corevalve...... what do we think

[rib305]

Hi troops,

met with my surgeon yesterday, and i may have 2 options to replace my homograph aortic valve, the first would be mechanical -which we have decided on a ats open pivot if i go this route, the hestitation on this option was that 8 years ago he repaired my mitral valve and used a ring to suport the valve this aparantly make the surgery quite tricky as i had a small homograph valve when i was 16 and to put a mechanical valve would require a more complicated job due to the mitral valve ring incroching on space in the aortic position and the mechanical valve being larger........ any info from you guys on this point would be good.....

the other option which i dont think is a common option in the states is the corevalve...cathetor valve... he said this could be an option..it would not be surgery based so would defer the big surgery for perhaps another 10 years which would mean i would be 50 and then looking at the real deal surgery then... not sure i like the idea of putting off the inevitable...

anyway guys could do with some feed back and info as usuall ...

also got the usual stuff yet to come camera down the throat and die into the veins ...... what joy.......

llap people

 

[hook]

I was very interested in this type of valve; the benefits were, no blood thinners, no clicking, NO MAJOR SURGERY!!!

anytime you can prevent cutting into the heart, that is worth trying.

I wonder how the replace the valves when they give out. Can they simply be removed and then another droped into place?

 

[AgilityDog]

I got a mechanical mitral 4 years ago (31mm St Jude's, huge). Then had to get a new aortic, and also went mechanical (19 mm On-x) this year No mention was made of having any problem putting in the aortic valve with the mechanical mitral in place. I also got a ring on my tricuspid. I'm 9 weeks out, back at work, and back doing most of my activities (though I won't be running full out for another few weeks).

 

[Jkm7]

If your decision rests on the fact you could be fifty and require OHS, I hope you realize the huge number of us here on VR.org who had our surgeries at fifty and loads older in many cases. Being fifty adds meaningful no risk. I had two OHS in four years and both were after I turned fifty. I recovered excellently from both.

Only you can make the choice but for me, (and anything any of us but you says is hypothetical because it isn't our decision to make) I would absolutely go with the cath replacement..... for me, it's no question that is what I would do. It also buys you at least ten years or more for them to further improve the method and the huge strides they are making in heart surgeries are amazing. There could be so many options by the time you are fifty.

Best wishes whichever decision you make.

 

[Mentu]

I had little difficulty recovering from my AVR at age 59. That being said, I think one should carefully consider a viable less intrusive alternative if one is available. I think one of the questions I would ask is "Would the corevalve provide as good a quality of life as a mechanical valve?" Fortunately, for most of us the risk presented by heart surgery is relatively low while it offers the probability of an excellent quality of life afterwords. Does the corevalve do the same? I hope your will let us know how you decide since this is an area that many others are likely to be wondering about in the future. Take care.

Larry

 

[ShezaGirlie]

Only you can make the choice but for me, (and anything any of us but you says is hypothetical because it isn't our decision to make) I would absolutely go with the cath replacement..... for me, it's no question that is what I would do. It also buys you at least ten years or more for them to further improve the method and the huge strides they are making in heart surgeries are amazing. There could be so many options by the time you are fifty.

I agree 100%..!!

 

[vtbecca]

I personally feel like if the cath valve is an option go for it. Less risk. Yes it would need to be replaced someday but 10 years is a guess. It could even go longer. My son has a homograft pulmonary valve and if a cath valve is an option for him we absolutely would try it. Cath recovery- a few days, OHS, much much longer. Good luck with your decision, maybe see if you can sit down and do a pro/con list for each. That may help you make the decision.

 

[Philip B]

Choices

Choices

I haven't paid much attention to the development of corevalves, but would suggest that you throughly research the technology before pursuing your choice. How long has corevalve technology been around, what kind of success rate, and how long do corevalves last?

Personally, I prefer valve technology that's got more of a track record behind it. Sorry, I tend to be more conservative than others. I'm sure whatever choice you make will be the right one.

-Philip

 

[rib305]

Hi troops thanks for your replies.... all welcomed and valued... my research into corevalves is quite interesting as it would apear they have the edge in this market, it was designed by a french surgeon and was developed in the states, edwards is trying to catch up but there valve is based on ataching to calcified valves where corevalve doesnt require this to hold in place, so far over a 1000 have been fitted although the patients have been high risk and over 65-70 years...however the designers vision was to bring to the masses and the young...development has moved on, the delivery system has become smaller also as they are perfecting it which is all good.. its a pig valve with the usuall treatments.... its also gone through the same tests as all other tissue valve with flying colours..
St Georges hospital in london has been doing them for a while now with a 99% success rate... so ill keep you posted on what way i end up going... but this maybe somthing very exciting to watch for the future people... i think it gets rolled out in the states next year...LLAP EVERYONE