reduce colesterol to prevent valve calcification????

[ar bee]

im at the upper end of normal limits of all cholesterol measurements (total, LDL, HDL, ratios), however my cardio insists that I take cholesterol lowering durgs in order to slow down calcification of the valve.

Since surgery is anyway on the agenda within the coming 6 month (mainly because the aortic root is 'growing') I was seriously wondering whether this makes any sense?

Has anyone of you been told a similar story?

tks for a reply

well2u
ar bee

 

[Phyllis]

Dick was not put on a statin before surgery, but it was suggested by his surgeon after surgery in order to keep the new bovine valve from calcifying. He also had low cholesterol readings and when they dropped even more significantly (alarmingly so) after a few months of being on the statin, we agreed with the cardiologist to discontinue its use. There are lots of people on this site with pig or bovine valves that are taking statins to prevent calcification and some that are not.

 

[Bryan B]

ar bee,

I too have boderline normal levels in all of my cholesterol levels. The cardio I was seeing in Nashville put me on Pravachol after my surgery to theoretically slow down the build up of calcium on my replaced valves. When I saw my surgeon he took me off of the statin...apparently he does not place credence in the recent studies that show that statins may slow down the buildup of calcium on valves. Yesterday I saw a new cardio at Duke and he wants to put me back on a statin. Since I tolerated the Pravachol well I guess I'm going to go ahead and do what my new cardio suggests.

 

[tobagotwo]

My cholesterol has always been low normal (my reports always said "you have lower than average risk"). My valve was extremely calcified. As such, I find no cause-and-effect in my personal history to back up the cholesterol theory. Sounds like similar for Dick from their post.

As statins reach their patent limits, the manufacturers must find new uses for the drugs to extend those patents, or lose their exclusive rights to manufacture and sell the drug to the hungry and ever-waiting generic drug manufacturers, who will take a very large chunk of their sales. The studies I have seen that were done around this did not do differentiations nor comparisons involving people who started out with normal or near-normal levels of cholesterol. Nor were concurrent factors tested, which might actually be more relevant than cholesterol.

I have not been happy with what I've seen so far of the statin manufacturers' lack of interest in the side effects that their drugs can produce, and the human damage that lies in their wake. There are many on this site who have attested to that. The promotion for statins has been highly aggressive, and they have lobbied extremely hard with the ACC and AHA. The latest has been in the form of in a push to lower what is considered the normal range for cholesterol for everyone.

While I don't believe that statins are useless, nor dangerous for everyone, I do believe that they should not be taken unless there is a definite need, and I am personally unconvinced regarding any potential effect on valve longevity, particularly for anyone near normal cholesterol levels.

The next time someone says to you that cholesterol (or anything else) doubles, triples, or increases your risk of stroke and heart attack, ask them from what starting risk? Ask what was the original risk level for you that is being doubled? Betcha they can't tell you...

Best wishes,

 

[Marguerite53]

I don't really know but....

I don't really know but....

Hm. Well, I just had a visit with my cardio and my bad cholesterol is ok, not great, but my good one isn't high enough. She said, in 6 months, if my new "program" (exercise, diet changes) isn't working she would put me on a cholesterol lowering med. She said there is new information supporting lower cholesterol. I did not ask her to elaborate. Perhaps this new information is something you could ask your doctor about it. FWIW.

Marguerite

 

[tobagotwo]

From what I've read, there is a greater correlation between C-Reactive Protein levels and heart-related incidents than there is with cholesterol. Next time you get a blood test, ask for the CRP to be done as well. You can get a misleading higher level due to inflammatory diseases, but it still seems to be more accurate.

Statins do reduce C-Reactive Protein levels to some extent, but are not necessarily the drug of choice, according to some reports, due to their known possible side effects.

Best wishes,