Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2012 Apr-Jun;8(2):4-8.
doi: 10.14797/mdcj-8-2-4.

Role of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) versus conventional aortic valve replacement in the treatment of aortic valve disease

Gerald M Lawrie  1
Affiliations
Review

Role of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) versus conventional aortic valve replacement in the treatment of aortic valve disease

Gerald M Lawrie. Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J. 2012 Apr-Jun.

Abstract

Conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) surgery has been in clinical use since 1960. Results, particularly in high-risk populations such as the very elderly and frail, continue to improve in response to the challenges posed by this growing segment of the patient population. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a fairly recent development, performed for the first time in 2002. The last decade has seen an exponential growth in the application of this technology in higher-risk populations. Results of recent randomized prospective trials demonstrate both the future promise and current problems of the TAVI approach. Many patients deemed inoperable for AVR have been treated successfully by TAVI. However, elevated procedural and late mortality rates, excessive early and late stroke, and a significant incidence of periprosthetic aortic valve insufficiency and patient-prosthesis mismatch all suggest caution in extending this technology to patients able to undergo conventional AVR with a low risk of early or late complications.

Keywords: AVR; Edwards Sapiens device; Medtronic Core Valve; PARTNER trial; STACCATO trial; TAVI; aortic valve stenosis; ascending aortic aneurysm surgery; surgical aortic valve replacement; transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Harken DE, Soroff MS, Taylor WJ, Lefemine AA, Gupta SK, Lunzer S. Partial and complete prostheses in aortic insufficiency. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1960;40:744–62. - PubMed
    1. Rahimtoola SH. Choice of prosthetic heart valve in adults: an update. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:2413–26. - PubMed
    1. Cribier A, Eltchaninoff H, Bash A, Borenstein N, Tron C, Bauer F, et al. Percutaneous transcatheter implantation of an aortic valve prosthesis for calcific aortic stenosis. Circulation. 2002;106:3006–8. - PubMed
    1. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M, Miller DC, Moses JW, Svensson LG, et al. PARTNER Trial Investigators. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med. 2010 Oct 21;363(17):1597–607. - PubMed
    1. Makkar RR, Fontana GP. on behalf of the PARTNER investigators. Late (≥2 years) outcomes of the PARTNER trial: transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(20 Suppl B):13..

MeSH terms