Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a transformational and rapidly evolving treatment for patients with aortic stenosis who require valve replacement. Novel technological advancements have made this percutaneous minimally invasive therapy a first-line treatment for many patients at extreme risk for conventional cardiac surgery. New devices and improvements in existing devices have reduced procedural complications, and scientific trials are investigating the role of TAVR in lower-risk aortic stenosis populations, in patients with aortic regurgitation, and in patients with bicuspid aortic valve disease. Finally, there is intense interest in identifying patients in whom the risk-benefit ratio of TAVR is not favorable and should not be performed.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. Harken DE, Soroff HS, Taylor WJ. 1.  et al. 1960. Partial and complete prostheses in aortic insufficiency. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 40:744–62 [Google Scholar]
  2. Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO. 2.  et al. 2014. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation 129:e521–643 [Google Scholar]
  3. Vahanian A, Alfieri O, Andreotti F. 3.  et al. 2012. Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease (version 2012). The Joint Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 42:S1–44 [Google Scholar]
  4. Cribier A, Eltchaninoff H, Bash A. 4.  et al. 2002. Percutaneous transcatheter implantation of an aortic valve prosthesis for calcific aortic stenosis: first human case description. Circulation 106:3006–8 [Google Scholar]
  5. Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ. 5.  et al. 2011. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N. Engl. J. Med. 364:2187–98 [Google Scholar]
  6. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M. 6.  et al. 2010. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N. Engl. J. Med. 363:1597–607 [Google Scholar]
  7. Adams DH, Popma JJ, Reardon MJ. 7.  et al. 2014. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis. N. Engl. J. Med. 370:1790–98 [Google Scholar]
  8. Meredith Am IT, Walters DL, Dumonteil N. 8.  et al. 2014. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis using a repositionable valve system: 30-day primary endpoint results from the REPRISE II study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 64:1339–48 [Google Scholar]
  9. Lefevre T, Colombo A, Tchetche D. 9.  et al. 2016. Prospective multicenter evaluation of the direct flow medical transcatheter aortic valve system: 12-month outcomes of the Evaluation of the Direct Flow Medical Percutaneous Aortic Valve 18F System for the Treatment of Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis (DISCOVER) Study. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 9:68–75 [Google Scholar]
  10. Willson AB, Rodes-Cabau J, Wood DA. 10.  et al. 2012. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the St. Jude Medical Portico valve: first-in-human experience. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 60:581–86 [Google Scholar]
  11. Makkar RR, Fontana G, Jilaihawi H. 11.  et al. 2015. Possible subclinical leaflet thrombosis in bioprosthetic aortic valves. N. Engl. J. Med. 373:2015–24 [Google Scholar]
  12. Reardon MJ, Adams DH, Kleiman NS. 12.  et al. 2015. 2-Year outcomes in patients undergoing surgical or self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 66:113–21 [Google Scholar]
  13. Athappan G, Patvardhan E, Tuzcu EM. 13.  et al. 2013. Incidence, predictors, and outcomes of aortic regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: meta-analysis and systematic review of literature. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 61:1585–95 [Google Scholar]
  14. Kodali SK, Williams MR, Smith CR. 14.  et al. 2012. Two-year outcomes after transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement. N. Engl. J. Med. 366:1686–95 [Google Scholar]
  15. Kappetein AP, Head SJ, Genereux P. 15.  et al. 2012. Updated standardized endpoint definitions for trans-catheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 60:1438–54 [Google Scholar]
  16. Pibarot P, Hahn RT, Weissman NJ, Monaghan MJ. 16.  2015. Assessment of paravalvular regurgitation following TAVR: a proposal of unifying grading scheme. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 8:340–60 [Google Scholar]
  17. Eleid MF, Cabalka AK, Malouf JF. 17.  et al. 2015. Techniques and outcomes for the treatment of paravalvular leak. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 8:e001945 [Google Scholar]
  18. Nazif TM, Dizon JM, Hahn RT. 18.  et al. 2015. Predictors and clinical outcomes of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the PARTNER (Placement of AoRtic TraNscathetER Valves) trial and registry. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 8:60–69 [Google Scholar]
  19. Urena M, Webb JG, Tamburino C. 19.  et al. 2014. Permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: impact on late clinical outcomes and left ventricular function. Circulation 129:1233–43 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kim WJ, Ko YG, Han S. 20.  et al. 2015. Predictors of permanent pacemaker insertion following transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the Corevalve revalving system based on computed tomography analysis: an Asian multicenter registry study. J. Invasive Cardiol. 27:334–40 [Google Scholar]
  21. Maan A, Refaat MM, Heist EK. 21.  et al. 2015. Incidence and predictors of pacemaker implantation in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Pacing Clin. Electrophysiol. 38:878–86 [Google Scholar]
  22. Siontis GC, Juni P, Pilgrim T. 22.  et al. 2014. Predictors of permanent pacemaker implantation in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR: a meta-analysis. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 64:129–40 [Google Scholar]
  23. Rivard L, Schram G, Asgar A. 23.  et al. 2015. Electrocardiographic and electrophysiological predictors of atrioventricular block after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Heart Rhythm 12:321–29 [Google Scholar]
  24. Beohar N, Kirtane AJ, Blackstone E. 24.  et al. 2016. Trends in complications and outcomes of patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement: experience from the PARTNER continued access registry. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 9:355–63 [Google Scholar]
  25. Holmes DR Jr., Brennan JM, Rumsfeld JS. 25.  et al. 2015. Clinical outcomes at 1 year following transcatheter aortic valve replacement. JAMA 313:1019–28 [Google Scholar]
  26. Erdoes G, Basciani R, Huber C. 26.  et al. 2012. Transcranial Doppler-detected cerebral embolic load during transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 41:778–83 [Google Scholar]
  27. Van Mieghem NM, Schipper ME, Ladich E. 27.  et al. 2013. Histopathology of embolic debris captured during transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Circulation 127:2194–201 [Google Scholar]
  28. Van Mieghem NM, El Faquir N, Rahhab Z. 28.  et al. 2015. Incidence and predictors of debris embolizing to the brain during transcatheter aortic valve implantation. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 8:718–24 [Google Scholar]
  29. Lansky AJ, Schofer J, Tchetche D. 29.  et al. 2015. A prospective randomized evaluation of the TriGuard HDH embolic DEFLECTion device during transcatheter aortic valve implantation: results from the DEFLECT III trial. Eur. Heart J. 36:2070–78 [Google Scholar]
  30. Thourani VH, Suri RM, Gunter RL. 30.  et al. 2015. Contemporary real-world outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement in 141,905 low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 99:55–61 [Google Scholar]
  31. Holmes DR Jr., Nishimura RA, Grover FL. 31.  et al. 2015. Annual outcomes with transcatheter valve therapy: from the STS/ACC TVT Registry. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 66:2813–23 [Google Scholar]
  32. van Mieghem NM, Head SJ, van der Boon RM. 32.  et al. 2012. The SURTAVI model: proposal for a pragmatic risk stratification for patients with severe aortic stenosis. EuroIntervention 8:258–66 [Google Scholar]
  33. Thyregod HG, Steinbruchel DA, Ihlemann N. 33.  et al. 2015. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis: 1-year results from the all-comers NOTION randomized clinical trial. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 65:2184–94 [Google Scholar]
  34. Eleid MF, Sorajja P, Michelena HI. 34.  et al. 2013. Flow-gradient patterns in severe aortic stenosis with preserved ejection fraction: clinical characteristics and predictors of survival. Circulation 128:1781–89 [Google Scholar]
  35. Eleid MF, Goel K, Murad MH. 35.  et al. 2015. Meta-analysis of the prognostic impact of stroke volume, gradient, and ejection fraction after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Am. J. Cardiol. 116:989–94 [Google Scholar]
  36. Eleid MF, Pellikka PA. 36.  2015. Asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis: What are we waiting for?. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 66:2842–43 [Google Scholar]
  37. Roy DA, Schaefer U, Guetta V. 37.  et al. 2013. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for pure severe native aortic valve regurgitation. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 61:1577–84 [Google Scholar]
  38. Testa L, Latib A, Rossi ML. 38.  et al. 2014. CoreValve implantation for severe aortic regurgitation: a multicentre registry. EuroIntervention 10:739–45 [Google Scholar]
  39. Schofer J, Nietlispach F, Bijuklic K. 39.  et al. 2015. Transfemoral implantation of a fully repositionable and retrievable transcatheter valve for noncalcified pure aortic regurgitation. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 8:1842–49 [Google Scholar]
  40. Treede H, Mohr FW, Baldus S. 40.  et al. 2012. Transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the JenaValve system: acute and 30-day results of the multicentre CE-mark study. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 41:e131–38 [Google Scholar]
  41. Schlingloff F, Schafer U, Frerker C. 41.  et al. 2014. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation of a second-generation valve for pure aortic regurgitation: procedural outcome, haemodynamic data and follow-up. Interact. Cardiovasc. Thorac. Surg. 19:388–93 [Google Scholar]
  42. Kempfert J, Holzhey D, Hofmann S. 42.  et al. 2015. First registry results from the newly approved ACURATE TA TAVI system. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 48:137–41 [Google Scholar]
  43. Wendt D, Kahlert P, Pasa S. 43.  et al. 2014. Transapical transcatheter aortic valve for severe aortic regurgitation: expanding the limits. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 7:1159–67 [Google Scholar]
  44. Mack MJ, Brennan JM, Brindis R. 44.  et al. 2013. Outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the United States. JAMA 310:2069–77 [Google Scholar]
  45. Phan K, Wong S, Phan S. 45.  et al. 2015. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis—systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart Lung. Circ. 24:649–59 [Google Scholar]
  46. Mylotte D, Lefevre T, Sondergaard L. 46.  et al. 2014. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in bicuspid aortic valve disease. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 64:2330–39 [Google Scholar]
  47. Jilaihawi H, Chen M, Webb J. 47.  et al. 2016. A bicuspid aortic valve imaging classification for the TAVR era CME. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging 91145–58 [Google Scholar]
  48. Cohn LH, Collins JJ Jr., Rizzo RJ. 48.  et al. 1998. Twenty-year follow-up of the Hancock modified orifice porcine aortic valve. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 66:S30–S34 [Google Scholar]
  49. David TE, Ivanov J, Armstrong S. 49.  et al. 2001. Late results of heart valve replacement with the Hancock II bioprosthesis. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 121:268–77 [Google Scholar]
  50. Gao G, Wu Y, Grunkemeier GL. 50.  et al. 2004. Durability of pericardial versus porcine aortic valves. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 44:384–88 [Google Scholar]
  51. Glower DD, Landolfo KP, Cheruvu S. 51.  et al. 1998. Determinants of 15-year outcome with 1,119 standard Carpentier-Edwards porcine valves. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 66:S44–S48 [Google Scholar]
  52. Dvir D, Webb JG, Bleiziffer S. 52.  et al. 2014. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic surgical valves. JAMA 312:162–70 [Google Scholar]
  53. Bapat V. 53.  2014. Valve-in-valve apps: why and how they were developed and how to use them. EuroIntervention 10:Suppl. UU44–51 [Google Scholar]
  54. Mack MJ, Leon MB, Smith CR. 54.  et al. 2015. 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 385:2477–84 [Google Scholar]
  55. Del Trigo M, Munoz-Garcia AJ, Wijeysundera HC. 55.  et al. 2016. Incidence, timing, and predictors of valve hemodynamic deterioration after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: multicenter registry. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 67:644–55 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error