user 15848
Liborio
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2015
- Messages
- 286
The biggest and probably main difference betwen OnX and the others is the Fact that it opens at 90 degress, the others do not..... ask your surgeon, that is what mine told me
I guess you saw the chart I posted with actual measurements right?The biggest and probably main difference betwen OnX and the others is the Fa
agreedSo both valves from a functional perspective are very similar and probably need similar anti coagulation to be safe.
There is a study underway to determine whether the On-X aortic valve can be maintained safely and effectively on Eliquis. Dr. Marc Gerdisch, Fransican Health discusses this study here
Could be a game changer, no more monitoring, special diet considerations, etc. I am 62 and will need surgery in the next 6 months, including aorta fix; I'm seriously considering the On X given lower INR requirements, etc. Don't like the idea of a second surgery when I'm in my early-mid 70's, though TAVR advancements might mean that's not as big a deal.
Per "special diet considerations", that's old fashioned thinking. Modern medicine no longer "diets the dose" but instead "doses the diet." All you need to do when on warfarin is eat a balanced diet and test regularly.
even funnier is that now we are understanding that by having a good solid vitamin K intake you can smooth out the ripples in INRPer "special diet considerations", that's old fashioned thinking. Modern medicine no longer "diets the dose" but instead "doses the diet.
mate, you'll never save for the deposit on that house if you keep squandering your money on smashed Avo...
That's about 7 avocados per day! No problem! Pass the guacamole!
"mate, you'll never save for the deposit on that house if you keep squandering your money on smashed Avo"mate, you'll never save for the deposit on that house if you keep squandering your money on smashed Avo
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...n-millionaire-millennials-avocado-toast-house
;-D
yepThat guy makes good sense. I've been telling young people for years to stop spending so much on eating out, knock off the designer coffee and stay away from car loans- only buy a car if you can buy it outright, if you want to save enough to buy a home.
Amazing post--thank you !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I'll try to keep this brief. I was diagnosed with BAV & ascending aorta aneurism at age 50. Monitored the aorta for 2 years and had replaced by dacron graft at 52 at the Cleveland Clinic. Surgeon inspected the aortic valve and confirmed it to be a unicuspid that was healthy and functioning so he left it alone. Here I am 7.5 years later with severe stenosis and need replacement soon. I'm very healthy, active and asymptomatic. Heck, I walked over 12.5k steps at the Cleveland Clinic the other day walking between the many testing area's. I've pretty much decided that I only want to do this one more time. This second time is difficult enough. I can't see installing a tissue valve with an expiration date of anywhere between 1 and 20 years. Yes, the thought of Coumadin sucks, but I feel it safer than more invasive surgeries down the road. Yes, there is TAVR but that has many potential risks as well.
So, for me it appears to boil down to either the St. Jude Regent or On-X valves. Has anyone directly compared these two valves? They are both made from the same pyrolitic carbon and are very similar in design. But, my surgeon appeared to favor the SJ as it appears a larger SJ can be installed in the same area as a On-X, and he mentioned the On-X is "Bulky" and I guess requires a larger annulus for proper installation. Which valve has better hemodynamics? They both appear to be robust enough and tested to last a "lifetime". Any thoughts/comments/experiences appreciated. I apologize if I am re-visiting an old topic. Thanks everyone! By the way, this is a great site.
It would be a good idea to read some of the threads on this topic. Most on this board seem unconvinced about the study which suggested that people could have a lower INR on the ON-X. My surgeon at UCLA indicated that he is skeptical and completely unconvinced about the lower INR claim, believing that the data does not support this. He also indicated that all of his colleagues feel the same way.On-X. Mainly for the promise of no ticking quietness and lower Coumadin/warfarin needed
It would be a good idea to read some of the threads on this topic. Most on this board seem unconvinced about the study which suggested that people could have a lower INR on the ON-X. My surgeon at UCLA indicated that he is skeptical and completely unconvinced about the lower INR claim, believing that the data does not support this. He also indicated that all of his colleagues feel the same way.
I believe you will find some very unfortunate stories on this forum from people who tried the lower INR with On-X and ran into trouble.
I totally agree.I know I wouldn’t try to manage a 1.5 - 2.0 INR. A 0.5 window is tight to fit in and I’m far more afraid of potentially having a clot and a stroke than I am of cutting myself shaving.
I agree. My surgeon favors the St. Jude, but it seems that many are very pleased with their On-X.I wouldn’t lose any sleep if I had an On-X valve. I’m sure it’s well engineered and would last a life time
As Superman indicated, the On-X is probably a good valve, just don't trust the marketing that claims you can keep an INR of 1.5-2.0. That might be appealing, but many in the field are skeptical of their claim that this is ok, as well as the anecdotal evidence from this forum regarding those who have kept INR in this range with On-X.As others have said On-X appears to have a lot of of marketing but little scientific studies to back up some of it's claims. If I am wrong please accept my apologies in advance. My knowledge of INR and warfarin is weak at best and I need to get up to speed ASAP..I know nothing about INR #'s or what they mean or how to stay in INR range or INR differences between valves. I just love the idea of less ticking as I already have tinnitus from hearing loss.
Enter your email address to join: