Mechanical Aorta Valve / Anticoagulants

[Todd]

Hello All,

I am up for my 3rd Aorta valve replacement and 4th OHS and will be choosing to go mechanical at 61 because I just cannot go through this any longer with tissue valves, they just do not last.

My question to folks with experience who have the ON-X valve and running a lower INR as the manufacture suggests or is this just marketing, looking for real life experience.

The hospital here in upstate NY uses the St Jude and not the on-x. I don’t have any issues with St Jude and would never know the difference once implanted however, just the thought of the possibility taking less warfarin sounds attractive and plus the Proact-XA trial testing with Elequis, sounds interesting.

My diet is whole food plant based with many leafy greens and vegetables on a daily basis!

Thank you- Todd

 

[3mm]

I have an On-X aortic valve. I keep my INR around 2.5. My cardiologist and I do not see any advantage to routinely being in the 1.5-2.0 range. I treat that range as an extra safety margin when, for example, I had pneumonia, and my INR dropped as I tried to balance changes in body chemistry, antibiotics, food, etc.

The best mechanical valve is the valve your surgeon is most comfortable with because you will spend less time on the bypass machine. There is an inverse relationship between time on bypass and successful surgery outcomes.

My diet is whole food plant based with many leafy greens and vegetables on a daily basis

This is compatible with Warfarin if you are attentive to your INR and your diet's impact on your INR. For example, if you consume 0 leafy greens one week, and then the following week you try to make up for that by eating large spinach salads every day, then you may need to adjust your Warfarin dose to match your increased consumption of vitamin k. I eat 6 servings of cooked vegetables every day and my INR stays very stable.

@pellicle on this forum has lots of information about INR management and a wonderful spreadsheet template that helps your INR management. Search on him to find educational threads.

 

[pellicle]

Good morning Todd and welcome

I am up for my 3rd Aorta valve replacement and 4th OHS and will be choosing to go mechanical at 61 because I just cannot go through this any longer with tissue valves, they just do not last.

As well as anyone can I understand the dilemma. My own history (here) begins young and my last OHS was Nov 2011.

My question to folks with experience who have the ON-X valve and running a lower INR as the manufacture suggests or is this just marketing, looking for real life experience.

Firstly let me say that while "real experiences" can be valuable there is also care needed in comparing that experience to you. I can talk of my own experiences but they may not transfer in any way predicting anything to you.

So let me just say; please read this post in this thread (perhaps these threads
https://www.valvereplacement.org/threads/on-x-low-inr-target.889739/post-936152 and https://www.valvereplacement.org/threads/on-x-and-lower-inr-protocol.863445/page-4#post-932581 )

I am 7 years with my Mosaic in the Aorta position and we are just about out of time... 6 months ago I had an echo and at that time it was 0.6cm… 2 weeks later I went in for a cath and the numbers were 1.2cm !

to me this seems like you may have high Lp(a) levels as this is quite a significant factor in rapid onset of Structural Valve Degredation in bioprostheses.

My advice would be:

1. get a mechanical; I can not say kind things about the On-X for the simple reason of their misleading marketing makes me wonder about everything else. This is yet another example of their "marketing claims" vs the actual measurements and tests of reality. See this post: https://www.valvereplacement.org/threads/aortic-valve-choices.887840/page-2#post-902334
2. The lower INR protocol is both pointless and meaningless; to my mind it is aimed at people who are suffering from a hysteria about warfarin and the fire is fuelled by the medical system which has almost entirely ignored the actual research data for over 30 years

I myself have an ATS valve, but I would steer you towards the St Jude.

Best Wishes

 

[SatoriFound]

Hello All,

I am up for my 3rd Aorta valve replacement and 4th OHS and will be choosing to go mechanical at 61 because I just cannot go through this any longer with tissue valves, they just do not last.

My question to folks with experience who have the ON-X valve and running a lower INR as the manufacture suggests or is this just marketing, looking for real life experience.

The hospital here in upstate NY uses the St Jude and not the on-x. I don’t have any issues with St Jude and would never know the difference once implanted however, just the thought of the possibility taking less warfarin sounds attractive and plus the Proact-XA trial testing with Elequis, sounds interesting.

My diet is whole food plant based with many leafy greens and vegetables on a daily basis!

Thank you- Todd

I believe that Pellicus has posted studies that show that the On-X has a higher rate of events when the lower inr level is actually used. My husband got the St. Judes because his surgeon worked with those most often. His surgeon stated the only reason that On-X can market the lower required inr level is because they have paid for the studies. He stated they needed a way to break into the market and differentiate themselves from the St. Judes. I would say On-X and St. Judes are pretty comparable in quality/safety and you can't go wrong with either of them. I would, personally, choose to keep my inr higher than 2 after reading much literature. I am pushing to have my hubby kept at the higher side of the 2-3 range with his St. Judes. His chances of getting having an accident in his life that would make a bleeding event an actual risk are very low. A stroke however would be devastating. We both very much agree that our level of brain function is very important to us in terms of who we are.

 

[pellicle]

I would, personally, choose to keep my inr higher than 2 after reading much literature. I am pushing to have my hubby kept at the higher side of the 2-3 range with his St. Judes.

worth reiterating and underscoring

 

[Beach77]

I got my On-X 5 days before my 65th birthday in Dec. 2020. My surgeon was part of the study that was researching the lower range but I declined to participate. My cardiologist agreed that was probably a good call. Since then, the study was stopped early. I like my INR at 2.5 but the clinic I go to was keeping me at 2. My range at that time was 2 to 3. Since they wouldn't cooperate with me
, I asked my doctor to move my range to 2.5 to 3. He did, and I'm very happy with that! Warfarin hasn't been the monster I thought it would be. Takes a few weeks to get a handle on it and then it's fine.

 

[Timmay]

I’ll reiterate what others have said and add a tiny thought.

I have an On-X

I manage my own INR (thanks to “you know who” for training me)

I keep my INR a little higher: 2.4-3.1 (ish)

I eat HUGE meatless salads for dinner 2-3 times a week. Other nights you’ll find large helpings of broccoli or mixed veggies or asparagus (with fish, chicken, or turkey).

Lean toward whatever mechanical valve your surgeon is the most comfortable installing. If it doesn’t matter to him then maybe a coin toss . The science says mortality is the same between the two. That said, if I could do it all over again, I would go with a St. Jude’s and not On-X. My reasoning is two-fold. First, I think the On-X marketing is unethical. Just my opinion. Second, I think my small frame would have appreciated a smaller valve (same diameter opening). The on-X valve … at the same opening plate diameter … is substantially larger than thr St. Jude valve. Probably doesn’t matter. But in my head it does

 

[Todd]

Thanks to all who responded with your thoughts and experience . Just as the surgeon said about the On-X, it is not necessarily true with running a lower INR , much marketing involved.
I just have to get over the thought of blood clots and with my personality, I will want to check my levels too often but I am sure most went though this initially .

Just curious, how often do you check your levels and how long before bad things start to happen if levels get too low and unchecked for maybe a couple of weeks>
I do not see myself doing that because I am extremely healthy and responsible but just a thought running through my head trying to accept this and also going through another surgery.
My anatomy is small and tight and lots of scar tissue I'm sure, which was the case in 2012 when removing my 2003 tissue valve , it was a real mess and very long surgery .
Thanks again-T

 

[vitdoc]

In 2006 I was faced with a third open heart due to an aortic aneurysm. I had initially a tissue valve and then a St. Jude in the aortic position. I remember distinctly the surgeon say “ you don’t want anyone in your chest again”. So another St Jude was placed pre ON-X.
Then ON-X came out with their low INR study which to me seemed somewhat bogus. But they have used it to gain market share. So there is some skepticism about a company that acts this way.
So if your surgeon wants to use the St. Jude I would not hesitate since it has the longer track record and as mentioned the low INR protocol to many of us is risky when it comes to avoiding strokes.
As been said here before blood cells are easier to replace than brain cells.
Good luck.