Thanks Duffey and Pellicle for the feedback. In my case, when I was told in a regular 3 month Cardiologist visit that I needed surgery right now, I didn't have time to ask the kind of questions I normally ask. I had already decided that a tissue valve was the correct choice for me. It wasn't until after surgery that I started doing research about the life expectancy of my valve. Since I verify everything any doctor tells me, I did a fair amount of research and have not come across this fact:"younger patients calcify tissue valves faster than older folks". My valve choice was not based on the speed of calcifying, but other factors, so I never thought to search for that information.
As a side note, I will point out that when in the shock of hearing one needs OHS or needs it like "right-now", we often don't think clearly or hear everything we are told. That is why it is helpful to have someone else with you so when you visit the docs, so you can compare notes later. It is also good to verify what you think you are told. This post is an good example of the need verify what one is told. Doctors do get it wrong more often than we hope. Before surgery, my cardiologist and I have had a debate on if I had a bicuspid valve or not. All echo tests and Cath results showed conflicting information. One doc said bi, the other said tri. So, after surgery in my six week visited to the surgeon, I asked him if the valve was a bicuspid or not. He said it was definitely a tricuspid valve but two leaflets had been fused. Then to verify that, I read the pathology report to confirm what he told me. Then, being the devious kind of guy I am, when I next saw my cardiologist, as a test, I asked him about the valve. He said it was a bicuspid valve. He obviously had not read the pathology report, or talked to the surgeon. He failed that test, which is disturbing, but the real world. Docs often shoot from the hip and it is hard to tell when what they tell you is a hip shot or something they have done research about.
