Does transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have similar long-term durability compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR)?
TAVI demonstrates low rates of bioprosthetic valve failure at 5 to 8 years that are comparable to SAVR, though definitive 10-year durability data in low-risk patients is still pending.
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is now utilised as a less invasive alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) across the whole spectrum of surgical risk. Long-term durability of the bioprosthetic valves has become a key goal of TAVI as this procedure is now considered for younger and lower-risk populations. The purpose of this article is to present a state-of-the-art overview on the definition, aetiology, risk factors, mechanisms, diagnosis, clinical impact, and management of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) and failure (BVF) following TAVI with a comparative perspective versus SAVR. Structural valve deterioration (SVD) is the main factor limiting the durability of the bioprosthetic valves used for TAVI or SAVR, but non-structural BVD, such as prosthesis-patient mismatch and paravalvular regurgitation, as well as valve thrombosis or endocarditis may also lead to BVF. The incidence of BVF related to SVD or other causes is low (<5%) at midterm (5- to 8-year) follow-up and compares favourably with that of SAVR. The long-term follow-up data of randomised trials conducted with the first generations of transcatheter heart valves also suggest similar valve durability in TAVI versus SAVR at 10 years, but these trials suffer from major survivorship bias, and the long-term durability of TAVI will need to be confirmed by the analysis of the low-risk TAVI versus SAVR trials at 10 years.
Ternacle et al. (2024) studied this question.