{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02636916835699797, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012846517917511832, 'mean_word_length': 5.065573770491803, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Selection of prosthetic valve and evidence--need for the development of Japan's own guidelines.

PURPOSE
In 2014, the American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) guidelines were largely revised with regard to the selection of prosthetic valves. (1) A mechanical prosthesis is reasonable for aortic valve replacement (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) in patients less than 60 years of age, (2) A bioprosthesis is reasonable in patients more than 70 years of age, and (3) Either a bioprosthetic or mechanical valve is reasonable in patients between 60 and 70 years of age.Japan faces the unprecedented population aging, and moreover, the average life expectancy is longer among the Japanese than the Westerners. In Japan, whether this choice is appropriate seems questionable.


METHODS
This time, with the revision of the AHA/ACC guidelines, it might be necessary to take into consideration the average life expectancy of Japanese people and revise the Japanese guidelines accordingly.


RESULTS
We should consider whether 60-70 years should be set as a gray zone regarding the age criteria for choosing biological valves, or if the age should be set higher relative to that specified in the western guidelines, given the longer Japanese life expectancy.


CONCLUSION
We believe that the development of unique, Japanese guidelines for the selection of prosthetic valves will allow us to provide appropriate selection and treatment for each patient.