Bonbet
Well-known member
Hi, I feel compelled to weigh in on this discussion. I am 64, female, and will likely have AVR for my BAV with "severe" stenosis, this year. I am asymptomatic and exercise at least 4-5 days a week. No CAD or BP issues. I have been in the waiting room for over 7 years. I used to be a nurse so I am pretty skeptical, and don't assume docs know it all. And I like docs willing to admit the there is gray area. I have heard some doozies from some of the cardios I have seen over the years. Anyway, at my last check-in with my cardio and surgeon at Mayo in 2015, they recommended a mechanical valve for me. I was surprised because I assumed at my age I would be getting a tissue valve.
So after thinking about their comments and my research: I agree, and here are the factors that inform my opinion: A tissue valve is "bio" tissue and begins deteriorating the moment it is implanted, sometimes slow sometimes fast. My docs think that due to my activity level (and desired activity level post-op there is some evidence that "more active" lifestyles might contribute to a hastening of the tissue valve deterioration. I have not enjoyed the slow deterioration of my native valve, or wondering whether this or that may be a cardiac symptom, or having surgery hanging over my head for years. I think second OHS are riskier, especially at whatever advanced age I may be when I need it - and I don't really want another OHS anyway (think how advanced the superbugs will be by then.) I do not have faith that TAVR will be an option for me when I need the second valve. It takes decades to gather data and refine medical interventions like that. So I'm not counting on it. Not to mention there is a significant percentage of tissue valvers who end up on anti-coagulation anyway.
That doesn't mean that I am blind to the downsides of mechanical either. I am comfortable with the nuances of managing and testing myself. But I worry about what happens as I age and my faculties diminish. I may end up depending on someone else to do it for me. I worry about less-than-thorough bridge coverage if I need a medical procedure (again my medical background kicks in here.) I don't worry about the sound, I can hear my heart now.
I have found doctors that I trust, but not blindly. I question all the assumptions that I recognize as assumptions. BTW a Mayo cardio did a talk on mech vs tissue, and Pellicle posted a link to it a while back
maybe you can find that. It was informative. Also, you say you are sedentary, and at the risk of sounding preachy, I'd say almost more important than any other factor going into OHS is your underlying health.
You know what to do.
It is good to have your surgery where they perform hundreds, possibly thousands per year.
And pick a surgeon who is extremely experienced and has a crack team to work with (again, past work experience- sometimes the nurses are key to your outcome good or bad.)
I am comforted by the fact that this surgery has become so common and people survive and thrive every day post-op. I hope that reassures you as well.
Good luck with your decision making. Happy Trails, bonbet
So after thinking about their comments and my research: I agree, and here are the factors that inform my opinion: A tissue valve is "bio" tissue and begins deteriorating the moment it is implanted, sometimes slow sometimes fast. My docs think that due to my activity level (and desired activity level post-op there is some evidence that "more active" lifestyles might contribute to a hastening of the tissue valve deterioration. I have not enjoyed the slow deterioration of my native valve, or wondering whether this or that may be a cardiac symptom, or having surgery hanging over my head for years. I think second OHS are riskier, especially at whatever advanced age I may be when I need it - and I don't really want another OHS anyway (think how advanced the superbugs will be by then.) I do not have faith that TAVR will be an option for me when I need the second valve. It takes decades to gather data and refine medical interventions like that. So I'm not counting on it. Not to mention there is a significant percentage of tissue valvers who end up on anti-coagulation anyway.
That doesn't mean that I am blind to the downsides of mechanical either. I am comfortable with the nuances of managing and testing myself. But I worry about what happens as I age and my faculties diminish. I may end up depending on someone else to do it for me. I worry about less-than-thorough bridge coverage if I need a medical procedure (again my medical background kicks in here.) I don't worry about the sound, I can hear my heart now.
I have found doctors that I trust, but not blindly. I question all the assumptions that I recognize as assumptions. BTW a Mayo cardio did a talk on mech vs tissue, and Pellicle posted a link to it a while back
maybe you can find that. It was informative. Also, you say you are sedentary, and at the risk of sounding preachy, I'd say almost more important than any other factor going into OHS is your underlying health.
You know what to do.
It is good to have your surgery where they perform hundreds, possibly thousands per year.
And pick a surgeon who is extremely experienced and has a crack team to work with (again, past work experience- sometimes the nurses are key to your outcome good or bad.)
I am comforted by the fact that this surgery has become so common and people survive and thrive every day post-op. I hope that reassures you as well.
Good luck with your decision making. Happy Trails, bonbet