Christine's Profile

When I was in my late twenties, after the birth of my son, I noticed that I was very aware of my heartbeat and felt palpitations which became more and more frequent. I wore a Holter monitor on two separate occasions and was told there was nothing wrong and it was stress related. A few years later my OB/GYN noticed a murmur when listening to my heart and long story short, I was diagnosed with MVP. I was told I had a mild leak and that there was a very low chance of it progressing to anything serious. Over the years I've had my annual echos and at some point several years ago the leak progressed to moderate. At the end of 2021 it had progressed to Mod/Severe. When I asked what could be done about this, my cardiologist's RN and PA both told me that until I start showing symptoms it's wait and see. They stated that a replacement would be considered upon becoming short of breath, legs swelling, etc. WHAT?? This did not seem logical to me. I started researching the issue and became aware of valve REPAIR being possible BEFORE symptoms progress and heart damage occurs. Imagine that! I am 62 now and am at the point where I have consulted with two surgeons for opinions and am trying to wrap my head around all of the information out there so that I can select the procedure that is right for me. Minimally invasive or traditional open heart? I've heard good and bad about both and am not sure which way to go (recent TEE shows severe regurg vs. regular echo mod/severe, my only symptom is increased PVC's for which I'm on a new medication which is helping and slight fatigue after longer workouts). Both surgeons say the valve is repairable. Popular opinion is to have a surgeon with a high number of MR repairs annually with 99% successful repair rate. I joined hoping to get some insight on both types of procedures by hearing about others' personal experiences. Thanks for listening :)