Key Points
-
Reliable long-term data for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) devices are currently available only for up to 5 years
-
Experience with surgical aortic valves indicates that ≥10-year follow-up is required in elderly patients to analyse valve durability
-
An inverse association exists between age and structural valve deterioration, which therefore is unlikely to occur rapidly in the typical octogenarian population of TAVI recipients
-
Valve-in-valve TAVI is the first-line therapy for failed surgical and transcatheter aortic valves, and can extend the lifespan of bioprostheses
Abstract
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become the standard of care for inoperable patients, and the preferred treatment option for high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. Given that this therapy was intended for elderly patients with limited life expectancy, long-term durability has not been in the focus. Now that TAVI is increasingly being used in patients with intermediate-risk and lower-risk profiles, device durability has gained importance. The available mid-term results for TAVI are promising; however, little is known about the fate of TAVI devices beyond 5 years. The experience with long-term durability of surgical valves shows that ≥10-year follow-up is required to ensure reliable durability data. In this Review, we discuss the existing studies of TAVI durability, highlight differences between surgical and transcatheter treatment of aortic stenosis that might influence durability, and present a clinical solution for failed prostheses. Furthermore, we suggest how device durability might influence the future selection of patients for TAVI.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
from$1.95
to$39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Walther, T. et al. Perioperative results and complications in 15,964 transcatheter aortic valve replacements: prospective data from the GARY registry. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 65, 2173–2180 (2015).
Holmes, D. R. Jr et al. Clinical outcomes at 1 year following transcatheter aortic valve replacement. JAMA 313, 1019–1028 (2015).
Beckmann, A. et al. Cardiac surgery in Germany during 2014: a report on behalf of the German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 63, 258–269 (2015).
Fries, R., Wendler, O., Schieffer, H. & Schafers, H. J. Comparative rest and exercise hemodynamics of 23-mm stentless versus 23-mm stented aortic bioprostheses. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 69, 817–822 (2000).
Lehmann, S. et al. Stentless versus conventional xenograft aortic valve replacement: midterm results of a prospectively randomized trial. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 84, 467–472 (2007).
Walther, T. et al. Prospectively randomized evaluation of stentless versus conventional biological aortic valves: impact on early regression of left ventricular hypertrophy. Circulation 100 (Suppl. II), II6–II10 (1999).
Yap, K. H., Murphy, R., Devbhandari, M. & Venkateswaran, R. Aortic valve replacement: is porcine or bovine valve better? Interact. Cardiovasc. Thorac. Surg. 16, 361–373 (2013).
Hickey, G. L. et al. A comparison of outcomes between bovine pericardial and porcine valves in 38,040 patients in England and Wales over 10 years. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 47, 1067–1074 (2015).
Ganapathi, A. M. et al. Long-term survival after bovine pericardial versus porcine stented bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement: does valve choice matter? Ann. Thorac. Surg. 100, 550–559 (2015).
Habib, G. et al. Guidelines on the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of infective endocarditis: the Task Force on the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Infective Endocarditis of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Endorsed by the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) and the International Society of Chemotherapy (ISC) for Infection and Cancer. Eur. Heart J. 30, 2369–2413 (2009).
Amat-Santos, I. J. et al. Infective endocarditis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: results from a large multicenter registry. Circulation 131, 1566–1574 (2015).
Makkar, R. R. et al. Possible subclinical leaflet thrombosis in bioprosthetic aortic valves. N. Engl. J. Med. 373, 2015–2024 (2015).
Butany, J. & Leask, R. The failure modes of biological prosthetic heart valves. J. Long Term Eff. Med. Implants 11, 115–135 (2001).
De La Fuente, A. B. et al. Advanced integrity preservation technology reduces bioprosthesis calcification while preserving performance and safety. J. Heart Valve Dis. 24, 101–109 (2015).
Nishida, T. & Tominaga, R. A look at recent improvements in the durability of tissue valves. Gen. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 61, 182–190 (2013).
Masters, R. G., Walley, V. M., Pipe, A. L. & Keon, W. J. Long-term experience with the Ionescu-Shiley pericardial valve. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 60 (Suppl.), S288–S291 (1995).
Butany, J. et al. Modes of failure in explanted mitroflow pericardial valves. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 92, 1621–1627 (2011).
Mazzucotelli, J. P., Bertrand, P. C. & Loisance, D. Y. Durability of the Mitroflow pericardial valve at ten years. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 60 (Suppl.), S303–S304 (1995).
Minami, K., Zittermann, A., Schulte-Eistrup, S., Koertke, H. & Korfer, R. Mitroflow synergy prostheses for aortic valve replacement: 19 years experience with 1,516 patients. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 80, 1699–1705 (2005).
Sjogren, J., Gudbjartsson, T. & Thulin, L. I. Long-term outcome of the MitroFlow pericardial bioprosthesis in the elderly after aortic valve replacement. J. Heart Valve Dis. 15, 197–202 (2006).
Yankah, C. A. et al. Aortic valve replacement with the Mitroflow pericardial bioprosthesis: durability results up to 21 years. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 136, 688–696 (2008).
David, T. E., Feindel, C. M., Bos, J., Ivanov, J. & Armstrong, S. Aortic valve replacement with Toronto SPV bioprosthesis: optimal patient survival but suboptimal valve durability. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 135, 19–24 (2008).
Cribier, A. et al. Percutaneous transcatheter implantation of an aortic valve prosthesis for calcific aortic stenosis: first human case description. Circulation 106, 3006–3008 (2002).
Mack, M. J. et al. 5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement for high surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 385, 2477–2484 (2015).
Toggweiler, S. et al. 5-year outcome after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 61, 413–419 (2013).
Barbanti, M. et al. 5-year outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with CoreValve prosthesis. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 8, 1084–1091 (2015).
Webb, J. New balloon expandable aortic valves. Presented at the 63rd Annual Scientific Session and Expo of the American College of Cardiology (2014).
Hayashida, K. et al. Impact of post-procedural aortic regurgitation on mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 5, 1247–1256 (2012).
Kodali, S. K. et al. Two-year outcomes after transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement. N. Engl. J. Med. 366, 1686–1695 (2012).
Tamburino, C. et al. Incidence and predictors of early and late mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in 663 patients with severe aortic stenosis. Circulation 123, 299–308 (2011).
Abdel-Wahab, M. et al. Aortic regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: incidence and early outcome. Results from the German transcatheter aortic valve interventions registry. Heart 97, 899–906 (2011).
Scheinert, D. et al. Prevalence and clinical impact of stent fractures after femoropopliteal stenting. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 45, 312–315 (2005).
McElhinney, D. B. et al. Stent fracture, valve dysfunction, and right ventricular outflow tract reintervention after transcatheter pulmonary valve implantation: patient-related and procedural risk factors in the US Melody Valve Trial. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 4, 602–614 (2011).
Willson, A. B. et al. Structural integrity of balloon-expandable stents after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: assessment by multidetector computed tomography. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 5, 525–532 (2012).
Piazza, N. et al. A clinical protocol for analysis of the structural integrity of the Medtronic CoreValve System frame and its application in patients with 1-year minimum follow-up. EuroIntervention 5, 680–686 (2010).
Li, K. & Sun, W. Simulated thin pericardial bioprosthetic valve leaflet deformation under static pressure-only loading conditions: implications for percutaneous valves. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 38, 2690–2701 (2010).
Sun, W., Li, K. & Sirois, E. Simulated elliptical bioprosthetic valve deformation: implications for asymmetric transcatheter valve deployment. J. Biomech. 43, 3085–3090 (2010).
Gunning, P. S., Vaughan, T. J. & McNamara, L. M. Simulation of self expanding transcatheter aortic valve in a realistic aortic root: implications of deployment geometry on leaflet deformation. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 42, 1989–2001 (2014).
Martin, C. & Sun, W. Comparison of transcatheter aortic valve and surgical bioprosthetic valve durability: a fatigue simulation study. J. Biomech. 48, 3026–3034 (2015).
Thubrikar, M. J., Deck, J. D., Aouad, J. & Nolan, S. P. Role of mechanical stress in calcification of aortic bioprosthetic valves. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 86, 115–125 (1983).
Hahn, R. T. et al. Comparison of transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement in severe aortic stenosis: a longitudinal study of echocardiography parameters in cohort A of the PARTNER trial (placement of aortic transcatheter valves). J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 61, 2514–2521 (2013).
Finkelstein, A. et al. Hemodynamic performance and outcome of percutaneous versus surgical stentless bioprostheses for aortic stenosis with anticipated patient-prosthesis mismatch. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 147, 1892–1899 (2014).
Piazza, N., Schultz, C., de Jaegere, P. P. & Serruys, P. W. Implantation of two self-expanding aortic bioprosthetic valves during the same procedure-Insights into valve-in-valve implantation ('Russian doll concept'). Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 73, 530–539 (2009).
Walther, T. et al. Valve-in-a-valve concept for transcatheter minimally invasive repeat xenograft implantation. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 50, 56–60 (2007).
Bapat, V. Valve-in-valve apps: why and how they were developed and how to use them. EuroIntervention 10 (Suppl. U), U44–U51 (2014).
Banbury, M. K. et al. Age and valve size effect on the long-term durability of the Carpentier-Edwards aortic pericardial bioprosthesis. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 72, 753–757 (2001).
Forcillo, J. et al. Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valve in the aortic position: 25-years experience. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 96, 486–493 (2013).
Johnston, D. R. et al. Long-term durability of bioprosthetic aortic valves: implications from 12,569 implants. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 99, 1239–1247 (2015).
Bourguignon, T. et al. Very long-term outcomes of the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount valve in aortic position. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 99, 831–837 (2015).
Flameng, W. et al. Prosthesis-patient mismatch predicts structural valve degeneration in bioprosthetic heart valves. Circulation 121, 2123–2129 (2010).
Une, D., Ruel, M. & David, T. E. Twenty-year durability of the aortic Hancock II bioprosthesis in young patients: is it durable enough? Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 46, 825–830 (2014).
Le Tourneau, T. et al. Cardiovascular risk factors as predictors of early and late survival after bioprosthetic valve replacement for aortic stenosis. J. Heart Valve Dis. 16, 483–488 (2007).
Fann, J. I. et al. Twenty-year clinical experience with porcine bioprostheses. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 62, 1301–1311 (1996).
Okada, N. et al. Valve selection for the aortic position in dialysis patients. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 99, 1524–1531 (2015).
Ruel, M. et al. Late incidence and determinants of reoperation in patients with prosthetic heart valves. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 25, 364–370 (2004).
Biglioli, P. et al. Long-term outcomes of the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valve prosthesis in the aortic position: effect of patient age. J. Heart Valve Dis. 13 (Suppl. 1), S49–S51 (2004).
McClure, R. S. et al. Late outcomes for aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis: up to 17-year follow-up in 1,000 patients. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 89, 1410–1416 (2010).
Myken, P. S. & Bech-Hansen, O. A. 20-year experience of 1712 patients with the Biocor porcine bioprosthesis. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 137, 76–81 (2009).
Rizzoli, G. et al. Fifteen-year results with the Hancock II valve: a multicenter experience. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 132, 602–609.e4 (2006).
Ennker, J. A. et al. The Freestyle stentless bioprosthesis in more than 1000 patients: a single-center experience over 10 years. J. Card. Surg. 24, 41–48 (2009).
Mohammadi, S. et al. Long-term clinical and echocardiographic follow-up of the Freestyle stentless aortic bioprosthesis. Circulation 126 (Suppl. 1), S198–S204 (2012).
Acknowledgements
We thank John J. Squiers (Baylor Research Institute, Baylor Healthcare System, Dallas, Texas, USA) for his editorial support during preparation of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Both authors researched data for the article, discussed its content, and wrote, reviewed, and edited the manuscript before submission.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Arsalan, M., Walther, T. Durability of prostheses for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Nat Rev Cardiol 13, 360–367 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2016.43
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2016.43
This article is cited by
-
A Biosurfactant-containing TSD Strategy to Modify Bovine Pericardial Bioprosthetic Valves for Anticalcification
Chinese Journal of Polymer Science (2023)
-
Polyphenol based hybrid nano-aggregates modified collagen fibers of biological valve leaflets to achieve enhanced mechanical, anticoagulation and anti-calcification properties
Journal of Leather Science and Engineering (2022)
-
Next-generation tissue-engineered heart valves with repair, remodelling and regeneration capacity
Nature Reviews Cardiology (2021)
-
Konsensuspapier der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kardiologie (DGK) und der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Thorax‑, Herz- und Gefäßchirurgie (DGTHG) zur kathetergestützten Aortenklappenimplantation (TAVI) 2020
Der Kardiologe (2020)
-
Konsensuspapier der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kardiologie (DGK) und der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Thorax‑, Herz- und Gefäßchirurgie (DGTHG) zur kathetergestützten Aortenklappenimplantation (TAVI) 2020
Zeitschrift für Herz-,Thorax- und Gefäßchirurgie (2020)