P
Paul_R
Well I met with my cardiologist and surgeon last Monday. During my visit with my cardio to go over my MRI she mentioned that my mitral valve looked like it may need just a "simple stitch" to repair what looks like a cleft in the leaflet (this is common defect associated with Primum ASD which I am also having repaired). Naturally my mind is saying to me, maybe I won't need anything done with my mitral valve after all. No doubt about it I am desperately holding onto denial.
So, fresh with the "wonderful " news dancing in my head, I set off to meet with my surgeon Dr. Laks. Well to make a long story short, Dr. Laks procedes to tell me in no uncertain terms that he will need to repair the mitral valve . Wait a second! I just heard from my cardio that I don't need my valve repaired. What happened? Obvious denial is what happened.
Dr. Laks asked me what my preference was if he couldn't repair the valve. Did I want a mechanical or a biological valve? I was caught flat footed on this question but told him with the limited knowledge that I have about the choices that I would favor a biological valve but that I would take some time to consider my options before finalizing my decision. I will say this, he wasn't particular happy about me indicating a preference for a biological valve though.
From what I read on this forum and elsewhere, I don't think I have any good choices when it comes to a replacement valve. I am 40 years old and if I go with biological valve it may not last 10 years and if I go with a mechanical valve the coumidan will preclude me from ever playing ice hockey again. Nor do I care for the discipline that being on coumadin would require and I don't look forward having another OHS surgery 10 years done the road when I am 50. But, I am on the fence with one leg over on the biological valve side.
Sorry for the long winded post but would love to hear what others have to say about the mechanical vs biological pros and cons.
Surgery is scheduled Sept 13th.
So, fresh with the "wonderful " news dancing in my head, I set off to meet with my surgeon Dr. Laks. Well to make a long story short, Dr. Laks procedes to tell me in no uncertain terms that he will need to repair the mitral valve . Wait a second! I just heard from my cardio that I don't need my valve repaired. What happened? Obvious denial is what happened.
Dr. Laks asked me what my preference was if he couldn't repair the valve. Did I want a mechanical or a biological valve? I was caught flat footed on this question but told him with the limited knowledge that I have about the choices that I would favor a biological valve but that I would take some time to consider my options before finalizing my decision. I will say this, he wasn't particular happy about me indicating a preference for a biological valve though.
From what I read on this forum and elsewhere, I don't think I have any good choices when it comes to a replacement valve. I am 40 years old and if I go with biological valve it may not last 10 years and if I go with a mechanical valve the coumidan will preclude me from ever playing ice hockey again. Nor do I care for the discipline that being on coumadin would require and I don't look forward having another OHS surgery 10 years done the road when I am 50. But, I am on the fence with one leg over on the biological valve side.
Sorry for the long winded post but would love to hear what others have to say about the mechanical vs biological pros and cons.
Surgery is scheduled Sept 13th.