I am 45 years old, and got a mechanical valve. Wouldn't have it any other way. I would hate to think every time I work out I am cutting life of my valve. I agree with the person who said they don't want to do this again,,, I would not!!. With additional open heart surgery you keep increasing your risk for various arythmias. Once you get these you will be on ACT anyway. People older than 60, those who do things that make you bleed, or women who want to have children are all great reasons to get tissue; to tell the truth I almost did. For me, I am glad I went the direction I did.
BTW, the ACT is no big deal. I take my pills, check my INR at home. The best part is you will know when he lies to you; his heart rate will spead up the clicking will give him away.
I know this started out because you were trying to figure out your place, but it looks like it turned into a valve choice thread. There are quite a few strong opinions on valve choice and it is a very personal decision, you can see alot of the different opinions and facts in the different valve threads. But make sure you get real facts. In the valve choice forum, there are many threads that have alot of good information, including links to numerous studies or articeles about the different valves.
Since many of the posts here are about why people choose a mechanical valve and are very happy, I just wanted to say many people are equally happy they chose a tissue valve when they were younger than 60.
MANY of the leading centers and surgeons now recomend tissue valves in their patients 40 and up. The main reason is, the stats are about the same IF you choose a tissue valve and REDOs or mechanical valve and a life on coumadin. BOTH have small risks, but they DO both have risks. Tissue you risk having 1 or more repeat surgery and coumadin/mech valve you have an increased risk of a stroke or internal bleeds. (Internal bleeds, especially in the brain are the bleeds most doctors worry about with coumadin, not cuts, that you see the blood and can always stop it)
Some of the reasons they recomend (and younger patients choose) tissue valves is the fact that the stats for REDOS have really gotten much better as more surgeons/center have experience taking care of patients with multiple REDOS and know the safest way to open chests that have internal scar tissue or other things that make REDOS trickier for surgeons) Of course every heart surgery has some risk and people do die, but with experienced doctors the risks for a 2nd surgery are about the same as the first.
Also the latest (since they started treating them with anti-calcification treatments) tissue valves are lasting longer, which plays a part in the reason younger people are very happy choosing tisue valves, as well as how good the studies are going for the percutaneous valve replacements (replacing the valve in the cath lab and not needing to open your chest) Which you shouldn't COUNT on when making the decision of what kind of valve is best, the many of the leading cardiologist and surgeons, believe IF oyou get a tissue valve now, by the time it needs replaced, (even in 10 years) there is a good chance it can be replaced in the cathlab.
I have NEVER heard, by ANY of the doctors we've talked to over 20 years at the leading centers for Congnenital Heart Defects (which some valve issues like BAV are CHDs) That exercise cuts the life of your tissue valve. Also NOT all rythm issues mean you WILL have to take coumadin anyway. That simply is NOT true.