All the best for your surgery tomorrow, dsaf!
Despite the explosive and emotional issues and choices involved in this thread, I think it contains an amazing amount of "gold" and embodies a lot of what's best about this VR.org community. If the rest of the world (e.g., the US congress) could discuss and possibly resolve serious and divisive issues as maturely and civilly as this discussion is proceeding, the world would be a WAY better place, IMHO.
One issue that's lying a bit below the surface but "jumped off the screen" at me, is the conflict between two facts: (a) most of us consider this a very personal and values-based decision, properly made by the patient after considering all the angles and conflicting opinions (including those from Internet-based strangers! Some of my best advice has been received, and given, that way! ;-) ), but (b) many of our health professionals (Cardiologists, Heart Surgeons, GPs, etc.) have formed very strong preferences -- some might say biases -- in one direction or another. (In fact, in other threads about valve selection, people have suggested that the patient first choose a valve, then choose a surgeon who's comfortable using it.)
I find that our societies (esp. US & Canada, which I know best) are still pretty confused about how "God-like" a doctor is, and how unquestionably correct a doctor's opinion is. I am very fond of all my present doctors, and have high respect for all of them. They are all gifted and bright and committed professionals. But I wouldn't substitute my reasoned opinion, decision, or informed consent for theirs on a choice like this. Not today, not ever, not on a bet. All humans -- even doctors -- form and defend our opinions through complicated pathways, as much emotional as rational, and psychologists are only starting to understand those pathways. E.g., it's perfectly reasonable for human "confirmation bias" to prompt a surgeon who implants a lot of valve-type "A" to recommend it over valve-type "B", even for patients whose clinical expectations (based on the best evidence) would be better with valve-type "B". It doesn't take an evil person, or a blind one, or a greedy one; just a human one. It's us -- you the patient -- who's going to have to live with the decision, whether things go smoothly or the other way, so I'd say don't defer to anybody. Take it all in, and make the decision that YOU are happy (or at least "less unhappy") with.
One other thing: There are some cardiac surgeons who actually (co-)author scholarly statistical studies on relevant topics, like valve longevity, complications, total post-HVR life expectancy, etc. But most don't, and I bet a lot of them don't even read half of them. It's a big complicated field, these folks are VERY busy (some would even say over-worked), and some of them are even trying to have a personal life, too -- no shame there. Again, that doesn't mean that they're lazy or incompetent, it just means that they're humans. Half of us patients were in the bottom half of our class at school, and half of us are probably in the bottom half at work, too. Don't assume that every doctor was in the top 10% at Med School, 'cause it ain't so. Also like us, they all have strengths and weaknesses. A surgeon can have "beautiful hands" and still not be able to interpret the statistics in a randomized trial. . .