Are you sure about the cath being too small for athletes? I've been looking for that and the little bit of data I can find look like the valve area is the same
New Valve with replaceable leaflets
- Thread starter Lionheart
- Start date
Help Support Valve Replacement Forums:
Are you sure about the cath being too small for athletes? I've been looking for that and the little bit of data I can find look like the valve area is the same
i thought another thread somewhere has some numbers, although not
comprehensive. al c had some postings there. anyway, the cath valve
fits inside the old valve, scrunches the leaflets up against the walls, so
would have to have a smaller area. some of the ohs valves like edwards
fit 'supraannular' on top of the aorta instead of inside, allowing for a
larger valve. at least that's my understanding.
This is the thread http://www.valvereplacement.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29611 but the only data I found said showed they were about the same. and the one report said "This large effective orifice area is achieved by associated expansion of the aortic annulus and the absence of any struts or sewing ring so that it approaches the orifice of the best stentless surgical bioprosthetic valves"
I've been looking but still not much out that I can find
here's some interesting reading:
http://ht.edwards.com/resourcegallery/products/heartvalves/pdfs/whyhemodynamics.pdf
brochure from edwards, looks like eoa for perimount is:
19mm = 1.22 21mm = 1.82 23mm = 1.96
http://ht.edwards.com/resourcegallery/products/heartvalves/pdfs/whyhemodynamics.pdf
brochure from edwards, looks like eoa for perimount is:
19mm = 1.22 21mm = 1.82 23mm = 1.96
But that's in vitro, I believe the other numbers (from that thread above) were all in vivo
Some thoughts...
- As far as I know, the animals most commonly used for initially testing valves are lambs. They are massive calcifiers, and about the right size for human-sized valves.
- The disclaimer at the bottom of the article is required by the SEC (to discourage investment speculation from claims that may not pan out), and the FDA. It appears on the bottom of any U.S. company announcement regarding any medical device that has not been approved yet by the FDA.
- I would agree with Al that human trials are likely still years off. Anyone heard more about the new miracle valve from Sweden that was going to revolutionize valves about a year or two ago? Or the German one, three years before that? Or the ones that were being grown from the patients' own cells on frames (has surfaced several times from several labs, from a decade ago to about a year back)? Me, either...
But hold out hope, and keep tabs on it. At least this one is different. One of these days, this one, or one of these is going to pan out...
Best wishes,
- As far as I know, the animals most commonly used for initially testing valves are lambs. They are massive calcifiers, and about the right size for human-sized valves.
- The disclaimer at the bottom of the article is required by the SEC (to discourage investment speculation from claims that may not pan out), and the FDA. It appears on the bottom of any U.S. company announcement regarding any medical device that has not been approved yet by the FDA.
- I would agree with Al that human trials are likely still years off. Anyone heard more about the new miracle valve from Sweden that was going to revolutionize valves about a year or two ago? Or the German one, three years before that? Or the ones that were being grown from the patients' own cells on frames (has surfaced several times from several labs, from a decade ago to about a year back)? Me, either...
But hold out hope, and keep tabs on it. At least this one is different. One of these days, this one, or one of these is going to pan out...
Best wishes,
BigOwl
Well-known member
In the end, though, it's a shame that they didn't develop these new-fangled gizmos ten or fifteen years ago and get all the testing done on them before we all needed our new valves . . .
The downside of technological advancement is the lag time. Some terrific new technique seems to show up at just the wrong time to do one's own self any good.
The downside of technological advancement is the lag time. Some terrific new technique seems to show up at just the wrong time to do one's own self any good.
I talked to my aforementioned in-law this weekend, had already e-mailed him the website for the company. He was quite intrigued by it.
