In the present limited cohort of patients younger than 60 years old, biologic aortic valve replacement was associated with reduced mid-term survival compared with survival after mechanical aortic valve replacement. Despite similar valve-related event rates in both groups, the better hemodynamic performance of the mechanical valves and/or protective effect of oral anticoagulation seemed to improve the outcome. The transcatheter valve-in-valve intervention as potential treatment of tissue valve degeneration should not be considered the sole bailout strategy for younger patients because no evidence is available that this would improve the outcome.

SE is an excellent treatment option in massive PE with comparable early mortality rates and significantly less bleeding complications than TL. Patients having surgery after inefficient thrombolysis have the worst early outcome. The RV/LV CT-scan ratio might serve as a predictor to differentiate patients, who could profit from direct surgical intervention than thrombolytic treatment attempts. Further studies are required to confirm these results.

The 3-f Enable aortic bioprosthesis can be implanted safely with favorable early hemodynamics. The self-expanding stent allows sutureless implantation with a large valve area. The procedure was fast, although not as fast as expected. This experience has led to continued design and procedural enhancements to facilitate and accelerate future implantation.