I am 57 years old. I have been told by a cardiologist, as a result of an echo, that I should have my aortic valve replaced (regurgitation) with a mechanical valve. I have no symtoms and am in generally good health.
With a mechanical valve I will need to be on an anticiagulant the rest of my life. There is a risk of stroke and I think infection. Does anybody know of or have experience with the Ross procedure? What are its advantages and disadvantages?
Basically with a mechanical one needs to take medication for a life time as you know. Also there is a clicking sound that may be annoying. Non-mechanical there maybe a need for a replacement in 10-15 years.
There is a medical risk with either procedure and don't know of any stats for comparison between the two. For some the valve can be repaired. If there are no coronary artery blockages, there is a less invasive operation available.
I believe those issues are the only difference other than financial.
Very often there are no symptoms with valve regurg. To not timely operate could lead to heart failure.
I have/had moderate to severe MVR and CAD. Not knowing due to a silent (no symtoms, represents 25% of MI's) MI I now have heart tissue damage and CHF. I had considered myself in fairly good condition; exercised 3 times a week, proper diet, etc.
NCA/AAH guidelines whether or not to do a valve operation depends on symptoms but the heart's pumping effiency and size of the heart's left ventricle are vitally important and may overide the no symptom consideration for not operating. Additionally a very low efficiency factor (can develop very quickly) will prevent most surgeons from operating due to a high mortality risk. To wait and watch has considerable risk for some people.