My doc is suggesting a mechancial aortic valve due to my age of 52. He says the tissue has a life of 12-15 years. I brought up the ON-X and he isn't a fan yet. Although the St. Jude technology is 30 years old, he claims the valve has been modified over the years to add improved features.
Ted
I hate it when Doc's raise an objection but do NOT clarify / substantiate their objection.
That raises several questions in my mind, such as:
Is he familiar with the (On-X) product?
i.e. Technological improvements over older designs -
1 - harder, smoother, stronger pyrolytic carbon > reduced clot formation
2 - leaflets open a full 90 degrees for less turbulence >reduce potential for clot formation
3 - pivots redesigned for reduced damage to blood cells(hemolysis)
4 - barrier to retard Pannus Tissue growth which can block or impinge leaflet motion
Does he know it's history? (time on market - On-X since 1996, number implanted - approaching 70,000, stats,
Or is he simply biased in favor of his preferred valve?
(or the valves that won the Bidding War at his hospital)
Note that surgeons who do not perform the Ross Procedure usually don't have much good to say about that option either.
IF you have a valve preference, it often comes down to finding a Surgeon that is familiar with your desired valve / procedure (which is something we don't hear often from our cardiologists or refering Doctors).
I suspect there may be similar issues with Surgeons when it comes to the latest developments in Tissue Valves as well.