Paravalvular Leaks—From Diagnosis to Management

  • Samuel Bernard
  • Evin YucelEmail author
Valvular Heart Disease (J Dal-Bianco, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Valvular Heart Disease


Purpose of review

As the number of surgical and transcatheter valve replacements continue to increase in the aging population, so does the incidence of paravalvular leak (PVL). Given its impact on morbidity and mortality, this article will focus on the epidemiology, clinical presentation, diagnostic assessment, and available treatments for PVL.

Recent findings

Despite being performed on inoperable and typically higher risk patients, short-term complication rates of transcatheter PVL closure appear relatively low (< 10%). When indirectly compared with surgical PVL closure, long-term mortality, reoperation rates and degree of symptom improvement are similar. Nonetheless, current transcatheter closure devices are off-label and repurposed from other indications. Further development of percutaneous closure devices is an essential next step in order to improve and optimize outcomes.


In patients with surgical and especially transcatheter-replaced heart valves, clinicians need to maintain vigilance for the presence of PVL, particularly in those with new-onset heart failure or hemolysis. Multimodality imaging is essential to detect and quantify PVL. Echocardiography (both transthoracic and transesophageal) is the backbone of diagnosis and quantification, and cardiac computed tomography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging play an important role in defect characterization and in periprocedural planning. For those patients who are unable to undergo surgery, transcatheter PVL closure is an appropriate next step in management as it has similar outcomes to surgical intervention when performed in a center of expertise.


Paravalvular leak Paravalvular regurgitation Mitral valve Aortic valve Paravalvular leak closure 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Matiasz R, Rigolin VH. 2017 focused update for management of patients with valvular heart disease: summary of new recommendations. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7:e007596.PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Writing Group M, Mozaffarian D, Benjamin EJ, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics-2016 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2016;133:e38–360.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vemulapalli S, Carroll JD, Mack MJ, et al. Procedural volume and outcomes for transcatheter aortic-valve replacement. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:2541–50.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davila-Roman VG, Waggoner AD, Kennard ED, et al. Prevalence and severity of paravalvular regurgitation in the Artificial Valve Endocarditis Reduction Trial (AVERT) echocardiography study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:1467–72.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hammermeister K, Sethi GK, Henderson WG, Grover FL, Oprian C, Rahimtoola SH. Outcomes 15 years after valve replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve: final report of the Veterans Affairs randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36:1152–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ionescu A, Fraser AG, Butchart EG. Prevalence and clinical significance of incidental paraprosthetic valvar regurgitation: a prospective study using transoesophageal echocardiography. Heart. 2003;89:1316–21.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    O’Rourke DJ, Palac RT, Malenka DJ, Marrin CA, Arbuckle BE, Plehn JF. Outcome of mild periprosthetic regurgitation detected by intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;38:163–6.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ruiz CE, Hahn RT, Berrebi A, et al. Clinical trial principles and endpoint definitions for paravalvular leaks in surgical prosthesis: an expert statement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:2067–87.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eleid MF, Cabalka AK, Malouf JF, Sanon S, Hagler DJ, Rihal CS. Techniques and outcomes for the treatment of paravalvular leak. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:e001945.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Englberger L, Schaff HV, Jamieson WR, et al. Importance of implant technique on risk of major paravalvular leak (PVL) after St. Jude mechanical heart valve replacement: a report from the Artificial Valve Endocarditis Reduction Trial (AVERT). Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2005;28:838–43.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lerakis S, Hayek SS, Douglas PS. Paravalvular aortic leak after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: current knowledge. Circulation. 2013;127:397–407.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, et al. 2017 AHA/ACC focused update of the 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 clinical practice guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70:252–89.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kliger C, Eiros R, Isasti G, et al. Review of surgical prosthetic paravalvular leaks: diagnosis and catheter-based closure. Eur Heart J. 2013;34:638–49.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Concistre G, Chiaramonti F, Bianchi G, et al. Aortic valve replacement with perceval bioprosthesis: single-center experience with 617 implants. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018;105:40–6.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alkhouli M, Farooq A, Go RS, Balla S, Berzingi C. Cardiac prostheses-related hemolytic anemia. Clin Cardiol. 2019;42:692–700.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nietlispach F, Maisano F, Sorajja P, Leon MB, Rihal C, Feldman T. Percutaneous paravalvular leak closure: chasing the chameleon. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:3495–502.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dahou A, Ribeiro HB, Rodes-Cabau J, Pibarot P. Impact and management of paravalvular regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Interv Cardiol Clin. 2015;4:67–82.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kodali SK, Williams MR, Smith CR, et al. Two-year outcomes after transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1686–95.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gilard M, Eltchaninoff H, Iung B, et al. Registry of transcatheter aortic-valve implantation in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1705–15.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Van Belle E, Juthier F, Susen S, et al. Postprocedural aortic regurgitation in balloon-expandable and self-expandable transcatheter aortic valve replacement procedures: analysis of predictors and impact on long-term mortality: insights from the FRANCE2 Registry. Circulation. 2014;129:1415–27.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jerez-Valero M, Urena M, Webb JG, et al. Clinical impact of aortic regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: insights into the degree and acuteness of presentation. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:1022–32.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Baumgartner H, Falk V, Bax JJ, et al. 2017 ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:2739–91.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines. Circulation. 2014;129:2440–92.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bertrand PB, Levine RA, Isselbacher EM, Vandervoort PM. Fact or artifact in two-dimensional echocardiography: avoiding misdiagnosis and missed diagnosis. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2016;29:381–91.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zoghbi WA, Asch FM, Bruce C, et al. Guidelines for the evaluation of valvular regurgitation after percutaneous valve repair or replacement: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography developed in collaboration with the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Japanese Society of Echocardiography, and Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2019;32:431–75.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pibarot P, Hahn RT, Weissman NJ, Monaghan MJ. Assessment of paravalvular regurgitation following TAVR: a proposal of unifying grading scheme. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8:340–60.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lang RM, Badano LP, Tsang W, et al. EAE/ASE recommendations for image acquisition and display using three-dimensional echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2012;25:3–46.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Binder RK, Webb JG, Willson AB, et al. The impact of integration of a multidetector computed tomography annulus area sizing algorithm on outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a prospective, multicenter, controlled trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:431–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sucha D, Symersky P, Tanis W, et al. Multimodality imaging assessment of prosthetic heart valves. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8:e003703.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Suh YJ, Hong GR, Han K, et al. Assessment of mitral paravalvular leakage after mitral valve replacement using cardiac computed tomography: comparison with surgical findings. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;9.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Transcatheter management of paravalvular leaks. 2017. at Accessed 16 Sep 2019.
  32. 32.
    Orwat S, Diller GP, Kaleschke G, et al. Aortic regurgitation severity after transcatheter aortic valve implantation is underestimated by echocardiography compared with MRI. Heart. 2014;100:1933–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Croft CH, Lipscomb K, Mathis K, et al. Limitations of qualitative angiographic grading in aortic or mitral regurgitation. Am J Cardiol. 1984;53:1593–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kappetein AP, Head SJ, Genereux P, et al. Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013;145:6–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Michel PL, Vahanian A, Besnainou F, Acar J. Value of qualitative angiographic grading in aortic regurgitation. Eur Heart J. 1987;8(Suppl C):11–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zoghbi WA, Chambers JB, Dumesnil JG, et al. Recommendations for evaluation of prosthetic valves with echocardiography and doppler ultrasound: a report from the American Society of Echocardiography’s Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Task Force on Prosthetic Valves, developed in conjunction with the American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Imaging Committee, Cardiac Imaging Committee of the American Heart Association, the European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, the Japanese Society of Echocardiography and the Canadian Society of Echocardiography, endorsed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation, American Heart Association, European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, the Japanese Society of Echocardiography, and Canadian Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2009;22:975–1014; quiz 82–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Aoyagi S, Fukunaga S, Tayama E, Nakamura E, Egawa N, Hosokawa Y. Benefits of a beta-blocker for intractable hemolysis due to paraprosthetic leakage. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann. 2007;15:441–3.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Okita Y, Miki S, Kusuhara K, Ueda Y, Tahata T, Yamanaka K. Propranolol for intractable hemolysis after open heart operation. Ann Thorac Surg. 1991;52:1158–60.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Santinga JT, Flora JD, Rush JB, Penner JA, Willis PW. The effect of propranolol on hemolysis in patients with an aortic prosthetic valve. Am Heart J. 1977;93:197–201.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hirawat S, Lichtman SM, Allen SL. Recombinant human erythropoietin use in hemolytic anemia due to prosthetic heart valves: a promising treatment. Am J Hematol. 2001;66:224–6.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kim MS, Casserly IP, Garcia JA, Klein AJ, Salcedo EE, Carroll JD. Percutaneous transcatheter closure of prosthetic mitral paravalvular leaks: are we there yet? JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2:81–90.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Goktekin O, Vatankulu MA, Ozhan H, et al. Early experience of percutaneous paravalvular leak closure using a novel Occlutech occluder. EuroIntervention. 2016;11:1195–200.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jelnin V, Dudiy Y, Einhorn BN, Kronzon I, Cohen HA, Ruiz CE. Clinical experience with percutaneous left ventricular transapical access for interventions in structural heart defects a safe access and secure exit. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4:868–74.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kliger C, Jelnin V, Sharma S, et al. CT angiography-fluoroscopy fusion imaging for percutaneous transapical access. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2014;7:169–77.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pitta SR, Cabalka AK, Rihal CS. Complications associated with left ventricular puncture. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;76:993–7.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Eleid M. Interventional management of paravalvular leak. Heart. 2018;104:1797–802.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Waterbury TM, Reeder GS, Pislaru SV, Cabalka AK, Rihal CS, Eleid MF. Techniques and outcomes of paravalvular leak repair after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;90:870–7.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Calvert PA, Northridge DB, Malik IS, et al. Percutaneous device closure of paravalvular leak: combined experience from the United Kingdom and Ireland. Circulation. 2016;134:934–44.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ruiz CE, Jelnin V, Kronzon I, et al. Clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous closure of periprosthetic paravalvular leaks. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:2210–7.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sorajja P, Bae R, Lesser JA, Pedersen WA. Percutaneous repair of paravalvular prosthetic regurgitation: patient selection, techniques and outcomes. Heart. 2015;101:665–73.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sorajja P, Cabalka AK, Hagler DJ, Rihal CS. Percutaneous repair of paravalvular prosthetic regurgitation: acute and 30-day outcomes in 115 patients. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4:314–21.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Millan X, Skaf S, Joseph L, et al. Transcatheter reduction of paravalvular leaks: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Cardiol. 2015;31:260–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Alkhouli M, Zack CJ, Sarraf M, et al. Successful percutaneous mitral paravalvular leak closure is associated with improved midterm survival. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Sorajja P, Cabalka AK, Hagler DJ, Rihal CS. The learning curve in percutaneous repair of paravalvular prosthetic regurgitation: an analysis of 200 cases. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:521–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Akins CW, Bitondo JM, Hilgenberg AD, Vlahakes GJ, Madsen JC, MacGillivray TE. Early and late results of the surgical correction of cardiac prosthetic paravalvular leaks. J Heart Valve Dis. 2005;14:792–9; 800.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Busu T, Alqahtani F, Badhwar V, Cook CC, Rihal CS, Alkhouli M. Meta-analysis comparing transcatheter and surgical treatments of paravalvular leaks. Am J Cardiol. 2018;122:302–9.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cardiac Ultrasound Laboratory, Massachusetts General HospitalHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations