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-

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

Early and mid-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement using a novel tissue bioprosthesis: a systematic review

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

Minimally Invasive and Full Sternotomy Aortic Valve Replacements Lead to Comparable Long-Term Outcomes in Elderly Higher-Risk Patients: A Propensity-Matched Comparison

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

An Updated Systematic Review with Long-Term Results

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

Gramicidin S-synthetase: on the structure of polyenzyme template in polypeptide synthesis.

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

Long‐Term Survival of Mitroflow and Perimount Aortic Valve Replacements

Multicenter, propensity-weighted comparison of stented, rapid-deployment and new-generation aortic valves

Early clinical outcomes of Portico and Edwards Sapien 3 valve prosthesis in transcatheter aortic valve replacement: propensity-matched analysis

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

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

Impact of Small Aortic Annuli on the Performance of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Bioprostheses: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Recent Studies

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

Aortic valve replacement in elderly with small aortic root and low body surface area; the Perceval S valve and its impact in effective orifice area

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

Mechanical versus Biological Valve Prostheses for Infective Endocarditis Presenting with Stroke

Occurrence and Outcome of Infective Endocarditis after Surgical Compared to Transcatheter Pulmonary Valve Implantation in Congenital Heart Disease