Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. 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.

A biological approach to aortic valve disease: durability and survival

Strategies that replicate the living aortic valve’s biological sophistication are likely to translate into optimal long-term outcomes.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: A paradigm for the treatment of aortic valve disease.

References

  1. 1.

    Barili, F. et al. Mortality in trials on transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement: a pooled meta-analysis of Kaplan–Meierderived individual patient data. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 58, 221–229 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Hammermeister, K. et al. 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. 36, 1152–1158 (2000).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Johnson, S. et al. Thirty-year experience with a bileaflet mechanical valve prosthesis. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 157, 213–222 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Kvidal, P., Bergstrom, R., Horte, L. G. & Stahle, E. Observed and relative survival after aortic valve replacement. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 35, 747–756 (2000).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Kapadia, S. R. 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 385, 2485–2491 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Mack, M. J. et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a balloon-expandable valve in low-risk patients. N. Engl. J. Med. 380, 1695–1705 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Pibarot, P. et al. Echocardiographic results of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients: the PARTNER 3 trial. Circulation 141, 1527–1537 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Jawitz, O. K. et al. Reoperation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: an analysis of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons database. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 13, 1515–1525 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    El-Hamamsy, I. et al. Late outcomes following freestyle versus homograft aortic root replacement: results from a prospective randomized trial. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 55, 368–376 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Fricke, T. A. et al. Pulmonary valve function late after Ross procedure in 443 adult patients. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 109, 1127–1131 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael E. Ibrahim.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

J.E.B. declares that he has been a site clinical investigator and consultant for Edwards, Medtronic and W. L. Gore, and the chair of a data and safety monitoring board for Abbott. The other authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ibrahim, M.E., Bavaria, J.E. & El-Hamamsy, I. A biological approach to aortic valve disease: durability and survival. Nat Rev Cardiol 17, 754–756 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41569-020-00446-8

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links