2009;54:1862 8. 27. Brennan JM, Edwards FH, Zhao Y, et al. Long-term safety and effective- ness of mechanical versus biologic aortic valve prostheses in older pa- tients: results from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery National Database. Circulation. 2013;127:1647 55. 28. Banbury MK, Cosgrove DM 3rd, Thomas JD, et al. Hemodynamic stability during 17 years of the Carpentier-Edwards aortic pericardial bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002;73:1460 5. 29. Dellgren G, David TE, Raanani E, et al. Late hemodynamic and clinical out- comes of aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount pericardial bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2002;124:146 54. 30. Borger MA, Ivanov J, Armstrong S, et al. Twenty-year results of the Han- cock II bioprosthesis. J Heart Valve Dis. 2006;15:49 55. 31. Myk n PSU, Bech-Hansen O. A 20-year experience of 1712 patients with the Biocor porcine bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;137:76 81. 32. Mazine A, El-Hamamsy I, Verma S, et al. Ross procedure in adults for car- diologists and cardiac Surgeons: JACC state-of-the-art review. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72:2761 77. 3.2.4.2. Choice of SAVR Versus TAVI for Patients for Whom a Bioprosthetic AVR Is Appropriate 1. Siemieniuk RA, Agoritsas T, Manja V, et al. Transcatheter versus surgi- cal aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low and intermediate risk: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2016;354:i5130. 2. Foroutan F, Guyatt GH, O Brien K, et al. Prognosis after surgical replace- ment with a bioprosthetic aortic valve in patients with severe symptom- atic aortic stenosis: systematic review of observational studies. BMJ. 2016;354:i5065. 3. Siontis GCM, Overtchouk P, Cahill TJ, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve im- plantation vs. surgical aortic valve replacement for treatment of symp- tomatic severe aortic stenosis: an updated meta-analysis. Eur Heart J. 2019;40:3143 53. 4. Adams DH, Popma JJ, Reardon MJ, et al. 