Mitral or Aorta?

Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
Valve Replacement Forums

Help Support Valve Replacement Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Mileena46

Mileena46

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
404
Location
Scottsboro, Alabama USA
I have noticed since joining the board that more people on here seem to have had the Aorta replaced or both the Aorta and Mitral. Is that true on here as in the general public as well? I guess I was assuming because my issues were with the Mitral that that was the most common. From reading these post, it seems to be just the opposite.

I wonder what percentage of people who use VR.com had the Aorta replaced as compared to who had the Mitral replaced or repaired? Does anyone know?

AND how come you almost never hear of anyone having problems with the other two valves? Those are very rare.

Has most people who have Mitral problems also have them from rheumatic fever? (This is my case)....did rheumatic fever not do damage to the aorta?

Not one doctor mentioned anything at all about my aorta, so I can assume its okay.....but with my Mitral being so badly damaged from the fever....why didn't it affect my aorta and then can I also assume that 10 years from now I might then show issues with my aorta that are not apparent now?

Sorry, I had a bad morning....and questions galore!

Mileena
 
The mitral and aortic valves are the workhorses of the heart valves. Workloads on the tricuspid and pulmonary valves are lighter. That's not to say that you don't find people who have had TRV or PRV, but you'll find more who've needed MV or AV surgeries.
 
Representing the Mitrals here yo! i was born with mitral vavle prolapse, which most doctors told me should never give me any problems.......
 
Mitral Valve here... The surgeon said it was because of rheumatic fever but my parents or myself never knew I had it...
 
My husband had the aortic valve replaced with mechanical. He was born wth a bicuspid valve.
 
Both for me, damaged by endocarditis. The mitral valve was completely shot, the aortic was damaged and would have required replacement in a short time so they did them both together. They told me the decision as to whether to replace both would be made on the operating table before opening me up, they did a TOE (TEE) then operated.

I must admit that I had the false impression that problems with the mitral valve was less serious than the aortic valve.
 
I too had both mitral and aortic valves replaced. In my case, they were damaged by radiation therapy (for Hodgkin's Disease) over 20 years prior.
 
I am having my aortic valve replaced by the Ross Procedure on 11/13.

Everytime I go to a regular doctor they say "Oh you have mitral valve disease, or mitral valve stenosis" and I have to argue my point of knowing my health conditions to a FULL extent. I hate it when I have to argue that I know what I am talking about.

The last time I was at my cardiologist I asked him..."Why do they always say Mitral Valve?" He explained that my stenosis or murmur is so loud you hear it across my whole chest and doctors that are not expierenced in the cardiac field or never had a up to date class, seem to lean that way.

I was born with a heart murmur that was supposed to have went away in adulthood. At age 15 they were still hearing it so I was followed by a cardiologist. It started as Aortic Insufficency and developed into my now Critical Aortic Stenosis.
 
Sue,

I really think it might be right that having a bad aorta is somehow "worse" than a Mitral. Of course, we all know that having OHS and having either one replaced is about the same...as far as recovery etc. BUT when I first found out about my Mitral Stenosis I researched everything I could find on the subject and then I began to read about Aorta Stenosis and I do think some of the side effects or maybe it was dangers of not having it corrected was worse for the Aorta patients. I think it was the statistics of sudden death. I also remember being relieved that all or at least most of the things I found said both of these were totally curable by replacing the valve!

Vh,

My cardiologist always asked students to come into the room and listen to my Mitral click. It seemed to have a loud closing click that he wanted them to hear. Could be that the aorta doesn't normally have that, yet you had one that was loud....and makes them think its the Mitral! At least you had something extraordinary going on in there!

Mileena
 
vhmoriarty said:
The last time I was at my cardiologist I asked him..."Why do they always say Mitral Valve?" He explained that my stenosis or murmur is so loud you hear it across my whole chest and doctors that are not expierenced in the cardiac field or never had a up to date class, seem to lean that way.

QUOTE]

My heart murmur (which I'd had since birth) had become so pronounced that every doctor I went to was so impressed with it he would drag other nurses, doctors, etc into the exam room so they could hear it. I hated that! Now, it is boringly normal.

My aortic valve was replaced via a Ross Procedure, due to a true bicuspid aortic valve, meaning that there were only two actual leaflets on my valve, as opposed to many people (most, I think) who have a regular tri-leaflet valve where 2 of the leaflets are fused together. This situation caused my surgeon to have to re-implant the coronary arteries in a slightly different position than they were in before, since the "cusps" of the valve were different, and I'm thankful he had the skills to do it. Another Ross surgeon who I interviewed mentioned that if that was the case, he would fall back and implant a mechanical valve instead.
Click to expand...
 
Mileena,
It is different for everyone. There are alot of one valve patients and alot of 2 valve. I have MVP, AVR and PVR. The AVR and PVR were done when I had the Ross procedure in 97. The AV developed an aneurysm, thoracic ascending. I think why you hear more about aortic valve replacement is because when that one goes, it is big time trouble.
 
After my second OHS, which was to replace my mitral valve, I asked my cardio what would have happened to me had I not gone forward.

His answer was quite clear..... I would not have survived long term and my quality of life would have been very poor very quickly. That's pretty serious, 'ya think?
 
Yes, sorry ..didnt mean to indicate that MVRs werent serious, they are definitely. I was just pointing out to the OP that mitrals often "prolapse" whereas aortics stenose, regurgitate, and more frequently become anuerysyms.
 
Yep I apparently am a phenomon, lol. Being my age with a aortic stenosis being that LOUD. When I was pregnant with my daughter all the nurses would come in to hear it....HOw funny
 
COLLEEN S said:
Yes, sorry ..didnt mean to indicate that MVRs werent serious, they are definitely. I was just pointing out to the OP that mitrals often "prolapse" whereas aortics stenose, regurgitate, and more frequently become anuerysyms.
Click to expand...




My mitral valve fit into the servere regurgitation category.
 
Mom had mitral replaced due to rheumatic fever. She had the fever at age 12, valve replaced at 64..... Deb ps She was REALLY bad at time of replacement...very fortunate to have survived!!!;);)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top