Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

REVIEWS
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation:

current and future approaches
Josep Rods-Cabau
Abstract | The first human transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in 2002, and several subsequent
single-center series, showed the feasibility of this new approach for the treatment of patients with severe aortic
stenosis who were considered to be at very high or prohibitive surgical risk. More-recent multicenter registries
have confirmed the safety and efficacy of this procedure, despite a very-high-risk patient profile. Moreover,
the randomized, controlled PARTNER trial has confirmed both the superiority of TAVI over medical treatment in
patients not considered to be candidates for standard surgical aortic valve replacement and the noninferiority of
TAVI compared with surgical aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients. The hemodynamics of transcatheter
valves are usually excellent, although residual paravalvular aortic regurgitation (usually trivial or mild) is
frequent. Stroke, major vascular complications, and conduction disturbances leading to permanent pacemaker
implantation remain among the most-concerning periprocedural complications of TAVI. Nevertheless, promising
preliminary data exist for long-term outcomes following TAVI, valve-in-valve TAVI for surgical prosthesis
dysfunction, and for the treatment of lower-risk patients. Improvements in transcatheter valve technology,
optimization of procedural and midterm results, and confirmation of long-term durability of transcatheter valve
prostheses will determine the expansion of TAVI towards the treatment of a broader spectrum of patients.
Rods-Cabau, J. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 9, 1529 (2012); published online 15 November 2011; doi:10.1038/nrcardio.2011.164
Introduction
Following experimental work in the transcatheter valve

field in the 1990s,1,2 the first-in-human transcatheter
aortic valve implantation (TAVI) was performed by
Cribier and colleagues in 2002.3 This case was followed
by several single-center and small multicenter registries
and series that included nonoperable or very-high-risk
patients, which were associated with promising results
that confirmed the feasibility of TAVI.418 In more-recent
years, the technology has developed very rapidly and, to
date, more than 40,000 transcatheter valves have been
implanted worldwide. The results of several large multi
center registries,1926 and the prospective, randomized
Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER)
trial,27,28 have provided definitive data confirming this
treatment as an alternative to standard surgical aortic
valve replacement (SAVR) in nonoperable and high-risk
surgical candidates. The objectives of this article are to
review the main characteristics of transcatheter valves
and TAVI procedures, and to evaluate the acute and late
outcomes associated with TAVI.
Transcatheter prosthetic valves
To date, two types of transcatheter aortic valves have

been widely used in the clinical setting: the balloonexpandable Edwards valvethe first-generation
Competing interests
The author declares associations with the following companies:
Edwards Lifesciences and St Jude Medical. See the article
online for full details of the relationships.
Cribier-Edwards, second-generation Edwards SAPIEN,

and third-generation Edwards SAPIEN XT (Edwards
Lifesciences Corporation, Irvine, CA, USA) versions
and the self-expandable CoreValve (Medtronic CV
Luxembourg S.a.r.l., Luxembourg) system.
Balloon-expandable Edwards valve

The first two generations of the Edwards valve (CribierEdwards and Edwards SAPIEN) comprised three leaflets of bovine pericardium mounted in a stainless steel
frame. The valves were implanted using 22French and
24French delivery catheters. The Edwards SAPIENXT
(Figure1a,b) is the third generation of the balloonexpandable Edwards valve, which consists of a trileaflet
pericardial bovine valve mounted in a cobalt chromium
frame. The frame design of the Edwards SAPIEN XT also
has fewer rows, columns, and vertical struts between commissure posts than the SAPIEN design. These changes
have led to a reduction in the valve size, with no loss of
radial strength. In addition, the scallop shape of the
SAPIEN XT leaflets reduces leaflet volume and improves
valve profile. The SAPIEN XT valve is available in 20mm,
23mm, 26mm, and 29mm sizes, and is implanted using
18French (for the 20mm and 23mm valves), 19French
(for the 26mm valve), or 22French (for the 29mm valve)
delivery catheter and sheath systems. Smaller 16French
(for the 20mm and 23mm valves), 18French (for the
26mm valve), and 20French (for the 29mm valve)
expandable sheaths (eSHEATH, Edwards Lifesciences
Corporation) are also available in Europe and Canada.
NATURE REVIEWS | CARDIOLOGY
Quebec Heart and

Lung Institute,
Laval University,
2725 Chemin Ste-Foy,
G1V4G5 Quebec City,
QC, Canada
josep.rodes@
criucpq.ulaval.ca
VOLUME 9 | JANUARY 2012 | 15

2011 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved
REVIEWS
Key points
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) represents a less-invasive strategy
than surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for the treatment of severe
symptomatic aortic stenosis
The transfemoral approach is usually the first option for TAVI; transapical,
subclavian, axillary, and transaortic routes are alternative approaches
TAVI is currently the treatment of choice for patients not considered to be
candidates for SAVR, and a proven alternative for those considered to be at high
surgical risk
Transcatheter valves are associated with excellent hemodynamic results, usually
with concomitant improvements in the patients functional status and quality of
life; however, minor residual aortic regurgitation occurs in many patients
Periprocedural stroke, vascular and conduction disturbance complications,
occurrence of moderate or severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation, relatively high
midterm mortality, and valve durability beyond 3year follow-up are unresolved
issues in TAVI
The valve-in-valve treatment of surgical prosthesis dysfunction and the
treatment of intermediate-risk patients are two of the most-important fields for
the development of TAVI in the near future
Figure 1 | Photographs of the transcatheter prosthetic valves currently used for

transcatheter aortic valve implantation. a,b | The Edwards SAPIEN XT(Edwards
Lifesciences Corporation, Irvine, CA, USA) valve. c,d | The third generation of the
CoreValve(Medtronic CV Luxembourg S.a.r.l., Luxembourg) system (courtesy of
Marc Ruel, Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada).
Self-expandable CoreValve system

The first generation of the CoreValve system consisted of
a self-expanding nitinol frame with a bovine pericardial
heart valve, and was implanted using a 25French delivery
catheter. The second generation of the CoreValve system
consisted of three leaflets of porcine pericardium seated
higher in the nitinol frame to provide true supra-annular
placement. The nitinol frame had been redesigned to
16 | JANUARY 2012 | VOLUME 9
increase radial force in the inflow portion and expand the

outflow diameter for a better anatomical fit. The valve was
implanted using a 21French delivery catheter. Finally, the
current, third generation of the CoreValve aortic system
(Figure1c,d) differs slightly from the previous version in
the sealing skirt (fabricated from three separate pieces
instead of one), to facilitate uniform tissue thickness and
improve the valve profile. The valve is available in 26mm,
29mm, and 31mm sizes, and is implanted using an
18French delivery catheter and sheath system.
Pre-TAVI work-up
The work-up before TAVI using the Edwards or CoreValve

prostheses is summarized in Figure2. Evaluation of the size
(by CT angiography or iliofemoral angiography), tortu
osity, and degree of calcification (assessed by CT) of iliofe
moral arteries is mandatory to determine the suitability of
the transfemoral approach.
The size of the aortic annulus is usually measured
by transthoracic echocardiography, transesophageal
echocardiography, CT angiography, or a combination
of these imaging techniques. Accurate measurementof
the aortic annulus is critical to determine the transcatheter valve size, which is systematically oversized
(by 25mm) with respect to the diameter of the aortic
annulus. Although sizing the aortic annulus with transesophageal echocardiography has been associated with
good clinical results in most cases, some studies have
suggested a tendency towards an underestimation of the
aortic annulus by echocardiography as compared with
CT angiography.2933 CT studies have clearly shown the
oval shape of the aortic annulus in most patients, further
highlighting the complexity of aortic annulus measurement. Indeed, CT angiography studies with 3D-imaging
reconstruction also provide very accurate spatial and temporal resolution for the evaluation of the aortic annulus.33
Importantly, annulus measurements and valve oversizing
have been mostly based on industry recommendations
rather than on scientific evidence. Future studies will have
to further evaluate the most-appropriate imaging modality to measure the aortic annulus and determine the gold
standard for aortic-annulus measurements before TAVI
as well as the most-appropriate degree of valve oversizing.
Coronary angiography is performed before the proce
dure to evaluate the presence and severity of coronary
artery disease. In cases of severe stenoses in the main coro
nary vessels, complete or partial coronary revasculariza
tion is often performed before TAVI, although no data
showing the superiority of this strategy compared with
no revascularization exist.
Approaches used for TAVI

Transfemoral approach
The transfemoral route (Figure3a) is the first choice
of approach in the vast majority of centers performing
TAVI procedures. As stated above, an accurate evaluation of the iliofemoral anatomy is of major importance
in determining the appropriateness of this approach for
each individual patient. The procedure is performed in
a catheterization laboratory or a hybrid operating room.
www.nature.com/nrcardio
REVIEWS
Although surgical cut-down was the technique used for
the transfemoral approach at the beginning of the TAVI
experience, most centers are now using a fully percutaneous technique for this approach. This strategy makes it
possible to avoid the use of general anesthesia, especially
if the procedure is performed without transesophageal
echocardiographic guidance.
Transapical approach
The transapical approach (Figure3b) was first reported
as an alternative to the transfemoral approach in 2006by
Litchenstein and colleagues, 7 who used the CribierEdwards valve system. The approach requires a small
left lateral thoracotomy and a direct puncture of the left
ventricular apex. A 24French (for the 23mm and 26mm
valves) or 26French (for the 29mm valve) sheath is used
to advance the Edwards SAPIEN XT valve, and implanta
tion is performed in a similar way to that used with the
transfemoral approach (see the next section on valve
placement). In the era when larger catheters (22French)
were used for the transfemoral approach, about half of the
TAVI procedures with the Cribier-Edwards and Edwards
SAPIEN valves were performed using the transapical
approach;19,20 this percentage is expected to decrease with
the use of smaller (18French) catheters. First-in-human
CoreValve implantation by the transapical approach has
been reported,34 but this approach has not been further
developed for this valve system.
Potential advantages of the transapical approach
include the avoidance of using large catheters though
the iliofemoral system, aortic arch, ascending aorta,
and aortic valve; improved coaxility of the valve prosthesis within the aortic annulus, which can be especially
helpful in cases of horizontal aorta;35 and the possibility
of obtaining very accurate transesophageal echocardiographic images for valve positioning, which might lead
to a reduction in the amount of contrast used during the
procedures.35 The main disadvantages are the need for
a thoracotomy; a greater degree of myocardial injury,
owing to the apical perforation of the left ventricle;36 and
the potentially life-threatening bleeding complications
associated with the surgical repair of the apex.
Transaortic approach
In 2009 and 2010, the use of the transaortic approach
through a small right or mid sternotomy (Figure3c) was
proposed as an alternative approach with the Corevalve
and Edwards systems.3739 Although requiring sternotomy,
this approach avoids the use of large catheters through the
iliofemoral system and aortic arch, and avoids puncture
of the ventricular apex.
Subclavian approach
The left subclavian approach (Figure3d) has emerged
as an alternative to the transfemoral approach with the
CoreValve system.40,41 A surgical cut-down is needed
to isolate the subclavian artery (usually the left vessel).
The very short distance between the vascular access and
the native aortic valve might be associated with better
control of the CoreValve prosthesis during positioning
Patients considered at very high risk or nonsurgical candidates
Evaluation by a TAVI multidisciplinary team

(interventional cardiologists and cardiac surgeons)
Medical treatment
Patients eligble for TAVI
Surgical aortic
valve replacement
Coronary angiography
Transthoracic/transesophageal echocardiogram
CT
CT angiography and/or iliofemoral angiography
Iliofemoral axis >6 mm (Edwards SAPIEN XT20 mm, 23 mm or CoreValve26 mm, 29 mm, 31 mm)
Iliofemoral axis >6.5 mm (Edwards SAPIEN XT 26 mm)
Iliofemoral axis >7 mm (Edwards SAPIEN XT 29 mm)
Absence of significant peripheral vascular disease
Absense of severe iliofemoral calcification
Yes
Transfemoral approach using the
Edwards SAPIEN XT or CoreValve systems
No
Transapical approach using the
Edwards SAPIEN XT system
or
Subclavian-axillary approach using the
CoreValve system with
axilo-subclavian axis >6 mm
and/or >7 mm with patent LIMA graft
or
Transaortic approach using the
Edwards SAPIEN XT or CoreValve systems
Figure 2 | Pre-procedural work-up in patients with severe aortic stenosis who are
candidates for a TAVI procedure with the Edwards SAPIEN XT(Edwards Lifesciences
Corporation, Irvine, CA, USA) valve or CoreValve(Medtronic CV Luxembourg S.a.r.l.,
Luxembourg) systems. Abbreviations: CT, computed tomography; LIMA, left internal
mammary artery; TAVI, transcatheter aortic valve implantation.
and deployment. However, any injury of the subclavian

artery would translate into a major intrathoracic bleeding that might be difficult to control. Tamburino etal.22
reported the use of the subclavian approach in up to 20%
of the patients included in the Italian registry.
Transaxillary approach
First-in-human CoreValve implantation by the trans
axillary approach (Figure3e) has been reported.42 Like
the subclavian approach, a surgical cut-down is performed to isolate the left axillary artery, and the sheath
and delivery catheters are advanced through the axillary
artery. The potential advantage of this approach versus
the subclavian approach is that any injury to the axillary
artery could be easily repaired with no major clinical
consequences, as compared with the potentially lifethreatening consequences of a subclavian-artery injury.
Indeed, and unlike in iliofemoral vessels, occlusion of
the axillary artery would be compensated by the col
lateral circulation between the thyrocervical trunk of the
subclavian artery and the subscapular artery.
Valve placement
Balloon aortic valvuloplasty is systematically performed

before valve implantation for both types of prosthetic
valves currently used in TAVI, although Grube etal. have

REVIEWS
a
Figure 3 | Approaches used for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. a | The transfemoral approach. The delivery
catheter for implantation of the valve prosthesis is advanced through the right or left femoral arteries. b | The transapical
approach. After left lateral minithoracotomy (usually between the fifth and sixth intercostal spaces), the delivery catheter
for implantation of the valve prosthesis is advanced through the left ventricular apex. c | The transaortic approach. After
right or mid ministernotomy, the delivery catheter for implantation of the valve prosthesis is advanced directly through the
ascending aorta. d | The subclavian approach. The delivery catheter for implantation of the valve prosthesis is advanced
through the subclavian artery (usually the left vessel). e | The transaxillary approach. The delivery catheter for implantation
of the valve prosthesis is advanced through the axillary artery (usually the left vessel).
suggested direct implantation of the CoreValve system

with no prior balloon valvuloplasty.43 The Edwards valve
is positioned using fluoroscopy, angiography, and transesophageal echocardiography, and valve expansion is
achieved by balloon inflation under rapid pacing (180
220bpm) to minimize cardiac output and avoid valve
embolization during valve implantation (Figure4a,b).
CoreValve positioning is usually performed by fluoro
scopy and angiography, and the valve is deployed without
rapid pacing, by retracting the outer sheath of the delivery
catheter (Figure4ce).
Outcomes of the procedure
Findings from the eight largest multicenter registries and

series of TAVI published in the past few years are summarized in Table1. The patients included in the multicenter registries were considered nonoperable or at very
high surgical risk, with mean logistic EuroSCORE >20%
and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score >8%.1926
Most patients were octogenarians, about half of them
had prior coronary artery disease, about one-third had
chronic kidney disease, and about a quarter had chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease or peripheral vascular
disease. Overall, the procedural success rate was >90%
in all studies. Valve embolization or conversion to open
heart surgery occurred in ~1% of the patients (0.33.0%
for valve embolization; 0.52.3% for conversion to open
heart surgery).
The PARTNER trial is, to date, the only prospective,

randomized trial on TAVI. The findings are summarized
in Table1. PARTNER included two differentiated cohorts
of patientsthose considered to be nonoperable (that is,
comorbidities leading to a predicted risk of 50% of death
by 30days after surgery or a serious irreversible condition; patients with comorbidities leading to a life expectancy <1year were excluded)27 and those considered to
be at high surgical risk (that is, predicted risk of operative mortality 15% as determined by site surgeon and
cardiologist; guideline of STS score 10).28 The Edwards
SAPIEN valve was used in all cases. The primary end
point was all-cause mortality at 1year follow-up, and the
trial was powered to demonstrate the superiority of TAVI
versus medical treatment (including balloon valvuloplasty) for the nonoperable cohort and the noninferiority
of TAVI versus SAVR for the high-surgical-risk cohort.
Mortality
In the aforementioned multicenter registries and series,
mortality was systematically <10% in patients treated
using the transfemoral approach and ranged from
11.3% to 16.9% in patients treated using the transapical approach, probably owing to the higher risk profile
of the patients treated via the latter route.1926 At 1year
follow-up, the survival rates were ~80% (7585%) for
the transfemoral approach and ~70% (6378%) for the
transapical approach.
REVIEWS
In the nonoperable cohort of the PARTNER trial,27
the 30-day mortality was 5.0% in the TAVI group (trans
femoral approach in all patients) and 2.8% in the medical
treatment group (P=0.41). Importantly, up to 84% of
the patients in the medical treatment group had at least
one procedure of balloon aortic valvuloplasty during the
study period. At 1year follow-up, mortality was 30.7%
in the TAVI group, compared with 50.7% in the medical
treatment group (P<0.0001).
In the high-risk PARTNER trial cohort,28 30-day mortal
ity was 3.4% in the TAVI group, compared with 6.5% in
the SAVR group (P=0.07). Mortality at the 1year followup was 24.2% and 26.8% in the TAVI and SAVR groups,
respectively (P=0.44). In patients eligible for the trans
femoral approach, mortality at the 30-day and 1year
follow-ups in the TAVI group were 3.3% and 22.2%, respectively, and 6.2% and 26.4% in the SAVR group (P=0.13 for
30-day mortality, P=0.29 for 1year mortality). In patients
ineligible for the transfemoral approach, mortality at the
30-day and 1year follow-ups was 3.8% and 29%, respectively, in the TAVI group (using the transapical approach)
and 7.0% and 27.9% in the SAVR group (P=0.32 for 30-day
mortality, P=0.85 for 1year mortality).
Very few data on the long-term results associated
with TAVI procedures exist. Gurvitch etal. reported a
survival rate of 51% at 3year follow-up in 88 patients
who had undergone TAVI with the balloon-expandable
Cribier-Edwards or Edwards SAPIEN valves.44 Among
the patients who survived the TAVI procedure, the survival rates were 74% and 61% at the 2year and 3year
follow-ups, respectively. Buellesfeld etal. reported a
survival rate of 72% at 2year follow-up after TAVI with
the CoreValve system.45 The patients included in these
studies represent the initial TAVI experience and the use of
very early versions of the transcatheter valve and delivery
catheter systems, which, together with the learning-curve
phenomenon, has probably had a negative influence on the
results. Indeed, in the past few years, 1year survival rates
from some registries have been reported to be 80%,1926
and we can expect better survival rates at the 2year and
3year follow-ups in the coming years. Importantly, no
structural failures of the transcatheter valves have been
seen in studies with a follow-up of more than 1year.44,45
The baseline and procedural factors associated with
poorer outcomes after TAVI are shown in Table2.
In summary, baseline cardiovascular factors (low
left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF], pulmonary
hypertension, and severe mitral regurgitation) and periprocedural complications (low cardiac output, major
vascular complications, cardiac tamponade, conversion
to open heart surgery, acute kidney injury, stroke, and
moderate-to-severe residual aortic regurgitation) seem
to have a major role in acute mortality and in mortality
occurring during the 1year follow-up period.19,22,26,4651
Generally, noncardiac comorbidities, such as chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease,
and liver disease, are important predictors of mortality
during the follow-up period, rather than of acute mortality.19,22,26,4651 Indeed, studies have shown that most deaths
occurring late after TAVI are of noncardiac origin,19,48,52
Figure 4 | Valve implantation of balloon-expandable and self-expandable

transcatheter valves. a | Deployment of a balloon-expandable Edwards SAPIEN XT
(Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, Irvine, CA, USA) valve. The white arrow indicates
the balloon during maximal expansion. b | Fluoroscopic image of an Edwards
SAPIEN XTvalve (white arrow) after valve implantation. c,d|Deployment of a selfexpandable CoreValve(Medtronic CV Luxembourg S.a.r.l., Luxembourg) system
(courtesy of Marc Ruel, Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada). The white
arrows indicate the outer sheath that is being retracted to allow the expansion of
the valve. e|Fluoroscopic image of a third-generation CoreValvesystem (white
arrow) after valve implantation (courtesy of Marc Ruel, Ottawa Heart Institute,
Ottawa, ON, Canada).
highlighting the importance of patient selection in the

results of TAVI at midterm follow-up.
Surgical risk scores, such as logistic EuroSCORE and
STS score, have been used to estimate the mortality risk
of the patients undergoing SAVR and TAVI. Although
the logistic EuroSCORE has been shown to be a predictor of 30-day and 1year mortality in some studies of
TAVI,48,53 this risk score seems to overestimate the risk
of mortality in most cases.5456 By contrast, the mortality
risk as determined by the STS score seems to be close to
the observed mortality in patients undergoing SAVR and
TAVI,19,27,28,55 although no studies to date have found this
score to be an accurate predictor of acute and midterm
mortality after TAVI. In addition to baseline and procedural factors, the learning-curve phenomenon and the
improvements in valve prosthesis and delivery catheters
have also been associated with a substantial improvement
in the results obtained with TAVI.5759
Major periprocedural complications

The most-important complications associated with
TAVI are summarized in Table1. Notably, the definition of major complications associated with TAVI has
not been standardized, which might explain at least

REVIEWS
Table 1 | Findings from the large multicenter TAVI registries, series, and randomized controlled trial
Study, n
Approach
Valve type
Canadian,19
n=339
TF in 162;
TA in 177
SOURCE,20
n=1,038
MeanSD, or
median (IQR),
Logistic Euro
SCORE (%)
Procedural
success
(%)
30-day
mortality
(%)
Major
vascular
complica
tions (%)
Stroke (%)
Hemodialysis
(%)
Permanent
pacemaker
(%)
1-year
survival
(%)
CribierAll: 27.716.3;
Edwards
TF: 25.814.9;
in 57;
TA: 29.417.2
SAPIEN
in 275;
SAPIENXT
in 7
All: 93.3;
TF: 90.5;
TA: 96.1
All: 10.4;
TF: 9.5;
TA: 11.3
All: 13;
TF: 13.1;
TA: 13.0
All: 2.3;
TF: 3.0;
TA: 1.7
All: 2.6;
TF: 1.8;
TA: 3.4
All: 4.9;
TF: 3.6;
TA: 6.2
All: 76;
TF: 75;
TA: 78
TF in 463;
TA in 575
SAPIEN
TF: 25.714.5;
TA: 29.116.3
All: 93.8;
TF: 95.2;
TA: 92.7
All: 8.5;
TF: 6.3;
TA: 10.3
All: 7.0;
TF: 10.6;
TA: 2.4
All: 2.5;
TF: 2.4;
TA: 2.6
All: 4.3;
TF: 1.3;
TA: 7.1
All: 7.0;
TF: 6.7;
TA: 7.3
All: 76.1;
TF: 81.1;
TA: 72.1
European,21
n=646
TF in 646
CoreValve
TF: 23.113.8
TF: 97.2
TF: 8.0
TF: 1.9
TF: 1.9
N/A
TF: 9.3
N/A
Italian,22
n=663
TF in 599;
SC in 64
CoreValve
All: 23.013.7
All: 98.0
All: 5.4
All: 2.0
All: 1.2
N/A
All: 16.6
All: 85
France,23
n=244
TF with
SAPIEN
in 95;
TA with
SAPIEN
in 71;
TF with
CoreValve
in 66;
SC with
CoreValve
in 12
SAPIEN
in 166;
CoreValve
in 78
All: 25.611.4;
TF with
SAPIEN:
25.611.3;
TA with
SAPIEN:
26.811.6;
TF with
CoreValve:
24.711.2;
SC with
CoreValve:
24.614.5
All: 98.3
All: 12.7;
TF with
SAPIEN:
8.4;
TA with
SAPIEN:
16.9;
TF with
CoreValve:
15.1;
SC with
CoreValve:
8.3
All: 7.3;
TF with
SAPIEN:
6.3;
TA with
SAPIEN:
5.6;
TF with
CoreValve:
7.5;
SC with
CoreValve:
8.3
All: 3.6;
TF with
SAPIEN:
4.2;
TA with
SAPIEN:
2.8;
TF with
CoreValve:
4.5;
SC with
CoreValve:
0
All: 1.6;
TF with
SAPIEN:
1.0;
TA with
SAPIEN:
2.8;
TF with
CoreValve:
1.5;
SC with
CoreValve:
0
All: 11.8;
TF with
SAPIEN:
5.3;
TA with
SAPIEN:
5.6;
TF with
CoreValve:
25.7;
SC with
CoreValve:
25.0
N/A
German,24
n=697
TF in 644;
SC in 22;
TA in 26;
TAo in 5
SAPIEN
in 109;
CoreValve
in 588
All: 20.513.2
All: 98.4
All: 12.4
All: 19.5
All: 2.8
N/A
All: 39.3;
SAPIEN:
22.0;
CoreValve:
42.5
N/A
Belgian,25
n=328
TF or TA
with
SAPIENin
187;
TF with
CoreValve
in 141
SAPIEN
in 187;
CoreValve
in 141
All: 2816;
SAPIEN:
3016;
CoreValve:
2515
All: 97.0;
SAPIEN:
97.0;
CoreValve:
98.0
All: 11.0;
SAPIEN:
12.0;
CoreValve:
11.0
N/A
All: 5.0;
SAPIEN:
5.0;
CoreValve:
4.0
All: 6;
SAPIEN:
6;
CoreValve:
7
All: 13;
SAPIEN: 5;
CoreValve:
22
TF with
SAPIEN:
82;
TA with
SAPIEN:
63;
TF with
CoreValve:
79
UK,26 n=870
TF in 599;
Other
approaches
in 271
SAPIEN
in 410;
CoreValve
in 452
All: 18.5
(11.7, 27.9);
TF: 17.1
(11, 25.5);
Other routes:
21.4
(14.4, 33.6);
CoreValve:
18.1
(11.1, 27.9);
SAPIEN: 18.5
(12.4, 27.7)
All: 97.2;
TF: 97.3;
Other
routes:
97.1;
CoreValve:
98.2;
SAPIEN:
98.1
All: 7.1;
TF: 5.5;
Other
routes:
10.7;
CoreValve:
5.8;
SAPIEN:
8.5
All: 6.3;
TF: 8.4;
Other
routes:
1.9;
CoreValve:
6.2;
SAPIEN:
6.3
All: 4.1;
TF: 4.0;
Other
routes:
4.1;
CoreValve:
4.0;
SAPIEN:
4.2
N/A
All: 16.3;
CoreValve:
24.4;
SAPIEN:
7.4
All: 78.6;
TF: 81.5;
Other
routes:
72.3;
CoreValve:
78.3;
SAPIEN:
79.4
PARTNER
non-operable
cohort,27
n=179
TF in 179
SAPIEN
TF: 26.417.2
TF: 98.8
TF: 5.0
TF: 16.2
TF: 6.7
TF: 1.1
TF: 3.4
TF: 69.3
PARTNER
high-risk
cohort,28
n=348
TF in 244;
TA in 104
SAPIEN
All: 29.316.5
N/A
All: 3.4;
TF: 3.3;
TA: 3.8
All: 11.0
All: 4.6
All: 2.9
All: 3.8
All: 75.8;
TF: 77.8;
TA: 71
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation (Irvine, CA, USA) is the manufacturer and registered trademark owner of the Cribier-Edwards, SAPIEN, and SAPIEN XTvalves. Medtronic Inc. (Minnesota, MN, USA)
manufactures the CoreValve, which is a registered trademark of Medtronic CV Luxembourg S.a.r.l., Luxembourg. Abbreviations: IQR, interquartile range; N/A, data not available; SC, subclavian; TA,
transapical; TAo, transaortic; TAVI, transcatheter aortic valve implantation; TF, transfemoral.
REVIEWS
Table 2 | Factors predictive of 30-day and 1year mortality after trancatheter aortic valve implantation
Predictive factor
Study, n
Mortality period
OR or HR
for mortality
95% CI
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Rods-Cabau etal.,19 n=339

Sinning etal.,47 n=77
Moat etal.,26 n=870
1year
1year
1year
1.75
2.9
1.41
1.092.83
1.27.1
1.001.98
Chronic kidney disease

Thomas etal.,48 n=463 for TF
Thomas etal.,48 n=575 for TA
1year
1year
1year
30days
1year
30days to 1year
2.30
2.09
1.44
5.9
3.9
2.53
1.383.84
1.343.26
1.051.98
1.424.8
1.69.5
1.016.35
Baseline noncardiac variables
Tamburino etal.,22 n=663

Diabetes mellitus
30days
1year
2.66
2.45
1.265.65
1.195.07
BMI <20kg/m2
Wenaweser etal.,49 n=200
30days
6.60
1.4829.5
Prior stroke
Wenaweser etal., n=200

30days
30days to 1year
4.41
5.47
1.1616.8
1.4720.39
Carotid artery stenosis >50%

1year
1year
0.07
0.48
0.010.43
0.300.76
Liver disease

1year
1year
2.47
2.89
1.045.85
1.515.53
Dyslipidemia
1year
0.61
0.390.95
Systemic hypertension
1year
0.53
0.350.82
Smoking
Thomas etal.,
n=463 for TF
1year
2.42
1.513.90
Coagulopathy
1year
5.09
1.4917.39
Low left ventricular ejection fraction (<40%)
30days
3.51
1.627.62
Low left ventricular ejection fraction (<50%)
Moat etal.,26 n=870
1year
1.49
1.032.16
Pulmonary hypertension

30day
1year
1year
1year
2.09
1.88
3.1
3.21
1.024.43
1.173.0
1.37.6
1.198.71
Coronary artery disease

Dewey etal.,50 n=171
1year
30days
4.6
10.1
1.119.9
2.1174.8
Prior balloon aortic valvuloplasty
30days
2.87
1.246.65
Moderate or severe mitral regurgitation
Rods-Cabau etal., n=339

30days
1year
3.01
4.62
1.098.24
1.6612.87
Prior acute pulmonary edema
1year
30days to 1year
2.75
2.70
1.325.72
1.096.68
Bagur etal.,53 n=213

30days
30days
1year
30days
1year
4.14
4.9
5.9
5.47
2.79
1.4212.13
1.220.4
2.414.5
1.2324.21
1.365.71
49
48
Baseline cardiac variables
19
Periprocedural complications
Acute kidney injury
Nuis etal.,46 n=126

Need for hemodynamic support
30days
1year
6.84
2.58
2.0422.93
1.116.0
Conversion to open heart surgery
30days
38.68
2.86522.59
Cardiac tamponade
Tamburino etal.,
n=663
30days
10.97
1.5975.61
Major vascular complications
30days
8.47
1.6742.82
Procedural stroke
1year
15.76
3.2775.90
Moderate or severe aortic regurgitation

(2+)
Tamburino etal., n=663

Abdel Wahab etal.,51 n=690
Moat etal.,26 n=870
30days to 1year
30days
1year
3.79
2.43
1.66
1.579.10
1.224.85
1.102.51
22
22
some of the variation in the complication rates observed

among TAVI studies and preclude any meaningful comparison between them. In early 2011, the Valve Academic
Research Consortium (VARC) proposed standardized

consensus definitions for important clinical end points,
including major complications in TAVI.60 This consensus

REVIEWS
document represents an important step forward in
providing consistency across studies and in contributing
to a more-appropriate evaluation of TAVI technology.
Another important consideration when reviewing the
findings of TAVI studies is that, in all published multi
center TAVI registries and series, except SOURCE, 20
data was captured without source verification, and
nodata-monitoring or event-adjudication committee
was established for the validation of clinical events.
Major vascular complications
The use of large sheaths (1824French) in a very old
(usually octogenarian) population has led to a high rate
(>5% to 10% in most series) of major vascular complica
tions during TAVI procedures.428 Accurate evaluation
of the iliofemoral arteries before the procedure (see
Figure2), and the use of alternatives to the transfemoral
approach in borderline cases, seem to have a major role
in avoiding such complications.61,62 The use of smaller
catheters might also have a substantial impact on therate
of vascular complications (complication rate for the
CoreValve system: <5% with 18French sheaths versus
>20% with 24French sheaths).1618,21,22 Finally, appropriate
vascular access with true anterior entry in a disease-free
segment of the common femoral artery is also important.
This access can be achieved using echocardiographically
guided Seldinger puncture, although this puncture technique is used in only a few centers. Alternatively, puncture
can be guided by advancing a catheter into the femoral
artery via the contralateral sitea widespread practice,
but one that does not appropriately depict a disease-free
area of the femoral artery or guarantee a true anterior
entry during the puncture of the artery.
Importantly, the occurrence of major vascular complica
tions has been shown to be an independent predictor of
30-day mortality.22,61 The TAVI team should be able to treat
these complications rapidly and appropriately or have some
back-up with experienced peripheral interventionalists
or vascular surgeons.
In the past, surgical cut-down and vascular repair were
used in most transfemoral TAVI cases performed with
22French catheters, but most centers are now using
percutaneous closure devices such as Prostar or Perclose
(both Abbott Vascular Inc, Red City, CA, USA) in transfemoral cases performed with 18French catheters.6366
Despite the promising preliminary results obtained with
the use of these percutaneous closure devices, more data
are needed to determine the safety and efficacy of these
devices in patients undergoing TAVIprocedures.
Stroke
The occurrence of cerebrovascular events is one of the
most-worrisome complications of TAVI. The 30-day
stroke rate was ~3.5% (ranging from 1.2% to 6.7%) in
the multicenter registries and series and the PARTNER
trial.1928 In the high-risk cohort of the PARTNER trial,
the stroke rate tended to be higher in the TAVI group than
in the SAVR group at 30days (4.6% versus 2.4%, P=0.12)
and at the 1year follow-up (6.0% versus 3.2%, P=0.08).28
The nonoperable cohort of the PARTNER trial also
showed a higher rate of stroke or transient ischemic attack

at 30days (6.7% versus 1.7%, P=0.03) and at the 1year
follow-up (10.6% versus 4.5%, P=0.04) among patients
who underwent TAVI compared with those managed
conservatively (including balloon aortic valvuloplasty
in 84% of the patients).27 Also, MRI studies have shown
an incidence of silent cerebral ischemic defects as high
as 6684% following TAVI, irrespective of the valve type
andapproach.6769
Although transcranial Doppler studies have shown
that cerebral emboli can occur at any time during the
TAVI procedure, most occur during positioning and
implantation of the valve prosthesis,70,71 indicating that
the embolization of valve particles from the native
calcified aortic valve leaflets might be an important
mechanism for cerebral emboli associated with TAVI.
This hypothesis could partially explain why clinical
and MRI studies have failed to demonstrate any difference in stroke rate between transfemoral and transapical procedures, despite the use of large catheters in
the aortic arch and ascending aorta, and the retrograde
crossing of the native aortic valve, being avoided in the
transapicalapproach.
Nietlispach etal. showed the feasibility of using an
embolic protection device (Embrella embolic deflector system , Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA)
during TAVI,72 and future studies will have to evaluate
the usefulness of this and other such devices, including
those from SMT Medical Technologies (Herzliya, Israel)
and Claret Medical (Santa-Rosa, CA, USA), in reducing
cerebral embolic events during TAVI procedures.
However, data from the PARTNER trial27 showed that
as much as half of the postprocedural (30-day) cerebrovascular events occurred more than 24h after the procedure, indicating that embolic mechanisms other than the
use of catheters and native valve stretching might have a
role in a substantial proportion of cases. A substudy of the
PARTNER trial73 indicated that periprocedural cerebrovascular events early after TAVI were associated with a
smaller native aortic valve area, whereas those occurring
late after the procedure were mostly related to a higher
atherosclerotic burden. This finding supports the lack of
correlation between TAVI and late neurologic events. The
combination of clopidogrel and aspirin has been empirically recommended as treatment after TAVI,1928 but future
studies will have to determine the optimal antithrombotic
regimen after these procedures.
Coronary obstruction
Coronary ostia obstruction (especially of the left
maincoronary artery) can occur following TAVI,7479 but
the global incidence of this life-threatening complica
tion is very low (<1%).528 This complication is related
to the displacement of the native aortic leaflet towards
the coronary ostia during valve prosthesis implantation,
and the risk seems to be higher in patients with heavily
calcified leaflets, especially in those with some degree of
aortic sinus effacement, low aortic implantation of the
coronary ostia, and long aortic valve leaflets. However,
the low number of cases reported to date has precluded a
REVIEWS
Acute kidney injury

The incidence of acute kidney injury, and the need for
hemodialysis, after TAVI has ranged from 11.7% to 28%,
and from 1.4% to 15.7%, respectively.46,47,53,8082 In the
high-risk cohort of the PARTNER trial,28 the need for
renal replacement therapy was similar in the TAVI and
SAVR groups at 30days (2.9% and 3.0%, respectively)
and at the 1year follow-up (5.4% and 6.5%, respectively).
Chronic kidney disease is a common comorbidity (preva
lence 3050%) in patients undergoing TAVI,1827 and
increasing degrees of preprocedural renal dysfunction are
associated with an increasing rate of postprocedural acute
kidney injury.81,82 In addition, periprocedural blood transfusion has been recognized as a major predictive factor
2.4
* P <0.05 versus baseline

NS
Mean gradient (mmHg)
60
50
2.0
47 17
1.61 0.40*
1.6
1.50 0.36*
40
1.2
30
20
0.8
0.60 0.14
10
10 4*
0.4
10 4*
0.0
Baseline
Discharge
1-year follow-up
P = 0.007
(TAVI vs SAVR-ST and SAVR-SL)
P = NS
60
50
50
Patients with severe PPM (%)
Myocardial infarction
TAVI has been associated with a variable rate of myo
cardial infarction, ranging from 0% to 16.3%.428 This variability is probably related to the lack of uniformity in the
definition of periprocedural myocardial infarction among
the various TAVI studies. The VARC definition for periprocedural myocardial infarction is the occurrence of new
symptoms or signs of ischemia associated with an elevation of cardiac biomarkers (preferably creatine kinaseMB)
at least 10 times the upper normal limit or at least 5 times
the upper normal limit with new pathological Q waves.60
However, one study has shown that some degree of myocardial injury occurs in most TAVI procedures, and a
higher degree of myocardial injury was associated with
a reduced LVEF recovery and increased cardiac mortality
at midterm follow-up.36
a 70
40
TAVI
33
32
30
SAVR-ST
31
SAVR-SL
27
20
13
9
10
0
1618
(n = 18)
1920
(n = 66)
2122
(n = 48)
2325
(n = 18)
Annulus size (mm)
c 100
Moderate
Patients with aortic regurgitation (%)
specific recommendation on the cut-off for the distance

between the aortic annulus and the coronary ostia, size of
the sinus of Valsalva, or amount of leaflet calcification that
should contraindicate TAVI because of a prohibitive risk
of coronary occlusion. In patients considered at risk for
this complication (as evaluated by CT angiography during
the work-up before TAVI), the use of aortic angiography
during balloon valvuloplasty before valve implantation
might be helpful in determining whether valve leaflet
displacement would compromise the coronary flow
after valve prosthesis implantation. Notably, several case
reports have already shown the feasibility of performing a coronary angioplasty through the struts of the
transcatheter valve.7479
Aortic valve area (cm2)
Figure 5 | Valve hemodynamics following TAVI with the

balloon-expandable CribierEdwards and Edwards SAPIEN
(Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, Irvine, CA, USA) valve
(on the basis of the work of Clavel etal.95). a|Mean gradient
and aortic valve area after TAVI (at hospital discharge and at
1year follow-up). b|Incidence of severe PPM according to
aortic annulus size following TAVI, SAVR-ST, and SAVR-SL.
c | Residual aortic regurgitation following TAVI (at hospital
discharge and at 1year follow-up). Abbreviations:
NS, not significant; PPM,prosthesispatient mismatch;
SAVR-SL,surgical aortic valve replacement with stentless
surgical valves; SAVR-ST, surgical aortic valve replacement
with stented surgical valves; TAVI, transcatheter aortic
valveimplantation.
Mild
80
46
42
Trivial
None
60
40
26
38
20
22
12
0
At discharge
At 1-year follow-up
of post-TAVI acute kidney injury,46,53,80,82 highlighting

the need to avoid unnecessary transfusions in such cases.
Importantly, the occurrence of acute kidney injury has
been associated with worse acute and midterm outcomes
after TAVI.46,47,53,8082

REVIEWS
50
TAVI (n = 41)
SAVR (n = 120)
LVEF (%)
45
= 14 15%
= 7 11%
40
35
30
0
Baseline
Discharge
At 1-year follow-up
Figure 6 | Changes in LVEF after TAVI and SAVR in patients

with severe aortic stenosis and low LVEF (on the basis of
the work of Clavel etal.101). *Different from SAVR
(P<0.05). Different from baseline (P<0.05). Different
from discharge (P<0.05). Abbreviations: LVEF, left
ventricular ejection fraction; SAVR, surgical aortic valve
replacement; TAVI, transcatheter aortic valve implantation.
Intraventricular conduction abnormalities

New-onset intraventricular conduction disturbances,
particularly new left bundle branch block, occur frequently
after TAVI (718% with the balloon-expandable Edwards
valves, 3083% with the self-expandableCoreValve).8391
Direct mechanical injury of the left bundle branch and
inflammation created by the stent containing the valve
prosthesis are potential mechanisms for these conduction disturbances. Interestingly, Nuis etal. have reported
that about half of these conduction disturbances occur
during balloon valvuloplasty before valve implantation. 89 Unsurprisingly, the presence of a prior right
bundle branch block seems to be an important predictor
of complete atrioventricular block and need for pacemaker implantation after TAVI.88,9194 Among procedural variables, the use of the CoreValve system and a
deeper (ventricular) implantation of the valve prosthesis are the two most-important factors determining the
occurrence of conduction disturbances and the need
for pacemaker implantation.23,25,26,84,86,88,90,91 CoreValve
implantation is associated with a need for permanent
pacemaker in ~20% of patients (systematically >9% to
10%, but up to ~40% in some series) compared with
in ~5% of patients implanted with the Edwards valves
(almost systematically <7%).1928,8494 The nitinol frame of
the CoreValve might produce a higher pressure on the
ventricular septum as compared to the stainless steel or
cobalt chromium frame of the Edwards valves, leading to
an increased riskof damaging the left bundle branch. Also,
a higher rate ofdeeper implantation of the CoreValve
system (>5mm from aortic annulus) might partially
explain the differences between the two devices. In the
PARTNER trial,27,28 the rate of permanent pacemaker
implantation after TAVI with the balloon-expandable
Edwards SAPIEN valve was 3.4% and 3.8% in the nonoperable and high-risk cohorts, respectively, with no differences compared with the medical treatment (5.0%)
and SAVR (3.6%) groups. Further studies are needed
to better determine the predictive factors of complete
atrioventricular block and pacemaker implantation

following TAVI. These studies should lead to the
implementation of preventive measures of this frequent
and important post-TAVIcomplication.
Hemodynamics of transcatheter valves

Despite transcatheter valves being expanded within
severely calcified native aortic valves that are left in
place, the hemodynamic results after TAVI are excellent, with mean residual gradients <15mmHg and aortic
valve areas >1.5cm2.328 Importantly, these hemodynamic
results seem to be maintained at midterm follow-up.
Also, Claveletal. demonstrated that the hemodynamic
results associated with TAVI (using the Cribier-Edwards
and Edwards SAPIEN valves) were superior to those
obtained with stented and stentless surgical biopros
theses, especially in patients with small (<20mm) aortic
annulus95 (Figure5). In accordance with these results,
Smith etal. showed the superior hemodynamics of transcatheter valves compared with surgical valves in the highrisk cohort of the prospective, randomized PARTNER
trial.28 These good hemodynamic results might parti
ally be explained by the systematic oversizing of the
transcatheter valves with respect to the aortic annulus,
although some experimental and CT studies have suggested that the frame of the transcatheter valve adapts
to the dimension of the aortic annulus,96,97 and the final
aortic valve area after TAVI has been shown to be mainly
determined by the size of the aortic annulus as evaluated
by echocardiography.98 Alsoand possibly most relevant
for patients with small aortic annulusthe stent of transcatheter valves is much thinner than that of the stented
valves used for SAVR, which results in minimal obstruction to blood flow. In 2011, Kalavrouziotis etal. confirmed the outstanding results of TAVI with the 23mm
balloon-expandable Edwards SAPIEN valve in a series
of 34 consecutive patients with small (<20mm, mean
18.5mm) aortic annulus, with a mean residual gradient
of <12mmHg and an incidence of severe prosthesis
patient mismatch as low as 5.9%.99 The improvement in
valve hemodynamics associated with TAVI translates into
a significant improvement in LVEF, especially in patients
with low LVEF.6,95,100,101 Indeed, Clavel etal. showed that
the ventricular function of most patients with low (<50%)
LVEF undergoing TAVI had normalized at 1year followup;101 this finding compared favorably with those patients
with low LVEF undergoing SAVR (Figure6).
However, although trivial or mild in most cases and
moderate or moderate-to-severe in ~10% (517%) of
patients, the incidence of TAVI-associated prosthetic
regurgitation (mostly paravalvular) is very high (65
89%).328,51,95 In the high-risk cohort of the PARTNER
trial,28 some degree of paravalvular aortic regurgitation
occurred in 77% (12% moderate or severe) of patients
in the TAVI group compared with 26% (0.9% moderate or severe) in the SAVR group (P<0.001). Several
studies have shown that the degree of paravalvular
and transvalvular residual aortic regurgitation remains
stable at midterm (1-year) follow-up,14,27,28,95 but studies
with a longer follow-up are needed to further evaluate
REVIEWS
Table 3 | Main characteristics of emerging transcatheter valves
Valve type
Valve
material
Stent
material
Valve
size
(mm)
Delivery catheter
size (French)
Approach
Mechanism
of expansion
Repositionable?
Year of
first-inhuman
study
Direct Flow Medical(Direct Flow

Medical, Santa Rosa, CA, USA)126,127
Bovine
pericardium
No stent
(polyester
fabric cuff)
23, 25
18
Transfemoral
or subclavian
Inflation of
ring balloons
by a polymer
Yes
2006
Heart Leaflet Technologies (Heart Leaflet

Technologies, Maple Grove, MN, USA)
Porcine
pericardium
Nitinol
21, 23
18
Transfemoral
Selfexpandable
Yes
2009
Innovare (Braile Biomedical, So Jos do

Rio Preto, Brazil)128,129
Bovine
pericardium
Stainless
steel
20, 22,
24, 26,
28
20 (for 20, 22,

& 24mm valves);
22 (for 26
& 28mm valves)
Transapical
Balloon
expandable
No
2008
JenaValve(JenaValve Technology,
Munich, Germany)130
Porcine
native aortic
valve leaflets
Nitinol
23, 25,
27
32
Transapical
Selfexpandable
Yes
2009
Portico(St. Jude Medical, StPaul,

MN, USA)
Porcine
pericardium
Nitinol
23,25
18
Transfemoral
Selfexpandable
Yes
2011
SadraLotus Medical (Boston Scienfic

SciMed Inc, Maple Grove, MN, USA)131
Bovine
pericardium
Nitinol
23, 27
18
Transfemoral
Selfexpandable
Yes
2007
Symetis Accurate (Symetis, Ecublens,

Switzerland)132
Porcine
native aortic
valve leaflets
Nitinol
23, 25,
27
28
Transapical
Selfexpandable
Yes
2009
Engager(Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis,

MN, USA)133,134
Bovine
pericardium
Nitinol
23, 26
28
Transapical
Selfexpandable
Yes
2008
the progression and potential clinical impact of these

residual leaks. Notably, the presence of moderate or
severe residual aortic regurgitation has been identified
as an independent predictor of acute and late mortality
following TAVI.22,26,51
Several factors have been associated with the occurrence of moderate or severe aortic regurgitation. Valve
malpositioning (too aortic or too ventricular) might be the
reason for moderate-to-severe residual paravalvular aortic
regurgitation, and this can be treated with the implantation of a second valve (valve-in-valve procedure). 102,103
Also, CoreValve malpositioning (low implantation) can
sometimes be corrected by snaring and repositioning
thevalve.104 A high degree of calcification of the native
aortic valve, a large aortic annulus, a small valve area, and a
high angle between the ascending aorta and the left ventri
cular outflow tract, have also been associated with an
increased rate of moderate-to-severe paravalvular aortic
regurgitation.51,105107 Some studies have also suggested
that echocardiography might undersize aortic-annulus
measurements, as compared with CT, and this undersizing could be associated with an increased degree of para
valvular leak because of the selection of an undersized
valve prosthesis.2932,51 In addition to providing more information about the predictive factors of significant residual
aortic regurgitation, further research is needed to improve
transcatheter valve technology to further reduce the
incidence and severity of paravalvular leaks.
Functional class and quality of life

Improvements in the NYHA functional class following TAVI have systematically been reported.328 Most
patients are in NYHA classIII before the procedure and
improve to NYHA classI or II at midterm follow-up.

Exercise capacity, as evaluated by the 6min walk test,
has also been shown to increase after TAVI.108,109 Several
studies have determined the effect of TAVI on quality
of life using the Short Form (SF)12, SF36, Kansas City
Cardiomyopathy, EuroQuol5D, and Duke Activity
Status Index questionnaires, and all showed TAVIassociated improvement in quality of life at 612months
after implantation. 110116 However, some studies have
indicated a lack of improvement in quality of life, functional status, or both in a substantial proportion of
patients (2030%) after TAVI,13,112,117 in part related to
comorbidities such as severe mitral regurgitation and
chronic kidney disease.112,117 Future studies will have to
continue evaluating the benefits of TAVI for both functional status and quality of life and further identifying the
patients with aortic stenosis who might not benefit from
this treatment (survival without improvement) owing
to an excessive comorbidity burden.
Looking to the future

Lower-risk patients
The rapid and substantial improvements in TAVI
technology and the increasing treatment-center experi
ence in the past few years, the results obtained in multi
center registries and, more importantly, the results
from the high-risk cohort of the PARTNER trial have
provided the basis for evaluating whether TAVI should
be used for the treatment of a lower-risk population
with aortic stenosis. Indeed, some preliminary results
of TAVI in intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic
stenosis have been promising.118 Two TAVI studies on
intermediate-risk patients are planned in the near future.

REVIEWS
a
Figure 7 | Images of emerging transcatheter valve technology (valves with first-in-man data). a | Direct Flow Medical
(Direct Flow Medical, Santa Rosa, CA, USA) valve. Permission obtained from Direct Flow Medical. b | HLT (Heart Leaflet
Technologies, Maple Grove, MN, USA) valve. 2011 HLT, Inc. a Bracco Group Co. c | Innovare (Braile Biomedical, So Jos
do Rio Preto, Brazil) valve. Courtesy of Diego Gaia, Federal University of So Paulo, Brazil. d | JenaValve(JenaValve
Technology, Munich, Germany). Permission obtained from JenaValve Technology. e | Portico(St-Jude Medical, St Paul, MN,
USA) valve. f| SadraLotus Medical (Boston Scientific SciMed Inc, Maple Grove, MN, USA) valve. 2011 Boston Scientific
Corporation or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Used with permission of Boston Scientific Corporation. g | Symetis
Accurate (Symetis SA, Lausanne, Switzerland) valve. Permission obtained from Symetis. h | Engager(Medtronic Inc.,
Minneapolis, MN, USA) valve. 2010 Medtronic, Inc. Image provided by Medtronic, Inc.
For cohortA of the PARTNERII trial,119 investigators

will randomly assign patients with aortic stenosis and
STS score of 48% (that is, intermediate risk), or specific
qualifying intermediate risk criteria requiring formal
petition to the executive committee heart-valve team
(which will include cardiac surgeons and interventional
cardiologists), to TAVI or SAVR. Patients with concomitant coronary artery disease will be substratified to
percutaneous coronary intervention plus TAVI versus
CABG surgery plus SAVR. The estimated sample size is
1,5002,000 patients, and ~50 US centers are expected to
participate. The Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter
Aortic Valve Implantation (SURTAVI) trial 120 will
include elderly (70years) patients with aortic stenosis
and an STS score of 38%. Approximately 1,200 patients
will be randomly assigned to TAVI or SAVR, and ~40
European centers are expected to participate. In addition, a randomized study comparing TAVI and SAVR
in Danish patients 70years of age, irrespective of their
expected surgical risk, is presently ongoing.121 The results
of these randomized trials should determine the exact
role of TAVI for the treatment of intermediate-risk
patients with severe aortic stenosis.
Treatment of surgical prosthesis dysfunction

A high number of patients undergoing SAVR require
reintervention as a result of the limited durability of
surgical bioprosthesis. Several reports have shown the
feasibility of TAVI for the treatment of surgical bioprosthesis dysfunction, including of stented and stentless
valves, which opens up a new avenue for the treatment of

this challenging group of patients.122125 However, larger
studies are needed to prove the safety and good clinical
outcomes associated with this valve-in-valve strategy in
all of the different types of surgical valve prostheses.
Emerging transcatheter valve technology

Various transcatheter valves are being developed. The
main characteristics of the new transcatheter valves
with first-in-human data are summarized in Table3
andFigure7.
Conclusions
TAVI represents a less-invasive strategy than SAVR for the

treatment of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. TAVI is
currently the treatment of choice for patients considered
not to be candidates for SAVR and is a proven alternative
for those considered to be at high surgical risk. Despite
the good acute and midterm clinical results obtained in
large multicenter series and registries and the randomized, controlled PARTNER trial, efforts should be made
to improve patient selection and reduce periprocedural
complications such as stroke, major vascular complications, and the need for permanent pacemaker implantation. Importantly, TAVI should be performed in centers
with highly experienced interventional and surgical
teams. Also, a close collaboration between interventional
cardiologists and cardiac surgeons (the so-called heart
team) as well as careful training of the team seem to have
a major role in achieving a successful TAVI program.
REVIEWS
Transcatheter valve hemodynamics are excellent, and
even superior to those achieved with surgically implanted
valves, but residual paravalvular aortic regurgitation
(moderate in 517% of cases) remains an issue that
should be addressed in the near future. Preliminary
data on long-term outcomes, valve-in-valve procedures
for the treatment of surgical valve dysfunction, and the
treatment of lower-risk patients have been promising, but
further studies are needed to confirm these results. These
studies might result in the expansion of TAVI to the treatment of a much broader spectrum of patients with severe
aorticstenosis.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Andersen, H.R. etal. Transluminal implantation

of artificial heart valves. Description of a new
expandable aortic valve and initial results with
implantation by catheter technique in closed
chest pigs. Eur. Heart J. 13, 704708 (1992).
Lutter, G., Ardehali, R., Cremer, J. & Bonhoeffer, P.
Percutaneous valve replacement: current state
and future prospects. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 78,
21992206 (2004).
Cribier, A. etal. Percutaneous transcatheter
implantation of an aortic valve prosthesis for
calcific aortic stenosis. First human case
description. Circulation 106, 30063008 (2002).
Cribier, A. etal. Early experience with
percutaneous transcatheter implantation of heart
valve prosthesis for the treatment of end-stage
inoperable patients with calcific aortic stenosis.
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 43, 698703 (2004).
Webb, J.G. etal. Percutaneous aortic valve
implantation retrograde from the femoral artery.
Circulation 113, 842850 (2006).
Webb, J.G. etal. Percutaneous transarterial
aortic valve replacement in selected high-risk
patients with aortic stenosis. Circulation 116,
755763 (2007).
Lichtenstein, S.V. etal. Transapical transcatheter
aortic valve implantation in humans. Initial
clinical experience. Circulation 114, 591596
(2006).
Walther, T. etal. Minimally invasive transapical
beating heart aortic valve implantationproof
of concept. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 31, 915
(2007).
Walther, T. etal. Transapical minimally invasive
aortic valve implantation. Multicenter experience.
Circulation 116 (11 Suppl.), I240I245 (2007).
Svensson, L.G. etal. United States feasibility
study of transcatheter insertion of a stented
aortic valve by the left ventricular apex. Ann.
Thorac. Surg. 86, 4655 (2008).
Walther, T. etal. One-year interim follow-up results
of the TRAVERCE trial: the initial feasibility study
for trans-apical aortic valve implantation. Eur. J.
Cardiothorac. Surg. 39, 532527 (2011).
Rods-Cabau, J. etal. Feasibility and initial
results of percutaneous aortic valve implantation
including selection of the transfemoral or
transapical approach in patients with severe
aortic stenosis. Am. J. Cardiol. 102, 12401246
(2008).
Lefvre, T. etal. One year follow-up of the multicentre European PARTNER transcatheter heart
valve study. Eur. Heart J. 32, 148157 (2011).
Kodali, S.K. etal. Early and late (one year)
outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve
implantation in patients with severe aortic
stenosis (from the United States REVIVAL trial).
Am. J. Cardiol. 107, 10581064 (2011).
Grube, E. etal. First report on a human
percutaneous transluminal implantation of a self-
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Review criteria
The MEDLINE and PubMed databases were searched for
primary research articles focusing on transcatheter aortic
valve implantation published between 1990 and 2011.
The search terms used were transcatheter aortic valve
implantation/replacement, percutaneous aortic valve
implantation/replacement, transfemoral aortic valve
implantation/replacement, transapical aortic valve
implantation/replacement, alone and in combination. All
papers identified were English-language full-text papers.
We also searched the reference lists of identified articles
for further relevant papers.
expanding valve prosthesis for interventional

treatment of aortic valve stenosis. Catheter.
Cardiovasc. Interv. 66, 465469 (2005).
Grube, E. etal. Percutaneous implantation
of the CoreValve self-expanding valve prosthesis
in high-risk patients with aortic valve disease.
The Siegburg firstinhuman study. Circulation
114, 16161624 (2006).
Marcheix, B. etal. Surgical aspects of
endovascular retrograde implantation of the
aortic CoreValve bioprothesis in high-risk older
patients with severe symptomatic aortic
stenosis. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 134,
11501156 (2007).
Grube, E. etal. Percutaneous aortic valve
replacement for severe aortic stenosis in
high-risk patients using the second- and current
third-generation self-expanding corevalve
prosthesis. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 50, 6976 (2007).
Rods-Cabau, J. etal. Transcatheter aortic valve
implantation for the treatment of severe
symptomatic aortic stenosis in patients at very
high or prohibitive surgical risk. Acute and late
outcomes of the multicenter Canadian
experience. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 55, 10801090
(2010).
Thomas, M. etal. Thirty-day results of the SAPIEN
aortic bioprosthesis European outcome
(SOURCE) registry: a European registry of
transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the
Edwards SAPIEN valve. Circulation 122, 6269
(2010).
Piazza, N. etal. Procedural and 30-day outcomes
following transcatheter aortic valve implantation
using the third generation (18F) CoreValve
revalving system: results from the multicentre,
expanded evaluation registry 1year following CE
mark approval. EuroIntervention 4, 242249
(2008).
Tamburino, C. etal. Incidence and predictors of
early and late mortality after transcatheter aortic
valve implantation in 663 patients with severe
aortic stenosis. Circulation 123, 299308
(2011).
Eltchaninoff, H. etal. Transcatheter aortic valve
implantation: early results of the FRANCE
(FRench Aortic National CoreValve and Edwards)
registry. Eur. Heart J. 32, 191197 (2011).
Zahn, R. etal. Transcatheter aortic valve
implantation: first results from a multi-centre
real-world registry. Eur. Heart J. 32, 198204
(2011).
Bosmans, J.M. etal. Procedural, 30-day and one
year outcome following CoreValve or Edwards
transcatheter aortic valve implantation: results
of the Belgian national registry. Interact.
Cardiovasc. Thorac. Surg. 12, 762767 (2011).
Moat, N. etal. Long-term outcomes after
transcatheter aortic valve implantation in highrisk patients with severe aortic stenosis. The UK
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
TAVI (United Kingdom Transcatheter Aortic Valve

Implantation) registry. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 58,
21302138 (2011).
Leon, M.B. etal. Transcatheter aortic-valve
implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who
cannot undergo surgery. N. Engl. J. Med. 363,
1597607 (2010).
Smith, C.R. etal. Transcatheter versus Surgical
Aortic-Valve Replacement in High-Risk Patients.
N. Engl. J. Med. 364, 21872198 (2011).
Ng, A.C. etal. Comparison of aortic root
dimensions and geometries before and after
transcatheter aortic valve implantation by 2 and
3dimensional transesophageal echocardiography
and multislice computed tomography. Circ.
Cardiovasc. Imaging 3, 94102 (2010).
Messika-Zeitoun, D. etal. Multimodal
assessment of the aortic annulus diameter.
Implications for transcatheter aortic valve
implantation. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 55, 186194
(2010).
Koos, R. etal. Evaluation of aortic root for
definition of prosthesis size by magnetic
resonance imaging and cardiac computed
tomography: Implications for transcatheter aortic
valve implantation. Int. J. Cardiol. 13 (Suppl. 1),
P243 (2011).
Tzikas, A. etal. Assessment of the aortic annulus
by multislice computed tomography, contrast
aortography, and trans-thoracic echocardiography
in patients referred for transcatheter aortic valve
implantation. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 77,
868875 (2011).
Schultz, C.J. etal. Three dimensional evaluation
of the aortic annulus using multislice computer
tomography: are manufacturers guidelines for
sizing for percutaneous aortic valve replacement
helpful? Eur. Heart J. 31, 849856 (2010).
Lange, R. etal. First successful transapical aortic
valve implantation with the Corevalve Revalving
system: a case report. Heart Surg. Forum 10,
e478e479 (2007).
Bagur, R. etal. Usefulness of TEE as the primary
imaging technique to guide transcatheter
transapical aortic valve implantation. JACC
Rods-Cabau, J. etal. Incidence, predictive
factors, and prognostic value of myocardial injury
following uncomplicated transcatheter aortic
valve implantation. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 57,
19881999 (2011).
Bauernschmitt, R. etal. Transcatheter aortic
valve implantation through the ascending aorta:
an alternative option for no-access patients.
Heart Surg. Forum 12, E63E64 (2009).
Latsios, G., Gerckens, U. & Grube, E. Transaortic
transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a novel
approach for the truly no-access option
patients. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 75,
11291136 (2010).

REVIEWS
39. Bapat, V., Thomas, M., Hancock, J. & Wilson, K.
First successful trans-catheter aortic valve
implantation through ascending aorta using
Edwards SAPIEN THV system. Eur. J. Cardiothorac.
Surg. 38, 811813 (2010).
40. Ruge, H. etal. First successful aortic valve
implantation with the CoreValve ReValving
system via right subclavian artery access: a case
report. Heart Surg. Forum 11, 323324 (2008).
41. Petronio, A.S. etal. Safety and efficacy of the
subclavian approach for transcatheter aortic
valve implantation with the CoreValve revalving
system. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 3, 359366
(2010).
42. De Robertis, F. etal. The left axillary artery
a new approach for transcatheter aortic valve
implantation. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 36,
807812 (2009).
43. Grube, E. etal. Feasibility of transcatheter aortic
valve implantation without pre-dilation: a pilot
study. JACC Cardiovasc. Intervent. 4, 751757
(2011).
44. Gurvitch, R. etal. Transcatheter aortic valve
implantation. Durability of clinical and
hemodynamic outcomes beyond 3years
in a large patient cohort. Circulation 122,
13191327 (2010).
45. Buellesfeld, L. etal. 2year follow-up of patients
undergoing transcatheter aortic valve
implantation using a self-expandable valve
prosthesis. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 57, 16501657
(2011).
46. Nuis, R.J. etal. Frequency, determinants, and
prognostic effects of acute kidney injury and red
blood cell transfusion in patients undergoing
transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Catheter.
47. Sinning, J.M. etal. Renal function as predictor
of mortality in patients after percutaneous
transcatheter aortic valve implantation. JACC
48. Thomas, M. etal. One-year outcomes of cohort 1
in the Edwards SAPIEN Aortic Bioprosthesis
European Outcome (SOURCE) registry: the
European registry of transcatheter aortic valve
implantation using the Edwards SAPIEN valve.
Circulation 124, 425433 (2011).
49. Wenaweser, P. etal. Clinical outcome and
predictors for adverse events after transcatheter
aortic valve implantation with the use of different
devices and routes. Am. Heart J. 161,
11141124 (2011).
50. Dewey, T.M. etal. Effect of concomitant coronary
artery disease on procedural and late outcomes
of transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Ann.
Thorac. Surg. 89, 758767 (2010).
51. Abdel-Wahab, M. etal. Aortic regurgitation after
transcatheter aortic valve implantation:
incidence and early outcome. Results from the
German transcatheter aortic valve interventions
registry. Heart 97, 899906 (2011).
52. Webb, J.G. etal. Transcatheter aortic valve
implantation. Impact on clinical and valve-related
outcomes. Circulation 119, 30093016 (2009).
53. Bagur, R. etal. Acute kidney injury following
transcatheter aortic valve implantation:
predictive factors, prognostic value, and
comparison with surgical aortic valve
replacement. Eur. Heart J. 31, 865874 (2010).
54. Ranucci, M. etal. Surgical and transcatheter
aortic valve procedures. The limits of risk scores.
Interact. Cardiovasc. Thorac. Surg. 11, 138141
(2010).
55. Dewey, T.M. etal. Reliability of risk algorithms
in predicting early and late operative outcomes
in high-risk patients undergoing aortic valve
replacement. J.Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 135,
180187 (2008).
56. Rosenhek, R. etal. ESC working group on valvular

heart disease position paper: assessing the risk
of interventions in patients with valvular heart
disease. Eur. Heart J. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1093/eurheartj/ehr061 (2011).
57. Himbert, D. etal. Results of transfemoral
or transapical aortic valve implantation following
a uniform assessment in high-risk patients with
aortic stenosis. J.Am. Coll. Cardiol. 54, 303311
(2009).
58. Grube, E. etal. Progress and current status
of percutaneous aortic valve replacement results
of three device generations of the CoreValve
Revalving system. Circ. Cardiovasc. Intervent.
1, 167175 (2008).
59. Gurvitch, R. etal. Transcatheter aortic valve
implantation: lessons from the learning curve
of the first 270 high-risk patients. Catheter.
Cardiovasc. Interv. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/
ccd.22961 (2011).
60. Leon, M.B. etal. Standardized endpoint
definitions for transcatheter aortic valve
implantation clinical trials: A consensus report
from the Valve Academic Research Consortium.
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 57, 253269 (2011).
61. Hayashida, K. etal. Transfemoral aortic valve
implantation new criteria to predict vascular
complications. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 4,
851858 (2011).
62. Saia, F. etal. Incidence, prognostic value and
management of vascular complications with
transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve
implantation. Future Cardiol. 7, 321331 (2011).
63. Cockburn, J. etal. Large caliber arterial access
device closure for percutaneous aortic valve
interventions: use of the Prostar system in
118cases. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ccd.23105 (2011).
64. Van Mieghem, N.M. etal. Vascular complications
with transcatheter aortic valve implantation using
the 18Fr Medtronic CoreValve system: the
Rotterdam experience. Eurointervention 5,
673679 (2010).
65. Sharp, A.S. etal. A new technique for vascular
access management in transcatheter aortic
valve implantation. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv.
75, 784793 (2010).
66. Genereux, P. etal. Clinical outcomes using
a new crossover balloon occlusion technique for
percutaneous closure after transfemoral aortic
valve implantation. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv.
4, 861867 (2011).
67. Kahlert, P. etal. Silent and apparent cerebral
ischemia after percutaneous transfemoral aortic
valve implantation: a diffusion-weighted magnetic
resonance imaging study. Circulation 121,
870878 (2010).
68. Ghanem, A. etal. Risk and fate of cerebral
embolism after transfemoral aortic valve
implantation. A prospective pilot study with
diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging.
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 55, 14271432 (2010).
69. Rods-Cabau, J. etal. Cerebral embolism
following transcatheter aortic valve implantation:
comparison of transfemoral and transapical
approaches. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 57, 1828
(2011).
70. Kahlert, P. etal. Cerebral embolization during
transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI):
a transcranial Doppler study [abstract].
Circulation 122, A18122 (2010).
71. Szeto, W.Y. etal. Cerebral embolic exposure
during transfemoral and transapical
transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J. Card.
Surg. 26, 348354 (2011).
72. Nietlispach, F. etal. An embolic deflection device
for aortic valve interventions. JACC Cardiovasc.
Interv. 3, 11331138 (2010).
73. Miller, C. etal. Transcatheter (TAVR) versus

surgical (AVR) aortic valve replacement:
incidence, hazard, determinants, and
consequences of neurological events in the
PARTNER Trial. Presented at the 2011 Annual
meeting of the American Association of Thoracic
Surgeons.
74. Kapadia, S.R., Svensson, L. & Tuzcu, M.
Successful percutaneous management of left
main trunk occlusion during percutaneous aortic
valve replacement. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv.
73, 966972 (2009).
75. Bagur, R. etal. Coronary ostia stenosis following
transcatheter aortic valve implantation. JACC
76. Stabile, E. etal. Acute left main obstructions
following TAVI. EuroIntervention 6, 100105
(2010).
77. Crimi, G., Passerone, G. & Rubartelli, P. Transapical aortic valve implantation complicated by
left main occlusion. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv.
78, 656659 (2011).
78. Saia, F., Marrozzini, C. & Marzocchi, A.
Displacement of calcium nodules from the native
valve as a possible cause of left main occlusion
following transcatheter aortic valve implantation.
J. Invasive Cardiol. 23, E106E109 (2011).
79. Gogas, B.D., Zacharoulis, A.A. &
Antoniadis,A.G. Acute coronary occlusion
following TAVI. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv.
77, 435438 (2011).
80. Aregger, F. etal. Risk of acute kidney injury
in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis
undergoing transcatheter valve replacement.
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant. 24, 21752179
(2009).
81. Elhmidi, Y. etal. Incidence and predictors
of acute kidney injury in patients undergoing
transcatheter aortic valve implantation.
Am.Heart J. 161, 735739 (2011).
82. Van Linden, A. etal. Risk of acute kidney injury
after minimally invasive transapical aortic valve
implantation in 270 patients. Eur. J. Cardiothorac.
Surg. 39, 835843 (2011).
83. Sinhal, A. etal. Atrioventricular block after
transcatheter balloon expandable aortic valve
implantation. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 1,
305309 (2008).
84. Gutirrez, M. etal. Electrocardiographic changes
and clinical outcomes after transapical aortic
valve implantation. Am. Heart J. 158, 302308
(2009).
85. Godin, M. etal. Frequency of conduction
disturbances after transcatheter implantation
of an Edwards Sapien aortic valve prosthesis.
Am.J. Cardiol. 106, 707712 (2010).
86. Piazza, N. etal. Early and persistent
intraventricular conduction abnormalities and
requirements for pacemaking after percutaneous
replacement of the aortic valve. JACC Cardiovasc.
Interv. 1, 310316 (2008).
87. Jilaihawi, H. etal. Predictors for permanent
pacemaker requirement after transcatheter
aortic valve implantation with the CoreValve
bioprosthesis. Am. Heart J. 157, 860866
(2009).
88. Erkapic, D. etal. Electrocardiographic and further
predictors for permanent pacemaker requirement
after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.
Europace 12, 11881190 (2010).
89. Nuis, R.J. etal. Timing and potential
mechanisms of new conduction abnormalities
during the implantation of the Medtronic
CoreValve system in patients with aortic
stenosis. Eur. Heart J. 32, 20672074 (2011).
90. Baan, J. etal. Factors associated with cardiac
conduction disorders and permanent pacemaker
implantation after percutaneous aortic valve
REVIEWS
implantation with the CoreValve prosthesis.
Am.Heart J. 159, 497503 (2010).
91. Fraccaro, C. etal. Incidence, predictors, and
outcome of conduction disorders after
transcatheter self-expandable aortic valve
implantation. Am. J. Cardiol. 107, 747754 (2011).
92. Khawaja, M.Z. etal. Permanent pacemaker
insertion after CoreValve transcatheter aortic
valve implantation: incidence and contributing
factors (the UK CoreValve collaborative).
Circulation 123, 951960 (2011).
93. Haworth, P. etal. Predictors for permanent pacing
after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.
Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 76, 751756 (2010).
94. Roten, L. etal. Incidence and predictors of
atrioventricular conduction impairment after
transcatheter aortic valve implantation.
Am. J. Cardiol. 106, 14731480 (2010).
95. Clavel, M.A. etal. Comparison of the
hemodynamic performance of percutaneous
and surgical bioprostheses for the treatment
of severe aortic stenosis. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.
53, 18831891 (2009).
96. Zegdi, R. etal. Is it reasonable to treat all
calcified stenotic aortic valves with a valved
stent? Results from a human anatomic study in
adults. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 51, 579584 (2009).
97. Schultz, C.J. etal. Geometry and degree of
apposition of the CoreValve Revalving system
with multislice computed tomography after
implantation in patients with aortic stenosis.
J.Am. Coll. Cardiol. 54, 911918 (2009).
98. Clavel, M.A. etal. Validation and characterization
of transcatheter aortic valve effective orifice area
measured by Doppler-echocardiography. JACC
99. Kalavrouziotis, D. etal. Transcatheter aortic valve
stenosis and small aortic annulus. J. Am. Coll.
Cardiol. 58, 10161024 (2011).
100. Bauer, F. etal. Acute improvement in global and
regional left ventricular systolic function after
percutaneous heart valve implantation in
patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis.
Circulation 110, 14731476 (2004).
101. Clavel, M.A. etal. Comparison between
transcatheter and surgical prosthetic valve
stenosis and reduced left ventricular ejection
fraction. Circulation 122, 19281936 (2010).
102. Rods-Cabau, J., Dumont, E. & Doyle, D.
Valveinvalve for the treatment of paravalvular
leaks following transcatheter aortic valve
implantation. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv.
74, 11161119 (2009).
103. Ussia, G.P. etal. The valveinvalve technique
for treatment of aortic bioprosthesis malposition:
an analysis of incidence and 1year clinical
outcomes from the Italian CoreValve registry.
J.Am. Coll. Cardiol 57, 10621068 (2011).
104. Latib, A. etal. Post-implantation repositioning
of the CoreValve percutaneous valve. JACC
105. John, D. etal. Correlation of device landing zone
calcification and acute procedural success in
patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve
implantations with the self-expanding CoreValve

prosthesis. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 3, 233243
(2010).
106. Dtaint, D. etal. Determinants of significant
paravalvular regurgitation after transcatheter
aortic valve implantation: impact of device and
annulus discongruence. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv.
2, 821827 (2009).
107. Sherif, M.A. etal. Anatomic and procedural
predictors of paravalvular aortic regurgitation
after implantation of the Medtronic CoreValve
bioprosthesis. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 56,
16231629 (2010).
108. Gotzmann, M. etal. Short-term effects of
transcatheter aortic valve implantation on
neurohormonal activation, quality of life and
6minute walk test in severe and symptomatic
aortic stenosis. Heart 96, 11021106 (2010).
109. Bagur, R. etal. Exercise capacity in patients with
severe symptomatic aortic stenosis before and
six months after transcatheter aortic valve
implantation. Am. J. Cardiol. 108, 258264
(2011).
110. Ussia, G.P. etal. Quality of life assessment after
percutaneous aortic valve implantation. Eur.
Heart J. 30, 17901796 (2009).
111. Krane, M. etal. Quality of life among patients
undergoing transcatheter aortic valve
implantation. Am. Heart J. 160, 451457 (2010).
112. Bagur, R. etal. Performance-based functional
assessment of patients undergoing transcatheter
aortic valve implantation. Am. Heart J. 161,
726734 (2011).
113. Bekeredijian, R. etal. Usefulness of
percutaneous aortic valve implantation to
improve quality of life in patients >80years
of age. Am. J. Cardiol. 106, 17771781 (2010).
114. Gonalves, A. etal. Quality of life improvement at
midterm follow-up after transcatheter aortic valve
implantation. Int. J. Cardiol. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijcard.2011.05.050 (2011).
115. Gotzmann, M. etal. One-year results of
transcatheter aortic valve implantation in severe
symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. Am. J. Cardiol.
107, 16871692 (2011).
116. Reynolds, M.R. etal. Health related quality of life
after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in
inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis.
Circulation 124, 19641972 (2011).
117. Gotzmann, M. etal. Transcatheter aortic valve
implantation in patients with severe symptomatic
aortic valve stenosis-predictors of mortality and
poor treatment response. Am. Heart J.162,
238245 (2011).
118. Tamburino, C. etal. Early and mid term outcomes
of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in
patients with logistic euroscore less than 20%:
a comparative analysis between different risk
strata. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/ccd.23100 (2011).
119. Leon M. TAVR in lower risk patients: PARTNER II
update. Presented at the 2011 Transcatheter
Valve Therapeutics meeting.
120. Taylor, J. The time has come for a SYNTAX-like
trial for transcatheter aortic valve implantation.
Eur. Heart J. 32, 128129 (2011).
121. US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov

Transcatheter Compared to Surgical Valve
Implantation in Patients With Severe Aortic Valve
Stenosis (TAVIvsSAVR) [online], http://
www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01057173?
term=NCT01057173&rank=1 (2011).
122. Webb, J.G. etal. Transcatheter valveinvalve
implantation for failed bioprosthetic heart valves.
Circulation 27, 18481857 (2010).
123. Pasic, M. etal. Transapical aortic valve
implantation after previous aortic valve
replacement. Clinical proof of the valveinvalve
concept. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 142,
270277 (2011).
124. Gotzmann, M., Mgge, A. & Bojara, W.
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for
treatment of patients with degenerated aortic
bioprossthesesvalvein-valve technique.
Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 76, 10001006
(2010).
125. Kempfert, J. etal. Transapical off-pump
valveinvalve implantation in patients with
degenerated aortic xenografts. Ann. Thorac. Surg.
89, 19341941 (2010).
126. Schofer, J. etal. Aortic stenosis: a firstinman
retrograde transarterial implantation of a nonmetallic aortic valve prosthesis. Circ. Cardiovasc.
Interv. 1, 126133 (2008).
127. Treede, H. etal. Six-months results of a
repositionable and retrievable epicardial valve
for transcatheter aortic valve replacement:
the Direct Flow Medical aortic valve. J. Thorac.
Cardiovasc. Surg. 140, 897903 (2010).
128. Gaia, D.F. etal. Off-pump transapical balloonexpandable aortic valve endoprosthesis
implantation. Rev. Bras. Cir. Cardiovasc. 24,
233238 (2009).
129. Gaia, D.F. etal. Transapical aortic valve
implantation: results of a Brazilian prosthesis.
Rev. Bras. Cir. Cardiovasc. 25, 293302 (2010).
130. Kempfert, J., Rastan, A.J., Mohr, F.W., and
Walther, T. A new self-expanding transcatheter
aortic valve for transapical implantationfirst
in man implantation of the JenaValve. Eur. J.
131. Buellesfeld, L., Gerckens, U. and Grube, E.
Percutaneous implantation of the first
repositionable aortic valve prosthesis in a
patient with severe aortic stenosis. Catheter.
132. Kempfert, J. etal. Transapical aortic valve
implantation using a new self-expandable
bioprosthesis: initial outcomes. Eur. J.
133. Falk, V. etal. New anatomically oriented
transapical aortic valve implantation. Ann.
Thorac. Surg. 87, 925926 (2009).
134. Falk, V. etal. Transapical aortic valve implantation
with a self-expanding anatomically oriented valve.
Eur. Heart J.32, 878887 (2011).
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank Mlanie Ct, MSc,
(Quebec Heart and Lung Institute, Quebec City, QC,
Canada) for her outstanding work in the preparation
of tables and figures.


Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REVIEWS

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation:

Following experimental work in the transcatheter valve

Transcatheter prosthetic valves

To date, two types of transcatheter aortic valves have

Cribier-Edwards, second-generation Edwards SAPIEN,

Balloon-expandable Edwards valve

NATURE REVIEWS | CARDIOLOGY

Quebec Heart and

VOLUME 9 | JANUARY 2012 | 15

Figure 1 | Photographs of the transcatheter prosthetic valves currently used for

Self-expandable CoreValve system

increase radial force in the inflow portion and expand the

The work-up before TAVI using the Edwards or CoreValve

Approaches used for TAVI

2011 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved

Patients considered at very high risk or nonsurgical candidates

Evaluation by a TAVI multidisciplinary team

Patients eligble for TAVI

and deployment. However, any injury of the subclavian

Balloon aortic valvuloplasty is systematically performed

NATURE REVIEWS | CARDIOLOGY

VOLUME 9 | JANUARY 2012 | 17

suggested direct implantation of the CoreValve system

Outcomes of the procedure

Findings from the eight largest multicenter registries and

The PARTNER trial is, to date, the only prospective,

2011 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved

Figure 4 | Valve implantation of balloon-expandable and self-expandable

highlighting the importance of patient selection in the

Major periprocedural complications

NATURE REVIEWS | CARDIOLOGY

VOLUME 9 | JANUARY 2012 | 19

20 | JANUARY 2012 | VOLUME 9

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Rods-Cabau etal.,19 n=339

Chronic kidney disease

Rods-Cabau etal.,19 n=339

Baseline noncardiac variables

Tamburino etal.,22 n=663

Tamburino etal.,22 n=663

Wenaweser etal.,49 n=200

Wenaweser etal., n=200

Carotid artery stenosis >50%

Thomas etal.,48 n=463 for TF

Thomas etal.,48 n=463 for TF

Thomas etal.,48 n=463 for TF

Thomas etal.,48 n=463 for TF

Thomas etal.,48 n=463 for TF

Low left ventricular ejection fraction (<40%)

Tamburino etal.,22 n=663

Low left ventricular ejection fraction (<50%)

Moat etal.,26 n=870

Rods-Cabau etal.,19 n=339

Coronary artery disease

Sinning etal.,47 n=77

Prior balloon aortic valvuloplasty

Tamburino etal.,22 n=663

Moderate or severe mitral regurgitation

Rods-Cabau etal., n=339

Prior acute pulmonary edema

Tamburino etal.,22 n=663

Bagur etal.,53 n=213

Baseline cardiac variables