Article Text

PDF
Bioprosthetic aortic valve durability in the era of transcatheter aortic valve implantation
  1. Erwan Salaun1,2,
  2. Marie-Annick Clavel1,
  3. Josep Rodés-Cabau1,
  4. Philippe Pibarot1
  1. 1Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Québec/Québec Heart & Lung Institute, Laval University, Québec, Canada
  2. 2Centre de Résonance Magnétique Biologique et Médicale (CRMBM)UMR 7339 Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Aix-Marseille Université, Marseille, France
  1. Correspondence to Dr Philippe Pibarot, Institut Universitaire de Cardiologie et de Pneumologie de Québec, Québec, QC G1V 4G5, Canada; philippe.pibarot{at}med.ulaval.ca

Abstract

The main limitation of bioprosthetic valves is their limited durability, which exposes the patient to the risk of aortic valve reintervention. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is considered a reasonable alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with intermediate or high surgical risk. TAVI is now rapidly expanding towards the lower risk populations. Although the results of midterm durability of the transcatheter bioprostheses are encouraging, their long-term durability remains largely unknown. The objective of this review article is to present the definition, mechanisms, incidence, outcome and management of structural valve deterioration of aortic bioprostheses with specific emphasis on TAVI. The structural valve deterioration can be categorised into three stages: stage 1: morphological abnormalities (fibrocalcific remodelling and tear) of bioprosthesis valve leaflets without hemodynamic valve deterioration; stage 2: morphological abnormalities and moderate hemodynamic deterioration (increase in gradient and/or new onset of transvalvular regurgitation); and stage 3: morphological abnormalities and severe hemodynamic deterioration. Several specifics inherent to the TAVI including valve oversizing, manipulation, delivery, positioning and deployment may cause injuries to the valve leaflets and increase leaflet mechanical stress, which may limit the long-term durability of transcatheter bioprostheses. The selection of the type of aortic valve replacement and bioprosthesis should thus take into account the ratio between the demonstrated durability of the bioprostheses versus the life expectancy of the patient. Pending the publication of robust data on long-term durability of transcatheter bioprostheses, it appears reasonable to select SAVR with a bioprosthesis model that has well-established long-term durability in patients with low surgical risk and long life expectancy.

  • aortic stenosis
  • aortic regurgitation
  • prosthetic heart valves
  • echocardiography
  • cardiac computer tomographic (CT) imaging

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors ES and PP wrote the first draft of the article, tables and figures. M-AC and JR-C reviewed the article and made critical revisions.

  • Funding The research program of PP is funded by a foundation grant (FDN-143225) from Canadian Institutes of Health Research (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada).

  • Competing interests PP holds the Canada Research Chair in Valvular Heart disease. MAC has received a research scholarship from Fond de Recherche en Santé du Québec.

  • Patient consent Detail has been removed from this case description/these case descriptions to ensure anonymity. The editors and reviewers have seen the detailed information available and are satisfied that the information backs up the case the authors are making.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.