Nocturne
Well-known member
Of course, it is surgery. It will be interesting to see how the potential risks stack up against traditional OHS. I do not know, but I can imagine the possibility that in the future a more standard approach would be to use TAVR first, then valve within valve when needed, then an OHS to replace with a mechanical valve. If the TAVR valves last 10+ years each, many patients won't ever get to the point where they need the OHS.
Edit -- past a certain age, you wouldn't even replace with a mechanical valve, but rather a bioprosthetic. Say I make it to 55 before needing AVR, and by that time TAVR is the standard for low risk patients (may or may not happen). I get TAVR, the valve poops out 12 years later, I get valve in valve, and that lasts 12 years. Now I'm 79. The standard would be to use a bio prosthesis at that point. Then again, I'm 79 without the option for TAVR, which would have been nice -- as would an old mechanical valve that was still plugging away and not needing surgery at all. Complicated stuff.
Edit -- past a certain age, you wouldn't even replace with a mechanical valve, but rather a bioprosthetic. Say I make it to 55 before needing AVR, and by that time TAVR is the standard for low risk patients (may or may not happen). I get TAVR, the valve poops out 12 years later, I get valve in valve, and that lasts 12 years. Now I'm 79. The standard would be to use a bio prosthesis at that point. Then again, I'm 79 without the option for TAVR, which would have been nice -- as would an old mechanical valve that was still plugging away and not needing surgery at all. Complicated stuff.