AVR is usually necessary. I'll get a new valve later this month.

Yes, the whole AVR thing feaks me out, but my cardio doc and surgeon both assure me that an artificial valve will still be clicking away when the rest of me quits. I believe them. I've met people with who, like some of the folks who've posted here, have had valve replacements, are going strong, and have no intention of quiting anytime soon.

It's much better to focus on positives. Listen to the counsel of a good cardio doc you can trust and make decisions to insure a long and high quaity life.

-Philip

 

[jeffp]

I think the reason for the pessimistic outlook in younger AVR patients is due to the study basing their statistical extrapolation based on mono-leaflet mechanical valves. I am not aware of anyone putting this type of valve in patients anymore. (Are they even still available?) They were very much more thrombogenic that the current crop of bi-leaflet valves. The lifetime likelihood of someone your age having an event eventually with that type of valve was placed at around 50% from the chart. I think if you search around you can find studies on the St. Jude or On-X sites with a the relative risk of the mono-leaflet valve vs their newer valves. If you take the square root of the risk ratio (newer valve risk / older valve risk) and multiply this by the number of addition years expected, it should put you close the newer valve type life expectancy. I haven't searched for the numbers, but I'll wager they'll put you at around 70 or so by the time you'll go (statistically speaking), which is right around normal for a young'un like yourself.
Don't worry about stuff you can't do much about. That'll shorten your life more that the numbers!

 

[Pizza-fan]

hemodynamics

hemodynamics

Thank you all!

Does the lower hemodynamics of the artificial valve play a role by the longevity, or ghange the quality only?

Vic

 

[PathFinder]

new studies!

new studies!

Hey, Vic!

Once I asked many qestions too, finding another chapter of the document you have pointed. This thesis is published in 2001 after a conference for using simulations in prognosing longevities. But it only demonstrates the mechanism of simulation and don't show the current attitude of the long operation-outcomes. The finding, that retrospective data give an average life of 25-yearo = 27,6 years after AVR must be seen from the better side! The thesis uses a study, which is publicitated in 1999 [10. Grunkemeier GL, Li HH, Starr A. Heart valve replacement: a statistical review of 35 years' results. J Heart Valve Dis 1999; 8:466-70.]. That means, that it has ended somewhere in '99 or 98'. Averaging 27,6 means that some of the patients have been operated 30 or even more years befor (and some of them are still alive). When we substract 30+ years from 1998 we get something like 1965-1970... Do I have to make a comment to the differencies of outcome in 1965 and 2007???

Here are some people like Tobagotwo, who can confirm it even better than me. (He had done it for me in a very subscribing post. You can see it in a "life expectancy" thread from 2-3 monts ago in "Heart talk"). He also described how young patients were operated very later in a disease phase, when heart was already damaged, becouse of not so correct techniques for observing the parametters.

If you are so believable to stats and maths, then I hope my post helped you some.

Ivo

 

[Pizza-fan]

yes

yes

Thank you for the analysis, Path!

 

[Pizza-fan]

corelation

corelation

Hi, VR's!

May anybody tell, is there a corelation between BAV and any heart-muscle defects, in general? Or it is just a aorta's connective tissue disorder, independed of the cardiomuscles?

Vic