JeffM
Well-known member
First and foremost: David, Choudoufu - I want to read anything you guys write. Aside from my vested interest in matters of the heart, you guys take writing to a refreshing level of entertainment while getting your points and questions across. Thanks for that. Regarding the valve choice: It would sure be easier if there weren't so many variables. I went with tissue not just because I didn't want ACT, which, by the way, has been a peice of cake while temporarily on it. My 24 Holter scheduled for tomorrow, will determine if I can stop this med. if the results show no arrhythmias. I realize the therapuetic INR range is lower for tissue than for mechanical, but going to the lab every two weeks, has not been the inconvenience I was expecting. Also, home testing is the answer for long term ACT in terms of convenience. I read that a mechanical valve might not support the blood flow needed for high intensity athletics (gradients, red blood cell damage) and finally, what some people describe as comfort in the sound of the ticking was a factor for me. I'm the guy who is bothered by a loud watch ticking, a little rattle in the car that most people never notice....while i'd likley get used to it, the thought of being haunted by that sound was a consideration. My hope...and that's all it is for now...is that a tissue valve replacement will require an easier, relatively lower risk procedure when (10, 15, 20 years?) I need it. I like what I've been reading about this latest (third) generation of tissue valves. The second gen. are going over 20 in people over 65. These third gens are treated with a product that, in theory, further retards the calcification process created by the stronger immune response in a younger person--the main reason for valve re-op outside of initial complications. But they haven't been out there long enough to provide reliable duration data. So far, I've been happy with my decision to go tissue. I seriously considered the Ross but decided against it because of the longer, more intricate and risky procedure involved. Also, fewer surgeons have the expertise and experience. Additionally, you're essentially taking what would be a one valve operationand making it a two valve procedure. Longer time on heart/lung mach., more trauma, more healing. Recent mixed data on duration of P valve in A position. I'm eager to see long term data on the ON-X with the low dose aspirin and no ACT patients. As far as the prospect of another OHS, if I must, it was no picnic but it's now been 16 weeks. It flew by. I rode a hard 47 miles yesterday and, other than occasioanl lightheadedness (never while on the bike), I feel great. I figure, if I can stay in good shape for my next procedure, OHS or something less invasive, I should come out of it fine again. That's my thinking. There are no clear choices though, you're so right. Good luck with yours and please continue to update us on your thoughts and eventual recovery.