I can only talk from my experience
You're experience of having both a St Jude and an On-X and finding the On-X quieter?
See this is the thing, people make statements with no actual evidence except believing what they are told. This is belief and the basis of religion. Not science. People are tribal and love to believe the first thing they hear. Tribalism has no place in this.
You make a statement that "the On-X is quieter" but have no actual data or even any studies to back it up ... your valve is quieter, that's great. Well I'm sure if you took the time to read posts over this forum you'll soon see people with the St Jude say "their valve got quiet" or "they no longer hear it".
Marketing works.
So, lets go back to your initial question:
I’m wondering why we aren’t choosing On-x.
Well there is no compelling reason to select the On-X because:
- there is no compelling reason to believe their marketing ploy about reduced warfarin being a good thing
- there is no data to suggest having a fraction of a reduction in warfarin does anything
- there is no data to support its quieter
You raise that your INR was in line with requirements quickly, and you were released. This is not any thing more than an indicator of better management at the hospital you went to. INR management is basically crap in 90% of the cases I've read about (and in journals too) and I can submit a study that in 1985 a British hospital was using a method (which interestingly is similar to mine) to get INR right within 4 doses from surgery.
Strange that it is not common practice despite being published.
It is of no point now because you already made your choice and are wearing it. However because
other people yet to make a decision are reading this (
as you no doubt read other posts in the past) I am answering this.
Next look at size
my goodness look at the size of that thing. As
@nobog (who knows his stuff) pointed out some time back "the On-X is huge" compared to other
bileaflet pyrolytic carbon valves.
Does it have better dynamic profiles? Well not according to anything I've read:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022522319304842
so is there anything to support the On-X claims that a lower INR protocol is good for you or better for you or even safer?
The answer is no there isn't, indeed there is evidence to the contrary, as this poster here found out:
http://www.valvereplacement.org/for...e-of-onx-valve-and-problems-with-lowering-inr
Lastly I will say that when I knew nearly nothing about mechanical valves and had just a few months to make a choice I was offered:
- bio-prosthesis (but cautioned that 10 years later I'd be in line for a redo, its now 10 years later)
- an ATS valve
- an On-X valve
Back then I wrote this blog post:
https://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2011/11/heart-of-matter.html
I would encourage you to read it, slowly and thinking about every sentence and what it implies about my level of knowledge. Now I can say that I've learned quite a lot in the following 10 years and am quite glad I got what I got.
To answer why the surgeon made his choice is simple: due to the complexity of my arch anatomy and the aneurysm there was not an On-X that had a pre-attached aortic graft (for a Bentall) that was approved in Australia
at that time. So to reduce surgical time and reduce time on the cross calmp my surgeon rightly chose to put in the ATS. Why rightly?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20965288/
Picking a valve is and should be based on science and data, not belief or faith.
Faith is for religion and if you look at the middle east where there are multiple religions it would seem that only causes strife.
Mechanical valves are evolving as we learn more, to me its all part of the grand experiment that is life. However until you have data, and substantial evidence don't pretend what you have is the best. I sure don't
Best Wishes