J
Jim_Bowker
I've not been able to post much lately--but I "lurk" and have been learning so much from the experiences of others. Awhile back I had posted some questions about the fatigue I've experienced due to my aortic insufficiency, and I got some excellent feedback both about others' experiences with fatigue as a symptom of AI and about how to deal with a cardiologist who seemed not to be hearing me lately.
Anyway, later this week I'll be scheduling my own AVR surgery, and I'm dealing with the issue of which type of replacement to consider--the Ross Procedure was eliminated from contention due to the dilation of my aortic root. So it's mechanical or homograft ...
I've avidly read the thread (begun by Peter Easton) dealing with the major alternatives for AVR, but I have a question that has not been answered as part of that discussion. Although a homograft is expected to last 10 or 12 or 15 years before a second surgery will be required, I've suffered from a lot of fatigue over the past 10 years, and I'm wondering if anyone can comment (from their own experiences or based on what they've been told by doctors) as to whether the expected lifetime of a homograft exceeds the time in which one might begin experiencing fatigue as a symptom of valvular calcification. Or, put another way, although a homograft might last me 12 to 15 years (if I'm lucky) is it likely that it'll only be 6 or 7 or 8 before the onset of fatigue due to the homograft beginning to wear out.
Any input people have on this issue would be greatly appreciated. My surgeon has informed me that I don't necessarily need to make a decision between mechanical or homograft too much before the surgery, but he's also hoping to be able to schedule me for surgery in 6 to 8 weeks, and I do want to make this decision sooner rather than later.
Anyway, later this week I'll be scheduling my own AVR surgery, and I'm dealing with the issue of which type of replacement to consider--the Ross Procedure was eliminated from contention due to the dilation of my aortic root. So it's mechanical or homograft ...
I've avidly read the thread (begun by Peter Easton) dealing with the major alternatives for AVR, but I have a question that has not been answered as part of that discussion. Although a homograft is expected to last 10 or 12 or 15 years before a second surgery will be required, I've suffered from a lot of fatigue over the past 10 years, and I'm wondering if anyone can comment (from their own experiences or based on what they've been told by doctors) as to whether the expected lifetime of a homograft exceeds the time in which one might begin experiencing fatigue as a symptom of valvular calcification. Or, put another way, although a homograft might last me 12 to 15 years (if I'm lucky) is it likely that it'll only be 6 or 7 or 8 before the onset of fatigue due to the homograft beginning to wear out.
Any input people have on this issue would be greatly appreciated. My surgeon has informed me that I don't necessarily need to make a decision between mechanical or homograft too much before the surgery, but he's also hoping to be able to schedule me for surgery in 6 to 8 weeks, and I do want to make this decision sooner rather than later.