Newbie

[Guest]

First time poster. Just learned that I will probably be having an AVR done in the next year. 72 yr male in great shape and am asymptomatic but my condition is deteriorating. I will be watching quite frequently and post more as the day gets closer. This is a great site and I have learned much already. Attitude is good so far but am a little apprehensive.

 

[pellicle]

welcome aboard

I hope your readings here keep your apprehensions at bay ... think positive and have a laugh about it all when you can

 

[Twobike]

I am also a 72 year old male. I have known for certain since 2007 that one day I would need surgery. I had my last Echo Wednesday and two cardiologist said i need to see a surgeon. My appointment is Thursday. I don't know what kind of time frame he will be looking at. Or how busy he is that I will need to wait. Ion what other tests are needed before surgery. 'll be glad to get some answers. As all that have been through it know, it's very stressful.

 

[Catie]

Welcome to you. Hearing you about the apprehension. Hope your research and all stops along the way go smoothly.

 

[epstns]

Yes, guys, the stress is mostly in the beginning. When you are just starting your journey and nothing is decided, all you have is the unknowns. We all know how that can affect some of us, myself included. As soon as you begin getting some of the answers and can begin to formulate a plan, it will start to make sense and your anxiety level should begin to diminish.

In the meantime, welcome to The Waiting Room, the virtual room where many folks await their own turns at valve surgery. I personally spent over 10 years waiting, and once I had a plan, the stress level went way down for me. Visit often, ask all the questions you can think of. Odds are that somebody here has been down the same path, and the folks here are just wonderful at sharing and caring for our extended family.

 

[Quarry1]

Just signed up as Quarry1. Having been diagnosed as severe and being asymtomatic , those of you that have had similar condtions,,what did you notice first?

 

[Paleowoman]

Just signed up as Quarry1. Having been diagnosed as severe and being asymtomatic , those of you that have had similar condtions,,what did you notice first?

When my stenosis reached severe I was referred for surgery. I was completely asymptomatic and very fit, no symptoms at all, never developed any other than anxiety as I got closer to the surgery date.

 

[epstns]

What did I notice first? Basically, as my cardio promised that I would, I told him that I was "tired of being tired." I was 63, and presented no clinical symptoms - only lagging energy and reduced exercise tolerance. When I felt that enough was enough, we started the process of selecting surgeon, hospital and valve, then set the date, and the rest is history.

 

[vivekd]

I was rated severe for 2 years, before I decided to go for surgery. Even though I was asymptomatic, I could see my cardiac capacity going down gradually. Within a year, I'd to reduce my running from 10 miles to 2 miles.

 

[epstns]

I think there is a thread within this thread -- as vivekd and I have noted, our signal that it was time for surgery was not clinical symptoms. Ours, instead, was a subtle change in our exercise tolerance that we only realized because we were keeping track of our times and distances. I, too, was a recreational runner/jogger. When my time per mile went from 7:30 to 8:00, then 9:00 and eventually 10:00, although I had none of the major clinical symptoms, I felt it was time. I imagine that many other patients who are not as aware of their exercise tolerance wouldn't have realized their decline, and would have instead needed to be told by their cardiologists that it was, indeed, time for surgery.

Word to the wise -- keep track of what you can do while you can still do it. Then as your ability declines, talk with your cardio before the test results or symptoms say to act.

 

[pellicle]

I
Word to the wise -- keep track of what you can do while you can still do it. Then as your ability declines, talk with your cardio before the test results or symptoms say to act.

Reiterating this point

It's what took me to my checkup that my aneurysm was found

 

[Paleowoman]

I'll reiterate, though I suspect many forum members might disbelieve me, but I was extremely fit on referral for surgery. In fact when I went for the echo at which my cardiologist, and another cardiologist I went to for second opinion and to whom I moved my care to, stated that time was for referral to surgeon, I felt so brilliant, so strong with such full stamina, that I was sure that my stenosis was going to be stable from the previous echo. I was very surprised. What alerted the cardiologists to the need for surgery was the fact that the stenosis suddenly rose steeply from the previous echo whereas previously it had been rising steadily. I saw the surgeon a few weeks later and she wanted to do surgery sooner than I actually had it done. I waited a further two months, still with no symptoms or loss of stamina or energy.

I would go with what a cardiologist and cardiac surgeon recommend, if they say wait for symptoms then do that, if they say go for surgery now, do that - if you're doubtful of their recommendations then get a second opinion.

(I'm marginally actually less fit, less engery, less stamina, following surgery but that's another story)

 

[pellicle]

I'll reiterate,

So are you reiterating my point, your own, or some how using my words to focus on contradicting my point about what led me to get a checkup?

 

[Paleowoman]

So are you reiterating my point, your own, or some how using my words to focus on contradicting my point about what led me to get a checkup?

I'm reiterating my own experiences, my first post was rather brief. Nothing to do with your post Pellicle - I would have quoted your post otherwise - crikey you do have it in for some forum members sometimes - this is not the first time.

 

[epstns]

Anne - Forgive me if I am "intruding" but pellicle may either be being playful or just trying to clarify what you meant so that other readers can have the full meaning of everyone's input. I think you know that if he was disagreeing with you or really trying to be confrontational, it would be obvious.

{OK - now I'll go climb back under my private rock. . . }

 

[Paleowoman]

Anne - Forgive me if I am "intruding" but pellicle may either be being playful or just trying to clarify what you meant so that other readers can have the full meaning of everyone's input. I think you know that if he was disagreeing with you or really trying to be confrontational, it would be obvious.

{OK - now I'll go climb back under my private rock. . . }

Perhaps becasue I used the word "reiterate" Pellicle thought I was refering to his post ? No, I was reiterating my first post to Quarry1 which was not very detailed, I felt I need to explain how someone, in this case me, who was asymptomatic with severe stenosis might be referred for surgery even though they do not have any symptoms and are very fit, no decline in stamina, no tiredness etc If a person were to think that symptoms are the only indicator for surgery they might wait with fatal or long term consequences. In other cases they might indeed be told to wait for symptoms by their medical team. I hope that clarifies why I posted !

 

[pellicle]

Hi

Perhaps becasue I used the word "reiterate" Pellicle thought I was refering to his post ? No,

precisely ... I thought it actually stood out that the post directly following mine began with the exact words I had used.

So I wanted to clarify that when you said "I'll reiterate" if you were attempting to employ a common argumentative tool or it was just something else.

I was reiterating my first post to Quarry1 which was not very detailed,

So, you were actually expanding on it, not reiterating it. Reiteration is to say the same thing again for emphasis, which suggested to me that my suspicion may be correct.

symptoms by their medical team. I hope that clarifies why I posted !

it certainly does, thankyou

I am occasionally oversensitive, and so rather than wander along getting the grumbles about what I perceive to be a slight or an attack, I just ask.

So I just asked. I don't understand why that somehow is wrong to do or to even indicate that "I have it in for someone".

In your earlier post (before Steve questioned things)

I'm reiterating my own experiences, my first post was rather brief. Nothing to do with your post Pellicle - I would have quoted your post otherwise - crikey you do have it in for some forum members sometimes - this is not the first time.

would have set me on the view that I was indeed being a target, as it contains the stuff passive agressive people turn to in argument to give plausible deniability. For instance extending my simple question directly into a veiled accusation that "I have it in for you" suggests even why it may have been a passive agressive style attack.

For simply asking a question to clarify I'm accused of "having it in" for you.

In contrast I usually engage and discuss and do my best to ramp down any anger. I commonly stick to the points and address them (for this I'm lambasted as being verbose), these are not hall marks of an antagonist (who instead keeps arguments going throwing more logs on the fires). I also usually state it clearly if I see I'm wrong or misunderstood. You can find this among my posts too if you were to look for it. You will not find from me passive aggressive responses such as this image.

For the record I do not "have it in" for anyone here. If you feel that way perhaps its because I correct things which are put down as "facts" when they are conjecture. I do not "have it in" for anyone in particular on this topic, but it is a standing practice of mine.

I do not like misinformation being promulgated as fact. It may be the person's belief (such as their belief in god) but Science is not religion and good science should be open to exploration and analysis. To be angry with someone for challenging the presentation of myth as fact is not an attack on the messenger, its an attack on the message.

A well educated person would value that and rise to defend their views or accept that their theory (or their grasp of the theory) was wrong. A narrow minded biggot would see it as an attack on them and defend themselves.

I have never and will never attack anyone here, although it has transpired that people here HAVE attacked me personally. I will however continue to question when I see things appear to me to be wrong (I believe this is being true to myself and true to the readers). So its not about YOU Anne, it is only about things which you may have said. I've made that clear when I do that I always discuss the facts not the person. In case you are unclear on the difference in the above here are some examples:

"what you have said is incorrect" is not an attack on the speaker, but a challenge to the facts or interpretations of evidence.

"you clearly can't grasp these things" is actually an attack on the speaker.

However it is possible that a challenge to the message can be delivered in an unpleasant way. If you feel that my delivery of such things (either to you or to others) please feel free to step in and say "Hey, Pellicle, that was a bit tactless" and I'll listen. I have cranky days too you know, as I've got my own personal daemons and issues in life just like you do.

 

[LondonAndy]

I say chaps, steady on! It is well known that email communication (and I would include forums like this) lack the visual clues and inflections in speech we pick up when talking to someone face-to-face, and can give rise to misunderstandings. I think many would agree that Paleogirl and Pellicle are two of the most valuable contributors to the site, and so please don't fall out over words that may not have come out as intended, or could be read different ways, especially when we have such diverse cultural backgrounds on an international forum. (For some reason this brings to mind a time when I took two visiting American friends to a restaurant that had "faggots" on the menu. The look of horror on their faces did not reduce much when I explained they are a traditional dish, sort-of meatballs, made from such parts as pork shoulder and pigs liver!)

 

[epstns]

Andy - It is a good thing I wasn't drinking anything when I read your post above. That one would have cost me another keyboard - these clicky keys don't like soda (or tea, for that matter), and I would have given it a good spray.

Carry on, mates!

 

[FredW]

< Pellicle quote>say "Hey, Pellicle, that was a bit tactless" and I'll listen. I have cranky days too you know, as I've got my own personal daemons and issues in life just like you do.

Hey, Pellicle, that may have been a bit tactless and verbose. . Not attacking you or am serious, but rather trying to be funny. We appreciate and know we all have issues.

Back to the main thread here,having data and facts about one's abilities, health parameters, and how they change over time and/or medicines one take is important. Pellicle, you preach this and convinced me to monitor my own data. Now I have the facts to show my doc which, I'm sure, will be helpful. It may even get my valves replaced before I fall over dead in my country home cutting grass.

Newbies should take note: they are responsible for their own health and to do that, they have to become informed. So read on, ask questions, and learn.