Table 1

Study characteristics

First author	Publication year	Study year	Type of prosthesis	Total (n)	Bioprosthetic valve	Mechanical valve	Follow-up in years (mean or median)	Age in years	Male (%)
Badhwar et al	2012	2003–2007	CE bovine or Medtronic porcine BIOPROSTHETIC VALVE vs the On-X MECHANICAL VALVE.	172	103	69	3.9	55.7	53.4
Bloomfield et al	1991	1975–1979	Hancock and CE BIOPROSTHETIC VALVE vs Bjork-Shiley MECHANICAL VALVE	532	266	266	15	Age range	43.3
Brennan et al	2013	1991–1999	Multiple valves on registry	39 199	24 410	14 789	12.6	73.1	60.5
Hammermeister et al (aortic)	2000	1977–1982	Hancock porcine BIOPROSTHETIC VALVE vs Bjork-Shiley spherical disc MECHANICAL VALVE	394	196	198	15	Age range	NA
Hammermeister et al (mitral)	2000	1977–1982		181	93	88	15	Age range	NA
McClure et al	2014	1992–2011	Second-generation stented BIOPROSTHETIC VALVE vs bileaflet MECHANICAL VALVE	722	361	361	8 (median)	53.5	71.6
Minakata et al	2017	1986–2001 and 1991–2001	CE perimount BIOPROSTHETIC VALVE vs SJM bileaflet MECHANICAL VALVE	1002	475	527	10	66.1	58.5
Oxenham et al	2003	1975–1979	Hancock or CE BIOPROSTHETIC VALVE vs Bjork-Shiley MECHANICAL VALVE	533	266	267	20	53.9	44
Roumieh et al	2014	1996–2008	Medtronic mosaic, Sorin Mitroflow, CE Perimount, SJM Toronto SPV BIOPROSTHETIC VALVE vs SJM MECHANICAL VALVE	120	60	60	9.75	61	72
Sakamoto et al	2016	1995–2014	Magna, Medtronic Mosaic and Ultra, SJM Trifecta or Epic BIOPROSTHETIC VALVE vs SJM Standard Regent, ATS or CarboMedics MECHANICAL VALVE	366	239	127	5.4	63.8	65.6
Stassano et al	2009	1995–2003	CE SAV or CE Pericardial BIOPROSTHETIC VALVE vs SJM or Carbomedics MECHANICAL VALVE	296	147	149	8.8	63.7	46.5
Wang et al	2016	2002–2009	Hancock II BIOPROSTHETIC VALVE vs SJM or ATS Medical MECHANICAL VALVE	224	112	112	8.6	50	61
Weber et al	2012	2000–2009	CE Xenopericardial BIOPROSTHETIC VALVE vs SJM or ATS medical BIOPROSTHETIC VALVE	200	100	100	2.8	52.5	84

CE, Carpentier Edwards valve; NA, not available; SAV, surgical aortic valve; SJM, St Jude mechanical valve.