Valve choice--tissue or mechanical?

[Superbob]

It's a tough decision -- I was 63 at the time and went with tissue. As Tobagotwo says, we seniors are in the prime group to get maximum time out of the tissue. That's not to say it should be your choice. There are pros and cons to both tissue and mechanical. Read all you can and make the choice that seems best for you. In a sense, these are all good choices we have. Thank God we have a choice.

 

[Montrealer]

I`m 50 and got the mechanical for the simple fact I don`t want to go thru this again.......I know the coumadin is facture for most people and even though right now I`m having trouble with my INR I`m sure eventually it will get better.....as for the clicking.......Hell it`s just like counting sheep.............something to be said about hearing your heart ticking away.............at least it`s ticking....

 

[dick0236]

Hello--


I am 65 and had been assuming that probably a tissue valve would be the best choice due to age. What are the factors involved? I know the mechanical valves generally last longer but require coumadin, but don't know what the average life is for a tissue valve.

Thanks.

Pat

That's the $64 question . I never had to make this choice (there were no workable alternatives to a mechanical valve when I got mine). And as I was a young man, the mechanical valve was the correct choice for me. A tissue valve for you may, or may not require a reop in "old age". Warfarin(Coumadin) therapy is not that dificult but may, or may not become more dificult as other drugs are added, and as the body ages.

All you can do is make an informed choice and DO NOT look back. Either choice will probably add good years to your life. Good Luck

 

[Jkm7]

February, 2008 I had bovine mitral valve implanted. This was my second OHS in four years and the thought of a third makes my head spin.

My surgeon, at Mass General, feels strongly the research on percutaneious valve replacement is progressing very well and suggested my tissue valve could easily last 18-20 years. Hopefully if I ever have to deal with another replacement, they will not be cracking open chests to do replacements.

I had a very strong preference for tissue valve and am very grateful that is what I have. For me, it is the right choice. That may not be the case for someone else.

The right one for you will be the one you choose.

 

[Jkm7]

there's a link to a roundtable discussion about valve replacement on the edwards site.
(from memory) the moderator asked the group of surgeons if they had to decide, how
many would want a mechanical. noone was brave enough to raise their hand.

I'm off to search for that link. I like to read that round table discussion.

 

[Leah]

You may find this article interesting: http://www.pccvs.com/files/documents/articles/redoavrarticle.pdf
The article really emphasizes the reality that either choice involves trade-offs that you, the recipient, ultimately have to embrace.

It's a very personal choice - and both choices are right, both are life-saving. Even after undergoing AVR only six weeks ago, I don't regret choosing a tissue valve, understanding the likelihood that it will not outlive me. That doesn't mean that the other choice is wrong, just that both really work. I strongly suggest reading the posts in the anticoagulation and home monitoring forums here. They provide a useful feel for the coumadin experience. Look past people's conclusions ("big deal," "no big deal") to their actual experiences. Think of it as your life. Then recognize that you can live with either and be grateful for either.

Good luck!

 

[Arthur]

In patients more than 65 years old tissue valve will last at least 10 years in the aortic position. In the mitral position it will probably last a little less.
Your profile is unique and only your surgeon can tell you what is the best option for you.