I had a Cath 18 years ago and they went in through the groin, I had to lay flat for 8 hours afterwards. This time the Dr said they would go through my neck for a right ad left Cath. Didn't even know there was a difference. Anyways has anyone here ever had this done in the neck? What should I expect? I don't like to google things lol.
Heart Cath
- Thread starter Xtremlee
- Start date
Help Support Valve Replacement Forums:
I am having a cath tomorrow at Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville. I was told they will likely go through the groin, and I have to lay still for 3-4 hours after. I will follow up on what happens with me afterward. Good luck with your procedure!
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2021
- Messages
- 101
I had my first cath in 1978 and they went through my groin. Last year when I had a cath that is what I expected but they went through my wrist and my neck, doing both a left and right cath. I wasn't in recovery that long. I couldn't lift anything more than a coffee cup with that one hand for 48 hours.
I had my cardiac cath on Thursday, they also went through my arm. I am awaiting the full results, but was told my arteries are "clear!"
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2021
- Messages
- 137
I had one done about 9 months ago, prior to my AVR, and it was through my wrist. I did have it done on two occasions previously maybe 25 to 30 years ago and they were through my groin.
That's great, hoping for excellent full results as well.
70sdiver
Well-known member
I'm schedules tomorrow The cardiologist said he would go thru my wrist.
carolinemc
Well-known member
When I able to schedule, I hope they may chose the arm than the groin. It would be my first. Have had two through the groin. Not bad though.
dwhist
Well-known member
My first 11 years ago was through the groin. I was awake watching monitor and towards the end another fellow came in and showed the doc how to place a new closure item in groin to reduce bleeding.
Two years ago I had my second and they prepped me to go through the wrist. I remember talking to person in procedure room about his background who was prepping wrist. Was knocked out and when I woke up discovered they went through wrist and groin. Something about twisted arteries. Good news was arteries better than the first test.
Either way, was not a big deal.
Two years ago I had my second and they prepped me to go through the wrist. I remember talking to person in procedure room about his background who was prepping wrist. Was knocked out and when I woke up discovered they went through wrist and groin. Something about twisted arteries. Good news was arteries better than the first test.
Either way, was not a big deal.
70sdiver
Well-known member
My test came out pretty good.I have two 5percent blockages .cardioligist said there good for now.
70sdiver
Well-known member
I forgot they went thru my wrist I was awake the whole time. The wrist and arm are a little sore today.
Sorry for the delay in response. I had a right and left Cath done. I was kinda expecting to be knocked out to a point but they didn't give me anything until I was in the OR. They wanted me awake for the one in the neck but I don't remember it. I woke up when they were going into my wrist and said what are y'all doing? It was kind of painful in my wrist and then they knocked me back out. I also had a TEE at the same time. When I woke up my teeth hurt so bad I couldn't even bite into a piece of bread. The teeth pain lasted for about a week. They are finally better. I had two previous TEE and that didn't happen. My arteries are clean but I do have a leak in the outside of the mechanical valve.
70sdiver
Well-known member
So I meet with the surgeon Dr. Aldea at the University of Washington medical center.I'm scheduled for a cat scan on Tuesday ,he said he would do a Tavr or open heart .He pretty much told me I can choose if the cat scan are good for tvar ,but i also have afib that's been controlled with medication for the last 7 years so I'am probablty leaning towards open heart tho it scares the hell out of me.If I go open heart I could have a maze procedure at the same time and probably able to come off the flecanide for the afib.I'm about to turn 66 on the 21st and I worry about wearing out the valve and needing another in the future. if anyone would like to share there thoughts on which way to go it would really help. I forgot to ask the doctor if I went with tvar if he could do an ablation for the afib at the same time or at a later date.
70sdiver
Well-known member
Sorry to hear about the leak what direction ore they taking with the leak?
pellicle
Professional Dingbat, Guru and Merkintologist
Hey
stuff like this is good to put in your bio. So its not missed and can be referred to (in the about) without you writing it again ... and again ... and again.
so,
I'd suggest that open heart would give you the best options for the future. If you're not expecting to live another 10 years (lets say you're in your 70's and in poor shape) then TAVR would be the go to. SAVR is really the gold standard. Fantastic results and in the long term too. I wonder if your occupation causes your concern? I've butchered a couple of sheep in my time (farm boy) but none of that bothered me when I had my surgeries (3 so far ...)
Best Wishes
stuff like this is good to put in your bio. So its not missed and can be referred to (in the about) without you writing it again ... and again ... and again.
so,
I'd suggest that open heart would give you the best options for the future. If you're not expecting to live another 10 years (lets say you're in your 70's and in poor shape) then TAVR would be the go to. SAVR is really the gold standard. Fantastic results and in the long term too. I wonder if your occupation causes your concern? I've butchered a couple of sheep in my time (farm boy) but none of that bothered me when I had my surgeries (3 so far ...)
done
Geeze ... ablations ... risky stuff ... and your're worried about SAVR?
Best Wishes
70sdiver
Well-known member
Well being a meat cutter for 50 years I've made my share of slips lol. I think what freaks me out is my heart being stopped I mean I've had a perfectly good lawn mower not restart after filling the gas tank So Tuesday morning I'll be in seattle getting a cat scan and then talking to the doctor to set the surgery date. The surgeon uses the INSPIRIS RESILIA valve he is the head of the university of 'cardiac dept. I feel pretty comfortable with him as he says he has over 12,000.00 aortic valve replacements.
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2020
- Messages
- 2,786
Hi.
Sure. If it were me and I was 85+ years old, I would choose TAVR in a heartbeat. I might also choose TAVR if I was 75 years old and in very poor health. But at 66, if it were me I would go SAVR. (surgical aortic valve replacement)
Here are the pros and cons as I see them:
TAVR advantages:
Lower mortality than SAVR in the first year after surgery.
Quick healing- back to resuming your normal activities in a matter of weeks.
TAVR disadvantages: Lack of data for lower risk patients. It is relatively unknown how long a TAVR will last for a 66 year old, but they are not expected to last as long as SAVR at this point, guided by the early data.
SAVR advantages:
Beter mortality than TAVR for years 2-5 following surgery. I expect that this trend will continue in years 6,7,8+, but data is lacking.
Good data on tissue valves lasting a long time for people 65+ years old. At age 66 this will very possibly be the last valve that you will ever need. Your surgeon indicated that he would use the Insprirs Resilia. This is the valve which I would go with if I was 66 and it is hopeful that it will do even better than the previous generation of tissue valves. Getting 15-20+ years out of this valve is realistic to hope for. Possibly even longer.
SAVR disadvantages:
Longer healing time and you will need to take more time to recover.
So, in my view, if I expected to live at least 3-5+ years, and at age 66 I sure hope that you do, I would personally choose to go with a surgical replacement over a TAVR.
Excellent! You want as much experience as possible for the surgeon doing your procedure. It sounds like you are in great hands.
You may find this study of interest. It is a 2020 meta analysis comparing TAVR to SAVR, which looks at the 1 year, 2 -3 year and 5 year points, comparing the two procedures.
Conclusion:
"TAVR valves appear to be more susceptible to structural valve deterioration and thus potentially less structurally durable than SAVR valves, given that they may be associated with higher rates of moderate or severe aortic regurgitation, paravalvular regurgitation and reintervention in the 1-year-, 2–3 year, and 5-year period."
https://cardiothoracicsurgery.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13019-020-01170-7
Sure. If it were me and I was 85+ years old, I would choose TAVR in a heartbeat. I might also choose TAVR if I was 75 years old and in very poor health. But at 66, if it were me I would go SAVR. (surgical aortic valve replacement)
Here are the pros and cons as I see them:
TAVR advantages:
Lower mortality than SAVR in the first year after surgery.
Quick healing- back to resuming your normal activities in a matter of weeks.
TAVR disadvantages: Lack of data for lower risk patients. It is relatively unknown how long a TAVR will last for a 66 year old, but they are not expected to last as long as SAVR at this point, guided by the early data.
SAVR advantages:
Beter mortality than TAVR for years 2-5 following surgery. I expect that this trend will continue in years 6,7,8+, but data is lacking.
Good data on tissue valves lasting a long time for people 65+ years old. At age 66 this will very possibly be the last valve that you will ever need. Your surgeon indicated that he would use the Insprirs Resilia. This is the valve which I would go with if I was 66 and it is hopeful that it will do even better than the previous generation of tissue valves. Getting 15-20+ years out of this valve is realistic to hope for. Possibly even longer.
SAVR disadvantages:
Longer healing time and you will need to take more time to recover.
So, in my view, if I expected to live at least 3-5+ years, and at age 66 I sure hope that you do, I would personally choose to go with a surgical replacement over a TAVR.
Excellent! You want as much experience as possible for the surgeon doing your procedure. It sounds like you are in great hands.
You may find this study of interest. It is a 2020 meta analysis comparing TAVR to SAVR, which looks at the 1 year, 2 -3 year and 5 year points, comparing the two procedures.
Conclusion:
"TAVR valves appear to be more susceptible to structural valve deterioration and thus potentially less structurally durable than SAVR valves, given that they may be associated with higher rates of moderate or severe aortic regurgitation, paravalvular regurgitation and reintervention in the 1-year-, 2–3 year, and 5-year period."
https://cardiothoracicsurgery.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13019-020-01170-7
70sdiver
Well-known member
Thank you chuck and pellicle! I'm pretty sold on savr now. I really would like to get off the felecinide and with open heart he can do the maze procedure for my afib. After my cat scan Tuesday i should have a date set for surgery and I'll keep you guys informed.
pellicle
Professional Dingbat, Guru and Merkintologist
well in hand, they keep a can of this handy
Also, at your age I don't really see anything wrong with that valve choice.
Best Wishes
