Ross
Well-known member
Some thoughts on Mech vs Xenograft
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a terrible coin flip.
The survival rate is about the same for either path over time.
Some people go through their surgeries with surprising ease. Some have a hard time of it. Some people do just fine with Coumadin management. Others have difficulties, perhaps because their body chemistries are not as stable.
The problem is, you don't get to see which one of these you are until afterwards.
The general bleeding issue attributed to Coumadin is not as great in younger patients, and then is primarily in head injuries that would also cause internal bleeding in a non-ACT-treated person. Until you pass traditional retirement age, it isn't very likely that you'll bleed to death from a "normal" injury or cut, or general rough-and-tumble. (Although the slap-shot hockey puck in the head might do it.)
The risk of valve-related stroke or embolism is similar in a properly anticoagulated mechanical valve recipient and one with a biological valve who is not taking antiplatelet drugs (e.g., aspirin or Plavix). However, the risk of intracranial hemorrhage on Coumadin is increased 7- to 10-fold. Hold it - not as bad as it sounds. The result is only a .3% to 1% risk. [Management of intracranial bleeding associated with anticoagulation: balancing the risk of further bleeding against thromboembolism from prosthetic heart valves Francesca Crawley, David Bevan, Damian Wren http://jnnp.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/69/3/396 ]
Well, you say, then just give me the tissue valve and pass me the baby aspirin. Then I'll sweeten the odds in two ways. Ahh, not so simple. The tissue valve has the disadvantage of requiring resurgery over time, which only happens occasionally with mechanical valves. That's where the risk for xenograft valves catches up with mechanicals: in the reoperations.
The risks balance over age. A younger patient risks more from multiple surgeries with biological valves. An older patient with more fragile veins risks more with warfarin and the risk of intracranial or gastrointestinal bleeding from hemorrhage.
Again, the survival rate is about the same for either path over time.
For people in their forties, I think it's the hardest call of all.
At 52, I realized that I would have one more surgery in my lifetime with a tissue valve. It was the decision I made. The surgery and recovery went very smoothly for me, and I am content with it. The result for me is an independent existence, with my sole compromise being that I take preventative antibiotics before dental cleanings and intrusive medical procedures. But it doesn't go that smoothly for everyone.
And at 45, it would have been a muddier decision. The first valve might last a shorter time, due to a more active, younger chemistry. I might wind up needing a third valve in my seventies. That's a bad time to go get a new one, although a catheter-delivered valve will likely be a viable option at that point.
Also, it is to be remembered that the year or so before the bovine or porcine tissue valve needs replacement, it isn't operating up to capacity, much as your current, natural valve isn't now.
However, managing Coumadin for 35 years isn't "nothing," either, even for those who do it well. There are issues with standard medical tests (many threads on colonoscopy, for instance). There are cretinous doctors, nurses, and ER personnel who don't understand ACT and make poor medical care decisions. There are issues with many ignorant dentists regarding dental work while on ACT. There are blood draws and visits to the clinic (even with home machines), and the medication is critical, as the embolism/stroke risk rises from one percent to four percent without anticoagulation. There is also added concern when undergoing any other type of surgery, in balancing the risk of bleeding with the risk of the mechanical valve throwing a clot. It makes sense to consider the possibility of other physical problems developing over time. Many people take these things right in stride. Some find them depressing or frightening.
Then there are the crossover issues. Having a tissue valve doesn't mean you might not wind up on Coumadin eventually for atrial fibrillation or a stroke or heart attack episode. And mechanical valves aren't always forever, as there are a few things your body may do that can cause them to have to be replaced (usually not due to their failure, but due to an expanding aortic root, a change in your heart circumstances, or growth of tissue on the valve).
If you've got a bicuspid valve, I would strongly suggest you discuss with your surgeon the possibility of stabilizing your aortic root, regardless of the type of valve you choose. This appears to be a primary cause for failures of Ross Procedures as well as some valve replacements.
There are many good threads about the choice of valve types (and then of brands and models within those types) on the site. Use the advanced search to locate some of them. You will notice some heat in most of the discussions, as it is a matter of passion to many who've made the choice. Please try to ignore the unavoidably human histrionics and glean the thoughts and information from these threads.
My only real advice is to find the arguments that ring truest to you personally, and go with your gut feel. As I said, the odds are basically interchangeable, so the only right decision is the one that feels best to you, that suits your personality and your mental and emotional makeup. And once you've made your decision, never look back.
Best wishes, gentlemen.
__________________
Bob H
"No Eternal Reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn..." Jim Morrison
I am not a Medical Professional. Aortic Stenosis w/severe calcification. Aortic valve replaced by Medtronics Mosaic porcine tissue valve on 4/6/04. The procedure was performed by Dr. Tyrone Krause, Chief of Thoracic Surgery, Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, NJ. Dr. Krause is a true Zen Master Mechanic in the world of valve replacement surgery.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a terrible coin flip.
The survival rate is about the same for either path over time.
Some people go through their surgeries with surprising ease. Some have a hard time of it. Some people do just fine with Coumadin management. Others have difficulties, perhaps because their body chemistries are not as stable.
The problem is, you don't get to see which one of these you are until afterwards.
The general bleeding issue attributed to Coumadin is not as great in younger patients, and then is primarily in head injuries that would also cause internal bleeding in a non-ACT-treated person. Until you pass traditional retirement age, it isn't very likely that you'll bleed to death from a "normal" injury or cut, or general rough-and-tumble. (Although the slap-shot hockey puck in the head might do it.)
The risk of valve-related stroke or embolism is similar in a properly anticoagulated mechanical valve recipient and one with a biological valve who is not taking antiplatelet drugs (e.g., aspirin or Plavix). However, the risk of intracranial hemorrhage on Coumadin is increased 7- to 10-fold. Hold it - not as bad as it sounds. The result is only a .3% to 1% risk. [Management of intracranial bleeding associated with anticoagulation: balancing the risk of further bleeding against thromboembolism from prosthetic heart valves Francesca Crawley, David Bevan, Damian Wren http://jnnp.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/69/3/396 ]
Well, you say, then just give me the tissue valve and pass me the baby aspirin. Then I'll sweeten the odds in two ways. Ahh, not so simple. The tissue valve has the disadvantage of requiring resurgery over time, which only happens occasionally with mechanical valves. That's where the risk for xenograft valves catches up with mechanicals: in the reoperations.
The risks balance over age. A younger patient risks more from multiple surgeries with biological valves. An older patient with more fragile veins risks more with warfarin and the risk of intracranial or gastrointestinal bleeding from hemorrhage.
Again, the survival rate is about the same for either path over time.
For people in their forties, I think it's the hardest call of all.
At 52, I realized that I would have one more surgery in my lifetime with a tissue valve. It was the decision I made. The surgery and recovery went very smoothly for me, and I am content with it. The result for me is an independent existence, with my sole compromise being that I take preventative antibiotics before dental cleanings and intrusive medical procedures. But it doesn't go that smoothly for everyone.
And at 45, it would have been a muddier decision. The first valve might last a shorter time, due to a more active, younger chemistry. I might wind up needing a third valve in my seventies. That's a bad time to go get a new one, although a catheter-delivered valve will likely be a viable option at that point.
Also, it is to be remembered that the year or so before the bovine or porcine tissue valve needs replacement, it isn't operating up to capacity, much as your current, natural valve isn't now.
However, managing Coumadin for 35 years isn't "nothing," either, even for those who do it well. There are issues with standard medical tests (many threads on colonoscopy, for instance). There are cretinous doctors, nurses, and ER personnel who don't understand ACT and make poor medical care decisions. There are issues with many ignorant dentists regarding dental work while on ACT. There are blood draws and visits to the clinic (even with home machines), and the medication is critical, as the embolism/stroke risk rises from one percent to four percent without anticoagulation. There is also added concern when undergoing any other type of surgery, in balancing the risk of bleeding with the risk of the mechanical valve throwing a clot. It makes sense to consider the possibility of other physical problems developing over time. Many people take these things right in stride. Some find them depressing or frightening.
Then there are the crossover issues. Having a tissue valve doesn't mean you might not wind up on Coumadin eventually for atrial fibrillation or a stroke or heart attack episode. And mechanical valves aren't always forever, as there are a few things your body may do that can cause them to have to be replaced (usually not due to their failure, but due to an expanding aortic root, a change in your heart circumstances, or growth of tissue on the valve).
If you've got a bicuspid valve, I would strongly suggest you discuss with your surgeon the possibility of stabilizing your aortic root, regardless of the type of valve you choose. This appears to be a primary cause for failures of Ross Procedures as well as some valve replacements.
There are many good threads about the choice of valve types (and then of brands and models within those types) on the site. Use the advanced search to locate some of them. You will notice some heat in most of the discussions, as it is a matter of passion to many who've made the choice. Please try to ignore the unavoidably human histrionics and glean the thoughts and information from these threads.
My only real advice is to find the arguments that ring truest to you personally, and go with your gut feel. As I said, the odds are basically interchangeable, so the only right decision is the one that feels best to you, that suits your personality and your mental and emotional makeup. And once you've made your decision, never look back.
Best wishes, gentlemen.
__________________
Bob H
"No Eternal Reward will forgive us now for wasting the dawn..." Jim Morrison
I am not a Medical Professional. Aortic Stenosis w/severe calcification. Aortic valve replaced by Medtronics Mosaic porcine tissue valve on 4/6/04. The procedure was performed by Dr. Tyrone Krause, Chief of Thoracic Surgery, Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital, New Brunswick, NJ. Dr. Krause is a true Zen Master Mechanic in the world of valve replacement surgery.