2014;312:162 70. 19. Dvir D, Webb J, Brecker S, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerative bioprosthetic surgical valves: results from the global valve-in- valve registry. Circulation. 2012;126:2335 44. 20. Coylewright M, Forrest JK, McCabe JM, et al. TAVR in low-risk patients: FDA approval, the new NCD, and shared decision-making. J Am Coll Car- diol. 2020;75:1208 11. 21. Hess EP, Coylewright M, Frosch DL, et al. Implementation of shared deci- sion making in cardiovascular care: past, present, and future. Circ Cardio- vasc Qual Outcomes. 2014;7:797 803. 22. Weber A, Noureddine H, Englberger L, et al. Ten-year comparison of peri- cardial tissue valves versus mechanical prostheses for aortic valve replace- ment in patients younger than 60 years of age. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;144:1075 83. 23. Hammermeister K, Sethi GK, Henderson WG, et al. Outcomes 15 years after valve replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve: final report of the Veterans Affairs randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:1152 8. 24. Chan V, Jamieson WRE, Germann E, et al. Performance of bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses assessed by composites of valve-related com- plications to 15 years after aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006;131:1267 73. 25. Dunning J, Gao H, Chambers J, et al. Aortic valve surgery: marked increas- es in volume and significant decreases in mechanical valve use an analysis of 41,227 patients over 5 years from the Society for Cardiothoracic Sur- gery in Great Britain and Ireland National database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;142:776 82.e3. 26. Stassano P, L. DT, Monaco M, et al. Aortic valve replacement: a prospective randomized evaluation of mechanical versus biological valves in patients ages 55 to 70 years. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:1862 8. 27. Brennan JM, Edwards FH, Zhao Y, et al. 