Hi and welcome
some excellent answers already well cover things, so I'll try not to repeat their points but suffice to say I'm 100% in agreement, and most of all wish to
underscore and
emphasise the importance of chucks point about Lp(a)
as Nobog recently observed
and that 6 months end is almost certainly due to Lp(a) which your calcification is perhaps an indicator of. A search here will find quite a many "oh my, my bio didn't last as long as I'd hoped" posts as well as a few who have done bio, it failed and they decided (reluctantly) to go mech.
Myself I picked a mechanical for my last OHS which was at 48years old. It was my 3rd OHS (first was repair as a kid, second a replacement with a homograft in my late 20's) Its served me now flawlessly for 12 years and there is no indication of it packing in or having any trouble. That same can be said for some people with a bioprosthesis too, but just that's not the statistical norm. As you may be aware Dick here has had an old generation 1 type ball and cage valve rattling around for well over 50 years (and approaching sixty). That's never going to happen with any bio ever.
However here's the thing (assuming you do not have high Lp(a) picking a mechanical
requires a commitment from you towards managing your anticoagulation therapy.
IFF you manage it properly you will be rewarded by a valve that will last you a lifetime (nod to
@Superman for citation of source of that gag) and you will have the best possible chances of lower than expected thrombosis or bleed events of
any other valve.
If you haven't read / listened to these yet, I'm going to say grab a notepad and your preferred beverage and take notes.
View attachment 890044
click the image or
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/838221
more current video
Lastly it doesn't matter if you pick an On-X or a St Jude or an ATS, they are all so close to each other that only a marketing manager can explain to you the differences (
a table and a study showing the differences). On-X knowing that it had no cards in its hand on being the latest of the same thing on the market paid for a study to demonstrate that their valve is "safe" at lower INR levels. There is hardly a critical thinking cardiologist or surgeon on the planet who doesn't see that as "marketing jism". When it comes to claims from them think "consumer washing machine TV commercials" as there is no evidence that it confers anything. Actually its worse, there is evidence that being "smug in the safety net of the On-X" can lead you into deep waters of unsafe INR practices a worthy read
here.
Remember, there is no definitive cure to valve disease, all we can do is exchange a fatal disease for prosthetic valve disease; of which there are two types; one is managed by redo-surgery as they wear out the other is managed by a weekly blood test (about as convenient as what diabetics do) and then on the basis of that administering pill daily
Best Wishes