Glad you're well enough to be at the computer, Marie.
Regarding Swede's experience with the valve, I would point out two things:
Swede was 36 or 37 when he received the valve. That is a young age for a tissue valve. The younger you are, the faster you will calcify it. It was also six and a half years ago, which was before the anticalcification treatments were being used on the valve. I'm not saying the valve would now last for fifteen years on a 36-year-old (we don't know if it would, but I have my doubts). I am saying, however, that Swede's circumstances would stress any tissue valve almost to its limits. In my case, I have an overly aggressive heartbeat, with a very high pressure gradient across the valve, and I don't expect my valve to make the normal lifespan either. The only situation I would think more demanding is pregnancy, an issue to which I believe Swede and I are immune.
If you are in your mid-fifties and beyond, you can expect a much longer life from a tissue valve. Once you reach traditional retirement age, the valve life seems to reach its maximum potential. That would range from 18-25 years, depending on which valve and which statistics you want to believe. Edwards has projected that their current valve should last on average up to 25 years for that age group. That's just their supposition; the actuality remains to be seen. They do have valves reaching the 23-year mark now, and they were valves manufactured before anticalcification treatments were developed, so that is a hopeful sign. However, 23 years is not the average lifespan of those valves: it's an age that some of them are reaching.
Importantly, there is also another difference between your valve problem and the ones Swede and I have. You are having the valve put in the mitral position, which is more a higher-calcification position for the valve. Ours are aortic replacements. Tissue valves traditionally do not last as long in the mitral position, by about three to four years on average for a 65-year-old patient, using slightly old numbers.
I'm also confused by your lead post, as it refers to you getting an On-X, which is not a tissue valve. There's nothing wrong with that. It's an excellent choice. The mital version of the On-X is relatively new, but the quality of the pyrolytic carbon and the advanced fluid engineering put into the aortic version bode extremely well for it. The trade-off is Coumadin use, but depending on your age, the greatly increased likelihood of no further surgeries may be preferable to you.
Best wishes,
. Hopefully others will reply also.
