Abstract:The current guidelines of the American Heart Association (AHA), American College of Cardiology (ACC) from 2014, and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) from 2012 uniformly recommend mechanical aortic valve replacement in patients under 60 years of age and biologic aortic valve replacement in patients over 70 years of age.[1] [2] The recommendations are conflicting for patients between 60 and 70 years of age. The ESC guidelines recommend biologic prosthesis from the age of 65 years onward, whereas the newer AHA/ACC guidelines only recommend biological valves starting 70 years of age. Over the past 20 years, there is a shift away from a clear-cut age limit toward patient's wish and lifestyle considerations.[3]The number of surgical aortic valve replacements using a bioprosthesis is increasing according to the annual surveys of thoracic surgery in 2013 and 2014 by the Japanese Association for Thoracic Surgery, which states that bioprostheses are used in three-quarters of all aortic valve replacements procedures.[4] In addition, the age limit for implantation of an aortic bioprosthesis is continuously being shifted down with bioprostheses used for aortic valve replacements in 60% of sexagenarian patients and 90% of septuagenarian or octogenarian patients.[3] [4] [5] [6] This may be related to the enhanced durability of new-generation bioprostheses, improved outcomes of redo valve replacement surgery, or the development of valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation.[3] [4] [5] [6]Randomized trials comparing biological and mechanical valve replacements are scanty. In 2009, Stassano and associates randomized 310 patients between 55 and 70 years of age into a mechanical and a biological prosthesis group to undergo aortic valve replacement. At a mean follow-up of 4 years, they found similar mortality and other adverse prosthesis-related events, namely, thromboembolic complications, bleeding, endocarditis, and structural valvular deterioration in the two group of patients.[7]In 2008, Brown and associates analyzed outcome after aortic valve replacement with mechanical versus biological prosthesis in patients aged between 50 and 70 years at operation. Freedom from reoperation was 98% for mechanical valve and 91% for bioprosthesis (p = 0.06). Rehospitalization for hemorrhagic events occurred in 15% of patients with mechanical valves and 7% of patients with bioprosthesis (p = 0.001). The 5- and 10-year unadjusted survivals were 87% and 68% for mechanical valves and 72% and 50% for bioprosthesis, respectively.[8] The reported incidence of survival following mechanical mitral valve replacement in the published literature at 10, 20, and 30 years was 61 to 75%, 36.5 to 39% and 22.6%, respectively.[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]The Carpentier–Edwards pericardial prosthesis commercially available since 1980 is the bioprosthesis, which is the most used worldwide. As a second-generation pericardial bioprosthesis, the Carpentier–Edwards pericardial valve was designed to minimize structural valvular deterioration, which plagued the first-generation prosthesis while retaining the hemodynamic superiority conferred by pericardial valve substitutes.[14] [15] [16] [17] Published literature documents excellent long-term outcomes with the Carpentier–Edwards pericardial valve ([Table 1]).[15] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]ModelAuthorFollow-up maximum, mean (years)Time of structural valve deterioration estimate (years)Age (years)Freedom from structural valve deterioration estimate (%)Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval.Carpentier–EdwardsPoirier et al[15]15, 4.814Mean (not reported)< 6060–69≥7079.9 ± 5.084.787.9100Carpentier–EdwardsNeville et al[18]12, 4.712Mean 68< 60≥6094 (CI: 90–98)89 (CI: 80–98)98 (CI: 96–100)Carpentier–EdwardsBanbury et al[19]17, 1215Mean 65< 5050–70≥7077 (CI: 74–82)488090Carpentier–EdwardsDellgren et al[22]14, 512Mean 71> 6586 ± 9.0100Carpentier–EdwardsBiglioli et al[-Abstract Truncated-

Long-term outcomes of isolated mechanical versus bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement in different age groups of propensity-matched patients

Tissue versus mechanical mitral valve replacement in patients aged 50-70: a propensity-matched analysis

Long-Term Outcomes of Bioprosthetic and Mechanical Valve Replacement for Patients Aged between 50 and 70 Years

Mechanical or biological prosthesis for aortic valve replacement in patients aged 45 to 74 years

Long-term outcomes following aortic valve replacement in bioprosthetic vs mechanical valves

Mechanical or Biologic Prostheses for Aortic‐Valve and Mitral‐Valve Replacement

[Comparison of mid-to-long term outcomes between mitral valve repair and biological valve replacement in patients over 60 with rheumatic mitral valve disease based on a propensity score matching study]

Age-Based Outcomes After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement With Bioprosthetic Versus Mechanical Valves

Long-Term Outcomes of Mechanical Versus Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Aged Under 50 Years: Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data

Clinical Study of the Efficacy of Different Types of Surgery in Elderly Patients with Mitral Valve Disease

Midterm outcomes of mitral valve repair versus replacement in elderly patients: A propensity score-matched analysis

LONG-TERM FOLLOW UP OF 351 CASES OF HEART VALVE REPLACEMENT WITH BIOPROSTHESES

Durability of biological valves implanted in aortic or mitral positions: A nationwide cohort study

Outcomes after implantation of right-sided mechanical valve prostheses in congenital heart disease

Clinical characteristics and long-term outcome of patients with bioprosthetic mitral valve- Experience from a South Asian country

Effects of mitral valve disease etiology on the outcomes of mechanical and biological valve replacement: retrospective cohort study

Biological Prostheses In Patients Younger Than 65 Years Old: A Propensity-Score Matching Analysis Between The Two Most Implanted Bovine Pericardial Valves.

Should Mitral Valve Replacement Age Guidelines Be Lowered Due to Better Bioprosthetic Mitral Valve Durability?

Technical Details of Aortic Valve Replacement using Carpentier–Edwards PERIMOUNT Magna Ease Aortic Bioprosthesis in a Sexagenarian Patient with Severe Calcific Aortic Stenosis: A Video Presentation

Long‐Term Survival of Mitroflow and Perimount Aortic Valve Replacements

Patients over 70 Years of Age with Moderate Ischemic Mitral Regurgitation Undergoing Surgical Revascularization Plus Mitral Valve Repair: Insights from a Single-Center Study of Propensity-Matched Data.