Just got offered https://corcym.com/devices/aortic/US/perceval tissue valve

Valve Replacement Forums

Help Support Valve Replacement Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Joined
Jun 28, 2019
Messages
703
Location
Bangkok Thailand
Price is even slightly lower than the Inspiria Resilia valve

"PercevalTM is a pericardial surgical heart valve with a sutureless and collapsible design that simplifies the surgical implantation"

Looks like very precise placement, no sutures, reduced surgical time

Estimated life of valve is 20 years

Corcym tissue valve

Also been offered a surgery through my right chest. I knew there were mini sternotomy but never heard of a right side no bones breaking
 
You've been on here long enough to understand "Estimated life of valve is 20 years" is nothing more than marketing baloney.
 
just in general:

1705010480427.png


previous studies have shown the following pathway

1705010490499.png


Note that pericardial has the widest error bars (no that's not my annotation, I just added colour coding).

Seems that the Resilia is also made from pericardial material, but good old Porcine seems to have the most regular pathway (just below mechanical). Obviously this is an older study done before the existence of the Resilia.

1705010509696.png


https://www.edwards.com/healthcare-professionals/products-services/surgical-heart/inspiris-resilia


if it was me I'd be buying a top notch Korean or Japanese car not some Indian or Chinese one because it may be cheaper up front.



If I was after an EV, I'd get a Tesla not a WangChung


Just Saying
 
Last edited:
My prediction is that when the leaflets open they will hit the wavy metal structure (potentially) causing a hole in the leaflet.
 
Oh, and @nobog , wha tis meant by sutureless? Does it mean "not sutured into position" (nb held in to the annulus by some other means)? I was curious when looking on the web site because this seemed like stitching in the construction of the valve.

1705092611849.png


Thanks
 
  • Like
Reactions: V__
FWIW - I wouldn't want a Tesla OR a Wang Chung.

And as far as saving money on a valve - are we talking about a few hundred dollars saved on a $20,000 valve? If you're insured, cost savings may be a minimal issue - especially if insurance pays most of the cost of the valve anyway.

I don't recall how old you are -- have you added mechanical valves into your list?
 
You don't want the leaflets touching anything, the only way I have ever seen a pericardial leaflet develop a hole is when it touched "something" otherwise long term they will calcify, prolapse or tear.

Yep, sutureless is just what is says but according to their video sutures are required (like a "normal" valve) but it appears to be self-expanding (like a TAVI). They are not referring to assembly sutures, they mean the sutures to sew the valve into the aorta.
 
You don't want the leaflets touching anything, the only way I have ever seen a pericardial leaflet develop a hole is when it touched "something"
I did wonder about that metal structure ... looks ... well weird really.

Yep, sutureless is just what is says but according to their video sutures are required (like a "normal" valve) but it appears to be self-expanding (like a TAVI)
no wonder it looks weird.
 
It is both a curse and a good thing that the medical community is based on making money. Many advances have been made due to the potential enormous profits that may occur with a blockbuster. But at the same time there is hype such as claiming a valve will last 20 years when it hasn't been out more than a few or suggesting the INR can be lowered safely for the ON-X valve compared to other valves. One would like to think that agencies like the FDA would somehow control this sort of thing but for the most part that does not happen. So many people (including physicians) may be influenced by this hype.
I think I will get some Prevagen to perk up my thinking.
 
It is both a curse and a good thing that the medical community is based on making money. Many advances have been made due to the potential enormous profits that may occur with a blockbuster. But at the same time there is hype such as claiming a valve will last 20 years when it hasn't been out more than a few or suggesting the INR can be lowered safely for the ON-X valve compared to other valves. One would like to think that agencies like the FDA would somehow control this sort of thing but for the most part that does not happen. So many people (including physicians) may be influenced by this hype.
I think I will get some Prevagen to perk up my thinking.
This is spot on!

So many people (including physicians) may be influenced by this hype.
Yes, absolutely. Some physicians are very good and seeing marketing hype for what it is. Others, not so much. Physicians are human and can fall prey to marketing hype, just like ordinary people, although we would hope that they would be a little more skeptical on average. We see it often with some of the promises made- telling a patient that a novel valve, with only a few years of published data, will last 20 years is marketing hype, 100%. We've even witnessed more extreme over-enthusiasm here, with promises of 30+ years on a valve which had 2 years of published data.

I agree that the profit motive is both a blessing and a curse. It leads to new advancements in medicine. But, we need to try to use our critical thinking caps and identify marketing hype when we see it.
 
The free dinners, regular visits from 'detail' people (drug reps), gifts, office lunches, and other methods to buy a doctor's time (and mind) are an all too common marketing tool -- and they work.

Yes, the cost of research is a positive AND a negative -- the drug companies argue that their prices MUST be high because of the expense of developing new drugs. But is it fair to gouge patients for these newly developed medications?

Is the cost of advertising - not insignificant - a big part of the cost of the actual drug? Are patients suggesting to their doctors that they should take a heavily advertised product vs. a similar product that isn't being pushed as hard? And, FWIW, why should patients be requesting certain medications just because they saw it advertised 300 times in the last week?

True, some pharmaceutical companies have programs that may provide the medication free or heavily discounted to patients who can't afford them (and I'm extremely grateful that a medication that would cost me $2400 a year, with insurance) is being provided to me. But I'm still concerned with the high cost of medications that cost dollars to manufacture but cost millions to develop.

Where's the trade off? Should the government kick in more funds for R&D so that the cost of newly developed medications can be reduced when the product is developed? Would the manufacturers actually agree to reduce the price of the medication if the Feds funded the development?

Strange thought here - what if the Feds would reimburse the pharmaceutical companies for their R&D costs in exchange for making the medications affordable? Perhaps the companies can get a fair profit, but not charge what they currently do, and NOT spend a good part of their budget on advertising.


I know that, as usual, I've gone on too long about this issue. Still, I'd like to see Medicare and the States to negotiate with the drug manufacturers to reduce the prices of medications.
 
Back
Top