My last update described how a cardiac surgeon, Dr. Youssef, recommended open heart surgery to replace my aortic valve and ascending aorta.
Today, I had a second opinion consult with an interventional cardiologist, Dr. Gafoor. The interventional cardiologist does TAVR, a minimally-invasive heart valve replacement which is similar to placing a large stent. TAVR and surgery are alternative techniques for solving the same problem so the two specialties compete for patients. Dr. Gafoor showed how the interventional cardiologists and cardiac surgeons are frequently at odds with each other by butting his two fists together.
Despite this, Dr. Gafoor recommends open heart surgery as described by Dr. Youssef due to my specific situation. He also said that Dr. Youssef is an excellent surgeon who has done this surgery many times and that he would recommend this for his own family member.
So the cardiologist, surgeon and interventional cardiologist are all on the same page.
I would assume the only situation in which TAVR would be recommended is one in which the ONLY thing wrong is the valve itself. That is rare when a valve has been “slowly failing” cuz of the list of iterative impacts a flawed valve has on surrounding elements.
It sounds like everyone involved is seeing the same inputs and giving you sound advice. Glad to hear it.
Don’t forget to get a bit of practice in on a treadmill before rehab begins…one (of many) things my husband chose not to do and had a very startling time on his first rehab session.
Don’t forget to get pain meds prescribed and dispensed before your discharge from the hospital. I’m reasonably sure that cardio thoracic surgeons (like orthopedic surgeons) are immune to the anti opioid scare mongering…as I alluded to in a different thread…but you never know where any hold ups might be. When my husband was discharged, the prescription for an appropriate supply of Tylenol and Oxycodone had been sent to our local pharmacy. He’d also had his morning meds before discharge but there was about an hour of faffing around waiting for paperwork completion plus the drive home in heavy traffic so, I got him settled and went back to the pharmacy expecting to get the next dose on board at the proper time…but with little time to spare.
Imagine my surprise when I got to the pharmacy to be denied the pain meds. On close (and I dare say, somewhat testy) questioning, the counter clerk qualified the “denial” by informing me that the insurance company wanted verification of need before paying. Bugger that, sez I (possibly stronger wording)…he’s just had open heart surgery and I bet the insurance company has already received bills for that. Couldn’t really stand on ceremony with the clock ticking so I asked the out of pocket cost (only about $30) so obviously coughed up and went on my way.
I’m only mentioning this again and now because I’ve just been through yesterday’s emails and reading through topics before deleting and stumbled across this and it jogged my memory …
The linked article is not particularly new in concept, but it is quite important. While the body of it describes the medical experts as “medical experts” the title should have reflected that reality, too.
I’m not sure what you mean. I think the quotes are intended to imply a disdain for the actual expertise of those giving biased/ill informed testemony. Whereas the body of the article explains the necessity for this…i.e. actual knowledge, skill and experience in the field you’re experting on. Or is that what you actually meant?
Yes, that is exactly what I meant. The disdain was not reflected in the article title and it would have been appropriate to reflect it there as well as internally in the text body.