Why the study?
Long-term durability of transcatheter aortic bioprosthetic valves remains a major concern, and limited studies have evaluated TAVI durability beyond 5 years using newly standardized European consensus definitions of SVD and BVF.
What is the long-term rate of structural valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure in patients undergoing TAVI with first-generation devices?
What is the long-term rate of structural valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure in patients undergoing TAVI with first-generation devices?
First-generation TAVI devices demonstrate a low rate of structural valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure at 6-year follow-up, suggesting good long-term durability.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports durability expectations for first-generation TAVI in observational cohorts; leaves open need for longer follow-up and newer-device data.
OBJECTIVE: The long-term durability of transcatheter aortic bioprosthetic valves continues to be a major concern. Standardized criteria of the structural valve deterioration (SVD) and bioprosthetic valve failure (BVF) have recently been defined. Limited studies have evaluated the long-term durability of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) according to these new definitions. We aim to analyze the durability of TAVI beyond 5 years and to report the frequency of SVD and BVF. METHODS: A total of 89 patients who had undergone TAVI and had theoretically completed at least 5 years after the procedure were included. Either a Medtronic CoreValve or an Edwards SAPIEN XT valve were implanted in the patients. New standardized definitions were used to evaluate SVD and BVF. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 78.70±6.95 years. SVD occured in 4 (4.5%) patients during 6 years of follow-up. Severe SVD was observed in 2 patients (2.2%), and these patients had the New York Heart Association class II symptoms. Both patients with severe SVD also met the criteria of BVF. Moderate SVD was observed in 2 patients (2.2%), and these patients had no valve-related symptoms. Of the 4 SVD cases, 2 were associated with increased mean transaortic gradients, whereas the remaining 2 cases were associated with intraprosthetic aortic regurgitation. All patients with SVD are still alive, and none of them have required aortic valve reintervention. CONCLUSION: Although first-generation TAVI devices were used, we determined the low rate of SVD and BVF at the 6-year follow-up. It may be suggested that there is no major concern associated with TAVI even with first-generation devices regarding long-term durability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Şentürk et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: