Jkm7 fortunately started a parallel thread on this specific issue:
http://www.valvereplacement.org/forums/showthread.php?40835-Bovine-Valves-and-Calcium.
I'll let that thread take over the calcium discussion, but did want to chime in on the lifespan of your first replacement valve, Guyswell. Sadly, some folks are lucky and some or not relative to tissue valve longevity. Now, luck of course has really nothing to do with it. There I'm sure is a very reasonable explanation why you got 8 years, instead of 10, or 12, or 15, or even 6 for that matter. The problem is that no one can explain it, though, since the calcification process is so complicated, affected by so many variables, and every individual body interacts differently anyway with any specific prosthetic valves.
For what it is worth, the "official" (posted on Edwards website) 20 year results on the Perimount indicated that in patients age 60 and up, replacement was necessary in some patients (less than 5%) between 6 years and 10 years. So, somewhere there was a 60 year old (or older) that didn't even reach your longevity at age 41. There are just no guarantees for any age unfortunately, although there are at least strong probababilities.
By the way, I'm curious...did you have the Perimount? If I'm remembering my dates correctly, I think the Magna with the newer ThermaFix treatment was only hitting the market probably right after your surgery. There are only 8 years of treatment with that "new" valve, and no official results, but it will obviously be interesting to see how the two compare someday. Hopefully we won't hear about any Magna - ThermaFix replacements here for quite some time, though! (since that would mean someone got less than 8 years out of it)
Do you have a link handy to that edwards page? Ive read a few so dont know if that says why they needed replaced, calcified (which I think is a very confusing name which just causes more problems..since it isnt really calcium, but a combo of tings Apatite, that usuall is needed for bones and teeth) or how many were explanted because of BE, PPM, poor stitches etc) so thought instead of searching Id just ask
back to the main question, NO it is not just an urban myth that tissue valves tend to last longer in older, generally classified as over 60-65 than "younger" people. Altho under 60 is a really big basket since the chances of someone 59 having their valve last 20 or more years is MUCH higher than someone in their 20, 30s.
Speaking of Apatite (Bob- tobog has written lots of good posts about "calcified and apatite) One thing I've heard and discussed with several doctors over the years, is its possible that how quickly a tissue valve will "calcify" and why the usually last so much longer in people 60 and up than 20s, and makes sense to me, is the bodies ability to grow and heal broken bones and bone density plays a large role in it.
In Children thru teens when the body is making alot of bones and teeth, and producing the material needed, is the age groups that usually go thru valves or conduits relativey quickly, this is also the age groups that usually broken bones heal the quickest and bones are very dense. Then 20s-40 s usually still heal broken bones pretty easily, quickly and tissue valves tend to last longer than childen growing bones, but not as long as people in their 50s -60s who start having done density issues, broken bones start to take longer to heal .... Of course some of the times Children need their valve or conduit replaced is simply because they outgrew it, but i dont see that oftne mentioned often in the younger go thru valves quickly articles
Then usually but of course not always people in thier late 60s and up start being n the age group that broken bones can take a while to heal, osteo is more common and they tend to have tissue valve that lastt longer and longer.
Rachel i was thinking of this when I read your thread, I would "think" being diagnosed with osteopenia MIGHT be a "good sign a tissue valve would last longer for you, but then again i have NO idea and dont recall reading anywhere if /how the meds like fosamex would affect the valves. and again this is all just MY thoughts
I also was wondering, since I often wonder what all is discussed when doctors discuss "valve choice" with different patients and what conditions the bring up, that might put a type of valve in the pro or con column. For example I have a bad back and need to get spinal blocks a couple times a year. Now i'm not a heart patient, but spinal blocks are one of the times you have to stop Coumadin for a few days or bridge, which beside being a PIA also puts you more at risk for clots/bleeds, but I never or rarely hear anyone say they they were advised to get a tissue valve because they get a lot of spinal blocks.
Also can I ask you were you diagnosed with osteopenia before your heart surgery? If so was that brought up or considered at all in your choice, since it has been discovered in the past few years that Vit k plays a role in bone density and since Coumadin is a vit K angtagonist that can block Vit K from doing what is needed to keep your bones healthy, maybe i ishould be avoided if possible or was it decided it didnt make much difference in the long run
sorry to go offtrack
. I feel very healthy otherwise, and my mitral valve may keep on trucking as long as I live. I’m still pleased with my decision to choose tissue, as it seems the best fit for me personally.
