Mechanical heart valve often the safest choice

Help Support ValveReplacement.org:

DJM 18

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 15, 2017
Messages
88
Location
costa rica
http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2017/11/mechanical-heart-valve-often-the-safest-choice.html

Mechanical heart valves may be safer in certain cases than valves made of animal tissue and should be used more in heart-valve replacements, especially in younger patients, according to a study by researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine.

The study also found that unlike what’s recommended in the national guidelines, which say patients ages 50 to 70 undergoing aortic or mitral valve replacement should be given a choice of either a mechanical or biological valve, the best choice in fact can hinge on whether the aortic or mitral valve is being replaced.

The study shows that for patients undergoing mitral valve replacement, a mechanical valve is actually beneficial until the age of 70. On the other hand, for patients undergoing aortic valve replacement, the benefit of implanting mechanical valves ceased after the age of 55.

“This has potential to significantly impact the current national practice guidelines,” said Joseph Woo, MD, professor and chair of cardiothoracic surgery at Stanford, who routinely performs these surgeries. “While our preference is always to repair heart valves whenever possible, there are certain disease processes which necessitate valve replacement. For these patients, given the study’s new and unexpected findings, I am already pondering, ‘How am I going to counsel my patients today?’ The advice may not be the same as the current national guideline recommendations.”

The study was published Nov. 8 in The New England Journal of Medicine. Woo is the senior author. Postdoctoral scholar Andrew Goldstone, MD, PhD, is the lead author.
 

CazicT

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2017
Messages
18
Location
MA, USA
Interesting, but the article doesn't give a ton of detail. I couldn't find the full study on nejm.
 

dornole

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 5, 2014
Messages
662
Location
Minnesota, US
Have heard for some time that tissue valves in the mitral position degrade more quickly. Wonder if that's source of this result.
 

amarG

Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Messages
21
Location
California
Link to the study....

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1613792?query=featured_cardiology


I am struck by the low survival rates regardless of which valve you pick. According to standard actuarial tables, a 52 year old today has a 89.8% chance of living beyond 67 years of age. But according to the text from the study (copied below), after AVR, the same 52 year old has only a 69.4% chance of living past the age of 67 with a bio valve. And a 73.6% chance with a mechanical valve. That is quite a big drop from the general population survival rates. Wonder why...?



"...Among patients who underwent aortic-valve replacement, receipt of a biologic prosthesis was associated with significantly higher 15-year mortality than receipt of a mechanical prosthesis among patients 45 to 54 years of age (30.6% vs. 26.4% at 15 years; hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 1.48; P=0.03) but not among patients 55 to 64 years of age. Among patients who underwent mitral-valve replacement, receipt of a biologic prosthesis was associated with significantly higher mortality than receipt of a mechanical prosthesis among patients 40 to 49 years of age (44.1% vs. 27.1%; hazard ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.35 to 2.63; P<0.001) and among those 50 to 69 years of age (50.0% vs. 45.3%; hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.30; P=0.01).... "
 

rakesh1167

VR.org Supporter
VR.org Supporter
Joined
May 23, 2014
Messages
52
Location
Karnataka Bangalore India
amarG;n880220 said:
Link to the study....

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1613792?query=featured_cardiology


I am struck by the low survival rates regardless of which valve you pick. According to standard actuarial tables, a 52 year old today has a 89.8% chance of living beyond 67 years of age. But according to the text from the study (copied below), after AVR, the same 52 year old has only a 69.4% chance of living past the age of 67 with a bio valve. And a 73.6% chance with a mechanical valve. That is quite a big drop from the general population survival rates. Wonder why...?



"...Among patients who underwent aortic-valve replacement, receipt of a biologic prosthesis was associated with significantly higher 15-year mortality than receipt of a mechanical prosthesis among patients 45 to 54 years of age (30.6% vs. 26.4% at 15 years; hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 1.48; P=0.03) but not among patients 55 to 64 years of age. Among patients who underwent mitral-valve replacement, receipt of a biologic prosthesis was associated with significantly higher mortality than receipt of a mechanical prosthesis among patients 40 to 49 years of age (44.1% vs. 27.1%; hazard ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.35 to 2.63; P<0.001) and among those 50 to 69 years of age (50.0% vs. 45.3%; hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.30; P=0.01).... "
Additional risk of endocarditis, clotting, bleeding and reoperations.
 

dick0236

Eat the elephant one bite at a time
VR.org Supporter
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
2,968
Location
louisville, KY USA
amarG;n880220 said:
...............That is quite a big drop from the general population survival rates. Wonder why...?
.........and then there are many who have exceeded the general population survival rates.........without sacrificing a normal life and lifestyle.
 

pellicle

Professional Dingbat
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
6,996
Location
Queensland, OzTrayLeeYa
dick0236;n880224 said:
....without sacrificing a normal life and lifestyle.
Well ignoring the problems of hair loss, erectile dysfunction, feeling the cold, inability to exersize, malaise, and the many other problems that warfarin brings as its side effects are well known to facilitate aging and thus the onset of these diseases.
 

dick0236

Eat the elephant one bite at a time
VR.org Supporter
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
2,968
Location
louisville, KY USA
pellicle;n880225 said:
Well ignoring the problems of hair loss, erectile dysfunction, feeling the cold, inability to exersize, malaise, and the many other problems that warfarin brings as its side effects are well known to facilitate aging and thus the onset of these diseases.
Only one of your list has occurred.......and at my age of 82 I'll let you guess which one. :)
 

dornole

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 5, 2014
Messages
662
Location
Minnesota, US
pellicle;n880225 said:
Well ignoring the problems of hair loss, erectile dysfunction, feeling the cold, inability to exersize, malaise, and the many other problems that warfarin brings as its side effects are well known to facilitate aging and thus the onset of these diseases.
You're joking, right - these are not warfarin side effects but general downsides of a long life?

As if people needed more reasons to be worried : o
 

dick0236

Eat the elephant one bite at a time
VR.org Supporter
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
2,968
Location
louisville, KY USA
dornole;n880235 said:
You're joking, right - these are not warfarin side effects but general downsides of a long life?

As if people needed more reasons to be worried : o
Point taken. Unfortunately its like yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater. My apologies.
 

pellicle

Professional Dingbat
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
6,996
Location
Queensland, OzTrayLeeYa
dornole;n880235 said:
You're joking, right
absolutely! So tongue in cheek that I'd just about rupture ... a list assembled by all of the baseless fears from the uninformed which have been debunked here.


- these are not warfarin side effects but general downsides of a long life?
exactly, the only known side effect of warfarin is to give you a longer life.

The only requirement on warfarin is to be pay attention to what your're doing ... not unlike driving which harms people yet is not as feared as universally (yet).

:)
 

CazicT

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2017
Messages
18
Location
MA, USA
"...Among patients who underwent aortic-valve replacement, receipt of a biologic prosthesis was associated with significantly higher 15-year mortality than receipt of a mechanical prosthesis among patients 45 to 54 years of age (30.6% vs. 26.4% at 15 years; hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 1.48; P=0.03) but not among patients 55 to 64 years of age. Among patients who underwent mitral-valve replacement, receipt of a biologic prosthesis was associated with significantly higher mortality than receipt of a mechanical prosthesis among patients 40 to 49 years of age (44.1% vs. 27.1%; hazard ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.35 to 2.63; P<0.001) and among those 50 to 69 years of age (50.0% vs. 45.3%; hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.30; P=0.01).... "

This would also mean a 45 year old has only a 69.4% chance of making it to 60 with a tissue and 73.6% with a mechanical.. Wow, I really hope there is something going on here that i'm missing... I was planning on living to 80+ (or even longer, but I didn't want to be greedy, lol)
 

dick0236

Eat the elephant one bite at a time
VR.org Supporter
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
2,968
Location
louisville, KY USA
CazicT;n880265 said:
"........ I was planning on living to 80+ (or even longer, but I didn't want to be greedy, lol)
Sounds like a reasonable plan to me. Be careful when reading some of these "studies". Sometimes they have already formed their opinion......and selectively use statistics to prove their point. There is an old axiom that states "figures don't lie......but lyers figure"

BTW, I never expected to live to 80.......but I did. Those who have this life saving surgery BEFORE irreversible heart damage is done have an excellent chance to live a normal life......and probably little chance without the surgery.
 

ozsky

Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Messages
7
Location
China
dick0236;n880270 said:
Sounds like a reasonable plan to me. Be careful when reading some of these "studies". Sometimes they have already formed their opinion......and selectively use statistics to prove their point. There is an old axiom that states "figures don't lie......but lyers figure"

BTW, I never expected to live to 80.......but I did. Those who have this life saving surgery BEFORE irreversible heart damage is done have an excellent chance to live a normal life......and probably little chance without the surgery.
i really really like what u said here,Dick,encouraging me alot
 

Nocturne

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
485
Location
Rhode Island
amarG;n880220 said:
Link to the study....

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1613792?query=featured_cardiology


I am struck by the low survival rates regardless of which valve you pick. According to standard actuarial tables, a 52 year old today has a 89.8% chance of living beyond 67 years of age. But according to the text from the study (copied below), after AVR, the same 52 year old has only a 69.4% chance of living past the age of 67 with a bio valve. And a 73.6% chance with a mechanical valve. That is quite a big drop from the general population survival rates. Wonder why...?



"...Among patients who underwent aortic-valve replacement, receipt of a biologic prosthesis was associated with significantly higher 15-year mortality than receipt of a mechanical prosthesis among patients 45 to 54 years of age (30.6% vs. 26.4% at 15 years; hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 1.48; P=0.03) but not among patients 55 to 64 years of age. Among patients who underwent mitral-valve replacement, receipt of a biologic prosthesis was associated with significantly higher mortality than receipt of a mechanical prosthesis among patients 40 to 49 years of age (44.1% vs. 27.1%; hazard ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.35 to 2.63; P<0.001) and among those 50 to 69 years of age (50.0% vs. 45.3%; hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.30; P=0.01).... "
Oh boy.

Folks don't cotton to that topic of discussion 'round these parts, pardner.

Look here -- see that circle? It's really a cone! It's both! It's neither! HUZZAH!!!

See? Ya got NOTHIN' ta worry about!
 

pellicle

Professional Dingbat
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
6,996
Location
Queensland, OzTrayLeeYa
Nocturne;n880684 said:
Look here -- see that circle? It's really a cone! It's both! It's neither! HUZZAH!!!
I am pretty sure it's a triangle...
See? Ya got NOTHIN' ta worry about!
So we keep telling you
[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","height":"525","width":"700","src":"http:\/\/www.funnyquotesimg.com\/quotes-images\/i-told-you-i-was-sick-bastards-375360.jpg"}[/IMG2]
:)
 

Latest posts

Group Builder
Top