REFERENCES
1. Etz CD, Bischoff MS, Bodian C, et al. The bentall procedure: is it the gold standard? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2010;140:S64-70; discussion S86.
2. Otto CM, Nishimura RA, Bonow RO, et al. 2020 ACC/AHA guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the american college of cardiology/American heart association joint committee on clinical practice guidelines. Circulation 2021;143:e72-e227.
3. Vahanian A, Beyersdorf F, Praz F, et al. 2021 ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J 2022;43:561-632.
4. Gaudino M, Lau C, Munjal M, Avgerinos D, Girardi LN. Contemporary outcomes of surgery for aortic root aneurysms: a propensity-matched comparison of valve-sparing and composite valve graft replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015;150:1120-9.e1.
5. Head SJ, Çelik M, Kappetein AP. Mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement. Eur Heart J 2017;38:2183-91.
6. Head SJ, Kappetein AP. Aortic valve replacement in younger adults: a biological valve is not the logical choice. Eur Heart J 2016;37:2668-70.
7. Girardi LN. Composite root replacement with a mechanical conduit. Oper Tech Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008;13:148-60.
8. Lau C, Gaudino M, Iannacone EM, et al. Retrograde cerebral perfusion is effective for prolonged circulatory arrest in arch aneurysm repair. Ann Thorac Surg 2018;105:491-7.
9. Kouchoukos NT, Karp RB. Resection of ascending aortic aneurysm and replacement of aortic valve. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1981;81:142-3.
10. Fine JP, Gray RJ. A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc 1999;94:496-509.
11. Dunning J, Gao H, Chambers J, et al. Aortic valve surgery: marked increases in volume and significant decreases in mechanical valve use-an analysis of 41,227 patients over 5 years from the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in Great Britain and Ireland National database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011;142:776-782.e3.
12. Siregar S, de Heer F, Groenwold RH, et al. Trends and outcomes of valve surgery: 16-year results of Netherlands Cardiac Surgery National Database. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2014;46:386-97; discussion 397.
13. Isaacs AJ, Shuhaiber J, Salemi A, Isom OW, Sedrakyan A. National trends in utilization and in-hospital outcomes of mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015;149:1262-9.e3.
14. Wright JN, Vazquez SR, Kim K, Jones AE, Witt DM. Assessing patient preferences for switching from warfarin to direct oral anticoagulants. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2019;48:596-602.
15. Glaser N, Jackson V, Holzmann MJ, Franco-Cereceda A, Sartipy U. Aortic valve replacement with mechanical vs. biological prostheses in patients aged 50-69 years. Eur Heart J 2016;37:2658-67.
16. Brown ML, Schaff HV, Lahr BD, et al. Aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 70 years: improved outcome with mechanical versus biologic prostheses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008;135:878-84; discussion 884.
17. Svensson LG, Pillai ST, Rajeswaran J, et al. Long-term survival, valve durability, and reoperation for 4 aortic root procedures combined with ascending aorta replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2016;151:764-774.e4.
18. Etz CD, Girrbach FF, von Aspern K, et al. Longevity after aortic root replacement: is the mechanically valved conduit really the gold standard for quinquagenarians? Circulation 2013;128:S253-62.
19. Kytö V, Sipilä J, Ahtela E, Rautava P, Gunn J. Mechanical versus biologic prostheses for surgical aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 70. Ann Thorac Surg 2020;110:102-10.
