Outcome and impact of aortic valve replacement in patients with preserved LVEF and low-gradient aortic ste- nosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66:2594 603. 3.2.4. Choice of Intervention 3.2.4.1. Choice of Mechanical Versus Bioprosthetic AVR 1. Goldstone AB, Chiu P, Baiocchi M, et al. Mechanical or biologic pros- theses for aortic-valve and mitral-valve replacement. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:1847 57. 2. Badhwar V, Ofenloch JC, Rovin JD, et al. Noninferiority of closely moni- tored mechanical valves to bioprostheses overshadowed by early mortality benefit in younger patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;93:748 53. 3. 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. 4. van Geldorp MWA, Eric Jamieson WR, Kappetein AP, et al. Patient out- come after aortic valve replacement with a mechanical or biological pros- thesis: weighing lifetime anticoagulant-related event risk against reopera- tion risk. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;137:881 6, 866.e1 5. 5. Kulik A, B dard P, Lam B-K, et al. Mechanical versus bioprosthetic valve replacement in middle-aged patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2006;30:485 91. 6. Glaser N, Jackson V, Holzmann MJ, et al. Aortic valve replacement with mechanical vs. biological prostheses in patients aged 50 69 years. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:2658 67. CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES 7. Chikwe J, Chiang YP, Egorova NN, et al. Survival and outcomes following bioprosthetic vs mechanical mitral valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 69 years. JAMA. 2015;313:1435 42. 8. McClure RS, McGurk S, Cevasco M, et al. Late outcomes comparison of nonelderly patients with stented bioprosthetic and mechanical valves in the aortic position: a propensity-matched analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;148:1931 9. 9. Chiang YP, Chikwe J, Moskowitz AJ, et al. 