Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Durability of prostheses for transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Key Points

  • Reliable long-term data for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) devices are currently available only for up to 5 years

  • Experience with surgical aortic valves indicates that ≥10-year follow-up is required in elderly patients to analyse valve durability

  • An inverse association exists between age and structural valve deterioration, which therefore is unlikely to occur rapidly in the typical octogenarian population of TAVI recipients

  • Valve-in-valve TAVI is the first-line therapy for failed surgical and transcatheter aortic valves, and can extend the lifespan of bioprostheses


Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become the standard of care for inoperable patients, and the preferred treatment option for high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. Given that this therapy was intended for elderly patients with limited life expectancy, long-term durability has not been in the focus. Now that TAVI is increasingly being used in patients with intermediate-risk and lower-risk profiles, device durability has gained importance. The available mid-term results for TAVI are promising; however, little is known about the fate of TAVI devices beyond 5 years. The experience with long-term durability of surgical valves shows that ≥10-year follow-up is required to ensure reliable durability data. In this Review, we discuss the existing studies of TAVI durability, highlight differences between surgical and transcatheter treatment of aortic stenosis that might influence durability, and present a clinical solution for failed prostheses. Furthermore, we suggest how device durability might influence the future selection of patients for TAVI.

This is a preview of subscription content

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Types of surgical and transcatheter aortic valves.
Figure 2: Pathological specimens showing the most common reasons for bioprosthetic valve failure.
Figure 3: Freedom from valve deterioration according to patient age after aortic valve replacement with a Mitroflow® valve (Sorin Group, Canada).
Figure 4: Valve-in-valve implantations in degenerated surgical valves.


  1. 1

    Walther, T. et al. Perioperative results and complications in 15,964 transcatheter aortic valve replacements: prospective data from the GARY registry. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 65, 2173–2180 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Holmes, D. R. Jr et al. Clinical outcomes at 1 year following transcatheter aortic valve replacement. JAMA 313, 1019–1028 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Beckmann, A. et al. Cardiac surgery in Germany during 2014: a report on behalf of the German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 63, 258–269 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Fries, R., Wendler, O., Schieffer, H. & Schafers, H. J. Comparative rest and exercise hemodynamics of 23-mm stentless versus 23-mm stented aortic bioprostheses. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 69, 817–822 (2000).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Lehmann, S. et al. Stentless versus conventional xenograft aortic valve replacement: midterm results of a prospectively randomized trial. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 84, 467–472 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Walther, T. et al. Prospectively randomized evaluation of stentless versus conventional biological aortic valves: impact on early regression of left ventricular hypertrophy. Circulation 100 (Suppl. II), II6–II10 (1999).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Yap, K. H., Murphy, R., Devbhandari, M. & Venkateswaran, R. Aortic valve replacement: is porcine or bovine valve better? Interact. Cardiovasc. Thorac. Surg. 16, 361–373 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Hickey, G. L. et al. A comparison of outcomes between bovine pericardial and porcine valves in 38,040 patients in England and Wales over 10 years. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 47, 1067–1074 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Ganapathi, A. M. et al. Long-term survival after bovine pericardial versus porcine stented bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement: does valve choice matter? Ann. Thorac. Surg. 100, 550–559 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Habib, G. et al. Guidelines on the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of infective endocarditis: the Task Force on the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Infective Endocarditis of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Endorsed by the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) and the International Society of Chemotherapy (ISC) for Infection and Cancer. Eur. Heart J. 30, 2369–2413 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Amat-Santos, I. J. et al. Infective endocarditis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: results from a large multicenter registry. Circulation 131, 1566–1574 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Makkar, R. R. et al. Possible subclinical leaflet thrombosis in bioprosthetic aortic valves. N. Engl. J. Med. 373, 2015–2024 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Butany, J. & Leask, R. The failure modes of biological prosthetic heart valves. J. Long Term Eff. Med. Implants 11, 115–135 (2001).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    De La Fuente, A. B. et al. Advanced integrity preservation technology reduces bioprosthesis calcification while preserving performance and safety. J. Heart Valve Dis. 24, 101–109 (2015).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Nishida, T. & Tominaga, R. A look at recent improvements in the durability of tissue valves. Gen. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 61, 182–190 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Masters, R. G., Walley, V. M., Pipe, A. L. & Keon, W. J. Long-term experience with the Ionescu-Shiley pericardial valve. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 60 (Suppl.), S288–S291 (1995).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Butany, J. et al. Modes of failure in explanted mitroflow pericardial valves. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 92, 1621–1627 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Mazzucotelli, J. P., Bertrand, P. C. & Loisance, D. Y. Durability of the Mitroflow pericardial valve at ten years. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 60 (Suppl.), S303–S304 (1995).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Minami, K., Zittermann, A., Schulte-Eistrup, S., Koertke, H. & Korfer, R. Mitroflow synergy prostheses for aortic valve replacement: 19 years experience with 1,516 patients. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 80, 1699–1705 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Sjogren, J., Gudbjartsson, T. & Thulin, L. I. Long-term outcome of the MitroFlow pericardial bioprosthesis in the elderly after aortic valve replacement. J. Heart Valve Dis. 15, 197–202 (2006).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Yankah, C. A. et al. Aortic valve replacement with the Mitroflow pericardial bioprosthesis: durability results up to 21 years. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 136, 688–696 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    David, T. E., Feindel, C. M., Bos, J., Ivanov, J. & Armstrong, S. Aortic valve replacement with Toronto SPV bioprosthesis: optimal patient survival but suboptimal valve durability. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 135, 19–24 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Cribier, A. et al. Percutaneous transcatheter implantation of an aortic valve prosthesis for calcific aortic stenosis: first human case description. Circulation 106, 3006–3008 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Mack, M. J. 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 385, 2477–2484 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Toggweiler, S. et al. 5-year outcome after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 61, 413–419 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Barbanti, M. et al. 5-year outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation with CoreValve prosthesis. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 8, 1084–1091 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Webb, J. New balloon expandable aortic valves. Presented at the 63rd Annual Scientific Session and Expo of the American College of Cardiology (2014).

  28. 28

    Hayashida, K. et al. Impact of post-procedural aortic regurgitation on mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 5, 1247–1256 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Kodali, S. K. et al. Two-year outcomes after transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement. N. Engl. J. Med. 366, 1686–1695 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    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 123, 299–308 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31

    Abdel-Wahab, M. et al. Aortic regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: incidence and early outcome. Results from the German transcatheter aortic valve interventions registry. Heart 97, 899–906 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32

    Scheinert, D. et al. Prevalence and clinical impact of stent fractures after femoropopliteal stenting. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 45, 312–315 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33

    McElhinney, D. B. et al. Stent fracture, valve dysfunction, and right ventricular outflow tract reintervention after transcatheter pulmonary valve implantation: patient-related and procedural risk factors in the US Melody Valve Trial. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 4, 602–614 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34

    Willson, A. B. et al. Structural integrity of balloon-expandable stents after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: assessment by multidetector computed tomography. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 5, 525–532 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35

    Piazza, N. et al. A clinical protocol for analysis of the structural integrity of the Medtronic CoreValve System frame and its application in patients with 1-year minimum follow-up. EuroIntervention 5, 680–686 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36

    Li, K. & Sun, W. Simulated thin pericardial bioprosthetic valve leaflet deformation under static pressure-only loading conditions: implications for percutaneous valves. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 38, 2690–2701 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37

    Sun, W., Li, K. & Sirois, E. Simulated elliptical bioprosthetic valve deformation: implications for asymmetric transcatheter valve deployment. J. Biomech. 43, 3085–3090 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38

    Gunning, P. S., Vaughan, T. J. & McNamara, L. M. Simulation of self expanding transcatheter aortic valve in a realistic aortic root: implications of deployment geometry on leaflet deformation. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 42, 1989–2001 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39

    Martin, C. & Sun, W. Comparison of transcatheter aortic valve and surgical bioprosthetic valve durability: a fatigue simulation study. J. Biomech. 48, 3026–3034 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40

    Thubrikar, M. J., Deck, J. D., Aouad, J. & Nolan, S. P. Role of mechanical stress in calcification of aortic bioprosthetic valves. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 86, 115–125 (1983).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 41

    Hahn, R. T. et al. Comparison of transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement in severe aortic stenosis: a longitudinal study of echocardiography parameters in cohort A of the PARTNER trial (placement of aortic transcatheter valves). J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 61, 2514–2521 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42

    Finkelstein, A. et al. Hemodynamic performance and outcome of percutaneous versus surgical stentless bioprostheses for aortic stenosis with anticipated patient-prosthesis mismatch. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 147, 1892–1899 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43

    Piazza, N., Schultz, C., de Jaegere, P. P. & Serruys, P. W. Implantation of two self-expanding aortic bioprosthetic valves during the same procedure-Insights into valve-in-valve implantation ('Russian doll concept'). Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 73, 530–539 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44

    Walther, T. et al. Valve-in-a-valve concept for transcatheter minimally invasive repeat xenograft implantation. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 50, 56–60 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45

    Bapat, V. Valve-in-valve apps: why and how they were developed and how to use them. EuroIntervention 10 (Suppl. U), U44–U51 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46

    Banbury, M. K. et al. Age and valve size effect on the long-term durability of the Carpentier-Edwards aortic pericardial bioprosthesis. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 72, 753–757 (2001).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47

    Forcillo, J. et al. Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valve in the aortic position: 25-years experience. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 96, 486–493 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48

    Johnston, D. R. et al. Long-term durability of bioprosthetic aortic valves: implications from 12,569 implants. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 99, 1239–1247 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49

    Bourguignon, T. et al. Very long-term outcomes of the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount valve in aortic position. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 99, 831–837 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50

    Flameng, W. et al. Prosthesis-patient mismatch predicts structural valve degeneration in bioprosthetic heart valves. Circulation 121, 2123–2129 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51

    Une, D., Ruel, M. & David, T. E. Twenty-year durability of the aortic Hancock II bioprosthesis in young patients: is it durable enough? Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 46, 825–830 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52

    Le Tourneau, T. et al. Cardiovascular risk factors as predictors of early and late survival after bioprosthetic valve replacement for aortic stenosis. J. Heart Valve Dis. 16, 483–488 (2007).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. 53

    Fann, J. I. et al. Twenty-year clinical experience with porcine bioprostheses. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 62, 1301–1311 (1996).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54

    Okada, N. et al. Valve selection for the aortic position in dialysis patients. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 99, 1524–1531 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55

    Ruel, M. et al. Late incidence and determinants of reoperation in patients with prosthetic heart valves. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 25, 364–370 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56

    Biglioli, P. et al. Long-term outcomes of the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valve prosthesis in the aortic position: effect of patient age. J. Heart Valve Dis. 13 (Suppl. 1), S49–S51 (2004).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. 57

    McClure, R. S. et al. Late outcomes for aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis: up to 17-year follow-up in 1,000 patients. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 89, 1410–1416 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58

    Myken, P. S. & Bech-Hansen, O. A. 20-year experience of 1712 patients with the Biocor porcine bioprosthesis. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 137, 76–81 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59

    Rizzoli, G. et al. Fifteen-year results with the Hancock II valve: a multicenter experience. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 132, 602–609.e4 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60

    Ennker, J. A. et al. The Freestyle stentless bioprosthesis in more than 1000 patients: a single-center experience over 10 years. J. Card. Surg. 24, 41–48 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61

    Mohammadi, S. et al. Long-term clinical and echocardiographic follow-up of the Freestyle stentless aortic bioprosthesis. Circulation 126 (Suppl. 1), S198–S204 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank John J. Squiers (Baylor Research Institute, Baylor Healthcare System, Dallas, Texas, USA) for his editorial support during preparation of this manuscript.

Author information




Both authors researched data for the article, discussed its content, and wrote, reviewed, and edited the manuscript before submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Walther.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Arsalan, M., Walther, T. Durability of prostheses for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Nat Rev Cardiol 13, 360–367 (2016).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing