Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in the USA

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Surgical Management of Aortic Pathology

  • 1658 Accesses

Abstract

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is the preferred treatment for severe aortic stenosis (AS) in patients considered to be extreme-risk surgical risk and is an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in high-risk patients. Currently, the balloon-expandable SAPIEN valve and the self-expanding CoreValve are approved for TAVR in the USA. An additional four TAVR valves (Lotus, Portico, Direct Flow, and JenaValve) are in clinical trials in the USA.

TAVR outcomes have improved over the past decade due to improvements in patient selection, operative techniques, and prevention of common complications. First, improvement of patient selection is possible with a comprehensive evaluation by a heart team using a multi-imaging strategy. Second, improvement of operative techniques is a consequence of increase operator experience and broadening of percutaneous access options. While transfemoral TAVR is the procedure of choice, transapical, transaortic, transcarotid, subclavian, and transcaval alternative access routes are also being performed. Third, improving the prevention of common complications, such as neurologic events, vascular injury, conduction abnormalities, paravalvular leaks, and acute kidney injury, is now possible with an improvement in devices and a more clear understanding of specific preoperative risk factors.

Finally, TAVR is continuously evolving in the USA. In selected patients, minimalist transfemoral TAVR is feasible to avoid general anesthesia leading to a decrease in resource utilization and cost of the procedure. The potential treatment of a failing surgically implanted aortic bioprosthesis (valve-in-valve) with TAVR is also emerging as a treatment alternative in high-risk patients. Within the last year, clinical trials which evaluated the expanding role of TAVR in intermediate-risk patients have shown superiority with the transfemoral access compared to surgery in mortality. Newer randomized trials to expand the indications of TAVR to lower-risk patients are ongoing in the USA.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Go AS, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics--2014 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2014;129:28–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Nkomo VT, et al. Burden of valvular heart diseases: a population-based study. Lancet. 2006;368:1005–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ross J, Braunwald E. Aortic stenosis. Circulation. 1968;38:S61–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Nishimura RA, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:57–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Holmes DR, et al. 2012 ACCF/AATS/SCAI/STS expert consensus document on transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:1200–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Thourani VH, et al. Contemporary real-world outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement in 141,905 low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;99:55–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bach DS. Prevalence and characteristics of unoperated patients with severe aortic stenosis. J Heart Valve Dis. 2011;20:284–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cribier A, et al. Percutaneous transcatheter implantation of an aortic valve prosthesis for calcific aortic stenosis: first human case description. Circulation. 2002;106:3006–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Abdel-Wahab M, et al. Comparison of balloon-expandable vs self-expandable valves in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the CHOICE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014;311:1503–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Smith CR, et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2187–98.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kodali SK, et al. Two-year outcomes after transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1686–95.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Mack MJ, et al. 5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement for high surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;385:2477–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Leon MB, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1597–607.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kapadia SR, et al. 5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared with standard treatment for patients with inoperable aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;385:2485–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Makkar RR, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement for inoperable severe aortic stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1696–704.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Leon MB, et al. Transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:700–1.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kodali S, et al. Early clinical and echocardiographic outcomes after SAPIEN 3 transcatheter aortic valve replacement in inoperable, high-risk and intermediate-risk patients with aortic stenosis. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:2252–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Thourani VH, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients: a propensity score analysis. Lancet. 2016;387:2218–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Popma JJ, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement using a self-expanding bioprosthesis in patients with severe aortic stenosis at extreme risk for surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:1972–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Adams DH, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1790–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Holmes DR, et al. Annual outcomes with transcatheter valve therapy. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;101:789–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Meredith Am IT, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis using a repositionable valve system: 30-day primary endpoint results from the REPRISE II study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:1339–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Meredith IT, et al. Transfemoral aortic valve replacement with the repositionable lotus valve system in high surgical risk patients: the REPRISE I study. EuroIntervention. 2014;9:1264–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Thourani VH, et al. Use of transaortic, transapical, and transcarotid transcatheter aortic valve replacement in inoperable patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013;96:1349–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Blumenstein J, et al. First-in-man evaluation of the transapical APICA ASC access and closure device: the initial 10 patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2013;44:1057–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lardizabal JA, et al. The transaortic approach for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: initial clinical experience in the United States. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:2341–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Guyton RA, et al. Carotid artery access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;82:583–6.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Fraccaro C, et al. Expanding the eligibility for transcatheter aortic valve implantation the trans-subclavian retrograde approach using: the III generation CoreValve revalving system. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2:828–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Petronio AS, et al. Safety and efficacy of the subclavian approach for transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the CoreValve revalving system. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3:359–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Greenbaum AB, et al. Caval-aortic access to allow transcatheter aortic valve replacement in otherwise ineligible patients: initial human experience. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:2795–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Miller DC, et al. Transcatheter (TAVR) versus surgical (AVR) aortic valve replacement: occurrence, hazard, risk factors, and consequences of neurologic events in the PARTNER trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;143:832–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kappetein AP, et al. Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the valve academic research consortium-2 consensus document. Eur Heart J. 2012;33:2403–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Alli O, et al. TCT-747 transcatheter aortic valve replacement: assessment of the learning curve based on the PARTNER trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:227–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Aguirre J, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement: experience with the transapical approach, alternate access sites, and concomitant cardiac repairs. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;148:1417–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Athappan G, et al. Influence of transcatheter aortic valve replacement strategy and valve design on stroke after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis and systematic review of literature. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:2101–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Fairbairn TA, et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI determined cerebral embolic infarction following transcatheter aortic valve implantation: assessment of predictive risk factors and the relationship to subsequent health status. Heart. 2012;98:18–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Nombela-Franco L, et al. Timing, predictive factors, and prognostic value of cerebrovascular events in a large cohort of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Circulation. 2012;126:3041–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Nietlispach F, et al. An embolic deflection device for aortic valve interventions. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2010;3:1133–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Naber CK, et al. First-in-man use of a novel embolic protection device for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation. EuroInterven. 2012;8:43–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Genereux P, et al. Vascular complications after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: insights from the PARTNER (Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:1043–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Genereux P, et al. Clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement using valve academic research consortium definitions: a weighted meta-analysis of 3,519 patients from 16 studies. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:2317–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Siontis GC, et al. Predictors of permanent pacemaker implantation in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:129–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Tamburino C, et al. Incidence and predictors of early and late mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in 663 patients with severe aortic stenosis. Circulation. 2011;123:299–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Koos R, et al. 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. 2012;158:353–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Detaint D, et al. Determinants of significant paravalvular regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve: implantation impact of device and annulus discongruence. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2:821–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Schultz CJ, et al. Correlates on MSCT of paravalvular aortic regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the Medtronic CoreValve prosthesis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;78:446–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Buzzatti N, et al. Computed tomography-based evaluation of aortic annulus, prosthesis size and impact on early residual aortic regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2013;43:43–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Gurvitch R, et al. Aortic annulus diameter determination by multidetector computed tomography: reproducibility, applicability, and implications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4:1235–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Jabbour A, et al. Multimodality imaging in transcatheter aortic valve implantation and post-procedural aortic regurgitation: comparison among cardiovascular magnetic resonance, cardiac computed tomography, and echocardiography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:2165–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Jilaihawi H, et al. Cross-sectional computed tomographic assessment improves accuracy of aortic annular sizing for transcatheter aortic valve replacement and reduces the incidence of paravalvular aortic regurgitation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:1275–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Genereux P, et al. Incidence and effect of acute kidney injury after transcatheter aortic valve replacement using the new valve academic research consortium criteria. Am J Cardiol. 2013;111:100–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Barbash IM, et al. Incidence and predictors of acute kidney injury after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Am Heart J. 2012;163:1031–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Babaliaros V, et al. Comparison of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement performed in the catheterization laboratory (minimalist approach) versus hybrid operating room (standard approach): outcomes and cost analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:898–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Motloch LJ, et al. Local versus general anesthesia for transfemoral aortic valve implantation. Clin Res Cardiol. 2012;101:45–53.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Pendyala LK, et al. Commercial versus PARTNER study experience with the transfemoral Edwards SAPIEN valve for inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis. Am J Cardiol. 2014;113:342–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Jensen HA, et al. Minimalist transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the new standard for surgeons and cardiologists using transfemoral access? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;150:833–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Leontyev S, et al. Redo aortic valve surgery: early and late outcomes. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;91:1120–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Maganti M, et al. Redo valvular surgery in elderly patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;87:521–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Balsam LB, et al. Reoperative valve surgery in the elderly: predictors of risk and long-term survival. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;90:1195–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Dvir D, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerative bioprosthetic surgical valves: results from the global valve-in-valve registry. Circulation. 2012;126:2335–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Dvir D, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic surgical valves. JAMA. 2014;312:162–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Structural Heart and Valve Center, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Jose F. Condado & Hanna Jensen

  2. Department of Cardiac Surgery, MedStar Heart and Vascular Institute, Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA

    Vinod H. Thourani

Authors
  1. Jose F. Condado
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hanna Jensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vinod H. Thourani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vinod H. Thourani .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Fmr Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK

    Olaf H. Stanger

  2. Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK

    John R. Pepper

  3. Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Lars G. Svensson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Condado, J.F., Jensen, H., Thourani, V.H. (2019). Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in the USA. In: Stanger, O., Pepper, J., Svensson, L. (eds) Surgical Management of Aortic Pathology. Springer, Vienna. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-4874-7_56

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-4874-7_56

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Vienna

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-7091-4872-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-7091-4874-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation