Well, I had my semi-annual office consult with my (new) cardio yesterday. My old (and wonderful) cardio moved to another hospital that is probably 45 minutes from home, so I changed to another in the cardio group at Lutheran General in Park Ridge, Illinois. The new cardio is a young man -- at first I thought he was a resident, but he's been there for a number of years.
We talked about my recent echo, and things are basically the same as they were last time. My stenosis is severe, but with no symptoms and no quality of life issues, the new cardio agrees with the old one that he cannot yet recommend surgery "just from the numbers." His conclusion on the timing is much the same as the other cardio -- probably in a year or two, but too early to tell and certainly not yet.
We discussed the pro's and con's of mechanical valve versus tissue for a patient in their early 60's and he indicated that the classical thinking is slowly shifting toward the use of tissue valves in patients as young as early 60's. This is because of the projected useful life span of the newer tissue valves. He was mildly impressed when I pointed out that these new valves haven't yet been in full scale use for that long, though, so the projections were only projections. He reminded me that even Cleveland Clinic has shifted toward more tissue valves.
We also discussed his opinion on percutaneous valve implantation as a saving factor in the event that a tissue valve implanted in a younger patient needs replacement, and he said not to be surprised if we see this method of aortic valve replacement hit the mainstream within the next couple of years. I said "Thanks, but I'm not counting on that. . . "
All-in-all, it was a positive experience. The exam and test results were as good as I could hope for. I can continue with my life for a while while I ponder the VR options. And. . . although I am losing my wonderful cardio of the last 6 years, I feel confident and comfortable with the new choice from the same practice group at a highly-rated hospital close to home.
So, guess I'll just take a look around this old Waiting Room to see what we need to do to keep it comfortable for another few years. . .
We talked about my recent echo, and things are basically the same as they were last time. My stenosis is severe, but with no symptoms and no quality of life issues, the new cardio agrees with the old one that he cannot yet recommend surgery "just from the numbers." His conclusion on the timing is much the same as the other cardio -- probably in a year or two, but too early to tell and certainly not yet.
We discussed the pro's and con's of mechanical valve versus tissue for a patient in their early 60's and he indicated that the classical thinking is slowly shifting toward the use of tissue valves in patients as young as early 60's. This is because of the projected useful life span of the newer tissue valves. He was mildly impressed when I pointed out that these new valves haven't yet been in full scale use for that long, though, so the projections were only projections. He reminded me that even Cleveland Clinic has shifted toward more tissue valves.
We also discussed his opinion on percutaneous valve implantation as a saving factor in the event that a tissue valve implanted in a younger patient needs replacement, and he said not to be surprised if we see this method of aortic valve replacement hit the mainstream within the next couple of years. I said "Thanks, but I'm not counting on that. . . "
All-in-all, it was a positive experience. The exam and test results were as good as I could hope for. I can continue with my life for a while while I ponder the VR options. And. . . although I am losing my wonderful cardio of the last 6 years, I feel confident and comfortable with the new choice from the same practice group at a highly-rated hospital close to home.
So, guess I'll just take a look around this old Waiting Room to see what we need to do to keep it comfortable for another few years. . .
.
