The debate still On-x vs St Jude

[Chuck C]

Hello,

There is actually a recent randomised control trial to answer the On-X vs St Jude question.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666273622003084
It concludes: 'The On-X valve and St Jude Medical valve performed equally well in the study with no differences found.'.

Now this was only over a 5-year time period. Only the St Jude has studies with 35+ years, since it has been around since 1980.

I hope that this helps.

Yes, they both did about the same and both had a very low number of events.

It is important to note the INR ranges used for both St Jude and On-x.

For aortic valves: INR of 2.2 to 2.8

For mitral valves: INR of 2.5 to 3.5.

On-x is a great valve, but many in the field believe that their promotion of INR of 1.5-2.0 is dangerous.

 

[preciosa1974]

Hi



agreed, and complicated by cross cultural norms (I'm Australian), (style of) sense of humour, and perhaps a tincture of cross "generational" too



I needed to ask because (I'm in education) I find that 90% of the time people don't read carefully (especially students, which to me on this you are), I need to ask because I don't like to assume. I've found that when someone doesn't ask anything about what you said it was either clear and simple (which this subject isn't) or its because they glanced at it and didn't get it and moved on.

If a student (in my experience) asks a question, gets an answer then asks the same question it often indicates that they didn't understand the answers given (which would usually be indicated by a specific question about the answer). That didn't happen which left me in the dark, which is why I asked.

This is a complex subject and you've got a short time to cram it in so I'm doing what I can to try to steer you towards what I've come to see as the key points to answer your specific questions.

That these questions are asked before is normal, that I've "said something previously" simply means that. It wasn't intended to chide you (note I've assumed something from "your tone" here and that may be wrong).

Lastly I don't know what your expectations are or how to communicate. As you may guess (even by this) I'm actually making an effort to try to help you to grapple with and understand the question you've asked and the answers you've got and who may be answering the questions. We've got hundreds of active members here and so far there is about 16 posts on this thread. So of those who are here I'm making an effort to try to guide you on your path to informing your "informed choice".

Sorry if that's not helpful

It’s all helpful. I might also be a bit on edge as my BP is quite out of control right now and just nerves in general. I have read as much as I can and some of the wording and numbers I don’t understand but I did see in that one study both valves were studied at the same INR 2.2-2.8 which I thought was quite interesting considering they’re promoting a lower INR for on-x.

I did just talk to my surgeon and truly with your help, I was able to have a discussion with terms I actually understood. He totally understood the lower INR can be unsafe and brought up a few other things. And we decided on the St. Jude. I do appreciate your help!

 

[Chuck C]

I did just talk to my surgeon and truly with your help, I was able to have a discussion with terms I actually understood. He totally understood the lower INR can be unsafe

It is encouraging that many surgeons see through the low INR marketing and I'm glad that your surgeon appears to be one of them.

I'm glad that your involvement here allowed you to have a more meaningful discussion with your surgeon and that together you made a choice that you're comfortable with.

Please keep us posted.

 

[pellicle]

which I thought was quite interesting considering they’re promoting a lower INR for on-x.

Classic marketing vs science or engineering issue