New Member

Valve Replacement Forums

Help Support Valve Replacement Forums:

Gia

Active member
Joined
Aug 6, 2022
Messages
26
Location
Texas
Hello
I’m new to this forum. I’m am currently 62 I had an AVR in May 2017 and opted for a tissue valve. I now need it replaced and am scheduled for surgery on Aug 17, 2022 and have elected to go with a mechanical valve and am looking for information about the valves and surgery outlook. Thanks
 
Last edited:

dick0236

Eat the elephant one bite at a time
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
3,364
Location
louisville, KY USA
Hello
I’m new to this forum. I’m am currently 62 I had an AVR in May 2017 and opted for a tissue valve. I now need it replaced and am scheduled for surgery on Aug 17, 2022 and have elected to go with a mechanical valve and am looking for information about the values and surgery outlook. Thanks
Hi and welcome to this forum. Your bio shows you are a 62-year-old nurse with a failing tissue valve.........so you have a better than average knowledge. A mechanical will probably last your lifetime without further replacements. At the current level of available mechanical valves you will be on an anticoagulant......but, as you will find on most postings from people with a mechanical valve, "that ain't a big deal" for the majority of mechanical valvers. My valve is no longer in production but it has been my only valve and has gotten me to the "ripe old age of 86+.......my valve is a 1st generation mechanical valve and you would think the newer valves have a lot of history behind their development.
 
Last edited:

Gia

Active member
Joined
Aug 6, 2022
Messages
26
Location
Texas
That is amazing how long your valve has lasted. I didn’t anticipate a replacement in 5 years but mine is very stenotic. I’m concerned about the calcification on the mechanical. Not sure which one the surgeon will put in but I have taken care of his patients (I’m a cardiac nurse) and people from all over the world come to him for surgery and he did the first one so I’m letting him do the second. It’s just that these symptoms are so much worse than with my real damaged valve. So happy to see that your valve has lasted and that you are doing well this is such encouragement!
 

pellicle

Professional Dingbat
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
10,423
Location
Queensland, OzTrayLeeYa
Hi

and welcome

I’m new to this forum. I’m am currently 62 I had an AVR in May 2017 and opted for a tissue valve. I now need it replaced and am scheduled for surgery on Aug 17, 2022 and have elected to go with a mechanical valve and am looking for information about the valves and surgery outlook. Thanks
Sorry to read you got such a small duration from your previous valve

Basically I'd point you to my blog oost which I wrote some time ago after always seeing this question here


It's a good place to ask specific questions
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gia

Gia

Active member
Joined
Aug 6, 2022
Messages
26
Location
Texas
PS I’m reading your post and just to let you know I read studies not google and I’m a trained PhD with a dissertation in female heart failure so I do understand to only read valid legit sources! Reading all the stuff on the internet can make you crazy and you have to trust your cardiologist and surgeon!
 

Chuck C

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
1,690
Welcome to the forum Gia.

Sorry that your tissue valve only lasted 5 years. They usually last longer than that but young folks in their 50s, as you were when you received your valve, often go through tissue valves relatively quickly.

I’m concerned about the calcification on the mechanical

Your mechanical valve should not calcify.

I had a mechanical valve installed about 16 months ago and have been on anti-coagulation since then. Although I have not been on anti-coagulation nearly as long, my experience is similar to Dick's in that I do not find being on anti-coagulation any big deal. I self manage my INR and would recommend that you do the same, as studies have shown far fewer events for those who self test.

Best of luck with your upcoming surgery.
 

Gia

Active member
Joined
Aug 6, 2022
Messages
26
Location
Texas
Welcome to the forum Gia.

Sorry that your tissue valve only lasted 5 years. They usually last longer than that but young folks in their 50s, as you were when you received your valve, often go through tissue valves relatively quickly.



Your mechanical valve should not calcify.

I had a mechanical valve installed about 16 months ago and have been on anti-coagulation since then. Although I have not been on anti-coagulation nearly as long, my experience is similar to Dick's in that I do not find being on anti-coagulation any big deal. I self manage my INR and would recommend that you do the same, as studies have shown far fewer events for those who self test.

Best of luck with your upcoming surgery.
Thank you so much for this uplifting information! I also read that warfarin calcifies the arteries quicker but have also read about vit K2 and vit d3 being able to help that situation. Unfortunately the doctors don’t know much about nutrition and how it effects the arteries. I will look more this more as my background is in holistic health so I’m interested in natural ways to stay healthy!
 

pellicle

Professional Dingbat
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
10,423
Location
Queensland, OzTrayLeeYa
I’m am currently 62 I had an AVR in May 2017
ahh ... I got this mixed up (reading on my phone) and wondered like what?

got it now ;-)
! I also read that warfarin calcifies the arteries quicker but have also read about vit K2
this one is a bit of an old furfie which dates from a conjecture about that and then using rats in an accelerated trial, which were then IV fed so much vitamin K to make the warfarin (which was nearly LD levels) not lethal and then they checked their levels.

I'll see if I can fish out the study, but nobody's been talking about that (AKA publishing) for like 20 years or so.

Unfortunately the doctors don’t know much about nutrition
personally I think the sentence can be ended there, although I'd use the word "most"


HTH
 

Gia

Active member
Joined
Aug 6, 2022
Messages
26
Location
Texas
ahh ... I got this mixed up (reading on my phone) and wondered like what?

got it now ;-)

this one is a bit of an old furfie which dates from a conjecture about that and then using rats in an accelerated trial, which were then IV fed so much vitamin K to make the warfarin (which was nearly LD levels) not lethal and then they checked their levels.

I'll see if I can fish out the study, but nobody's been talking about that (AKA publishing) for like 20 years or so.


personally I think the sentence can be ended there, although I'd use the word "most"


HTH
Not just Vit K Vit K2 it takes calcium. Out of the arteries and puts it in the bones but should be used with Vit D3. I asked my surgeon and he gave me a strange look lol
 

pellicle

Professional Dingbat
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
10,423
Location
Queensland, OzTrayLeeYa
was looking for the rat study for this

I also read that warfarin calcifies the arteries quicker

I believe it was this one

some interesting things are in the methods:

Firstly lets say (for simplicity of calculation) that the average lab rat weighs 200g (you can look it up, its not far out of median). so:

Twenty-four and 48 hours before the first warfarin injection, all rats received doses of 1.5 mg vitamin K1/100 g body weight.

like wow ... 1.5mg is an amount that you'd give an adult human (weighing 90kg) in K1 via IV to rapidly reverse INR. FMD! It gets better:

The first warfarin dose, 15 mg/100 g,

just wow ... I personally take 7mg per day and I weigh 75kg (which actually isn't the main predictor of therapeutic dose) so if I was to take my dose would be 0.09mg/Kg (happy for a maths check).

its not looking like anything any human would undergo, and so pretty much anything in the abstract is not really very "transferrable" to humans IMO.


also, having trouble understanding the first sentence or two there
Not just Vit K Vit K2 it takes calcium. Out of the arteries and puts it in the bones but should be used with Vit D3. I asked my surgeon and he gave me a strange look lol
I fully understand why the surgeon would give you a strange look

Best Wishes
 

Gia

Active member
Joined
Aug 6, 2022
Messages
26
Location
Texas
was looking for the rat study for this



I believe it was this one

some interesting things are in the methods:

Firstly lets say (for simplicity of calculation) that the average lab rat weighs 200g (you can look it up, its not far out of median). so:

Twenty-four and 48 hours before the first warfarin injection, all rats received doses of 1.5 mg vitamin K1/100 g body weight.

like wow ... 1.5mg is an amount that you'd give an adult human (weighing 90kg) in K1 via IV to rapidly reverse INR. FMD! It gets better:

The first warfarin dose, 15 mg/100 g,

just wow ... I personally take 7mg per day and I weigh 75kg (which actually isn't the main predictor of therapeutic dose) so if I was to take my dose would be 0.09mg/Kg (happy for a maths check).

its not looking like anything any human would undergo, and so pretty much anything in the abstract is not really very "transferrable" to humans IMO.


also, having trouble understanding the first sentence or two there

I fully understand why the surgeon would give you a strange look

Best Wishes
This is about Vit K1 I was talking about K2 I will find some studies on it!
 

Gia

Active member
Joined
Aug 6, 2022
Messages
26
Location
Texas
was looking for the rat study for this



I believe it was this one

some interesting things are in the methods:

Firstly lets say (for simplicity of calculation) that the average lab rat weighs 200g (you can look it up, its not far out of median). so:

Twenty-four and 48 hours before the first warfarin injection, all rats received doses of 1.5 mg vitamin K1/100 g body weight.

like wow ... 1.5mg is an amount that you'd give an adult human (weighing 90kg) in K1 via IV to rapidly reverse INR. FMD! It gets better:

The first warfarin dose, 15 mg/100 g,

just wow ... I personally take 7mg per day and I weigh 75kg (which actually isn't the main predictor of therapeutic dose) so if I was to take my dose would be 0.09mg/Kg (happy for a maths check).

its not looking like anything any human would undergo, and so pretty much anything in the abstract is not really very "transferrable" to humans IMO.


also, having trouble understanding the first sentence or two there

I fully understand why the surgeon would give you a strange look

Best Wishes
Kurnatowska I, Grzelak P, Masajtis-Zagajewska A, Kaczmarska M, Stefańczyk L, Vermeer C, Maresz K, Nowicki M. Effect of vitamin K2 on progression of atherosclerosis and vascular calcification in nondialyzed patients with chronic kidney disease stages 3-5. Pol Arch Med Wewn. 2015;125(9):631-40. doi: 10.20452/pamw.3041. Epub 2015 Jul 15. PMID: 26176325.
 

pellicle

Professional Dingbat
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
10,423
Location
Queensland, OzTrayLeeYa
This is about Vit K1 I was talking about K2
true, but it was also about the effect of warfarin on bone calcium, and if you look into the citations of studies that say "warfarin is fingered in bone calcium (smith and jones, some year)" you'll find that study (and similar) in the reference section supporting the claim

also are you aware of the cycling of K1 (so called plant source) and K2 (so called animal source) within the body?

Either way the points I was making are:
  • people are no longer citing warfarin as a culprit for calcification of arteries nor decalcification of bones
  • one needs to be a bit rigorous on the studies supporting the claim in the study you are reading.
Best Wishes
 

Gia

Active member
Joined
Aug 6, 2022
Messages
26
Location
Texas
true, but it was also about the effect of warfarin on bone calcium, and if you look into the citations of studies that say "warfarin is fingered in bone calcium (smith and jones, some year)" you'll find that study (and similar) in the reference section supporting the claim

also are you aware of the cycling of K1 (so called plant source) and K2 (so called animal source) within the body?

Either way the points I was making are:
  • people are no longer citing warfarin as a culprit for calcification of arteries nor decalcification of bones
  • one needs to be a bit rigorous on the studies supporting the claim in the study you are reading.
Best Wishes
Thank you I didn’t get the chance to dig and read it all. Will do that because I’m interested in this subject!
 

pellicle

Professional Dingbat
Joined
Nov 4, 2012
Messages
10,423
Location
Queensland, OzTrayLeeYa
Thank you I didn’t get the chance to dig and read it all. Will do that because I’m interested in this subject!
sometimes you need to did though a lot of side citations to get to see if you agree that "statement X" is actually supported by the citation.

Best Wishes
 
Top