Hello again,
I did not mean to be confusing. The only point I was trying to make, that the only logical conclusion from reading work on survival after AVR, is that it does not matter for life expectancy. That is what the statistics say. It is also, in my opinion, one of the key reasons why the Ross procedure has such good survival stats, because it is typically only offered to the healthiest/strongest patients.
This is what this article establishes, which is worth reading:
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/123/1/31.full.pdf
Hope this helps
I did not mean to be confusing. The only point I was trying to make, that the only logical conclusion from reading work on survival after AVR, is that it does not matter for life expectancy. That is what the statistics say. It is also, in my opinion, one of the key reasons why the Ross procedure has such good survival stats, because it is typically only offered to the healthiest/strongest patients.
This is what this article establishes, which is worth reading:
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/123/1/31.full.pdf
Hope this helps
MethodAir;n865148 said:Clarity comes from reducing verbose language. One can bypass a lot of extraneous, superfluous data by merely focusing on substantiated risk factors. It's like the cardiac surgeon who outlined the mechanisms of heart disease. He isn't trying to fulfill the foregone conclusions of lobbyists in the food and medical industries with their 'peer reviewed' studies.
There is always someone ready to twist information to suit their own needs.