TAVI: Which Valve for Which Patient?

A review of the technical challenges and optimal valve choices in different clinical and anatomic scenarios.

By Noman Ali, PhD; and Daniel J. Blackman, MD

There is now a wide range of commercially available transcatheter aortic heart valves with which clinicians can treat their patients. These valves significantly differ in their design, construction, and mechanism. The functioning bioprosthetic leaflets may be intra- or supra-annular, and the valves may be balloon-expandable, self-expanding, or mechanically expanded. A variety of different skirts aim to enhance sealing and mitigate paravalvular leak (PVL). Frame cell size and construction, frame height, size range, and the design and profile of the delivery system and access sheath all vary. Table 1 illustrates the contemporary transcatheter aortic valves, together with their key properties.

Although many patients can be successfully treated with any one of a number of valves, differences in design features have the potential to translate to important variation in efficacy and safety in specific patient and anatomic subgroups, and in some cases, these theoretical differences are supported by trial and registry data (Table 2). As a consequence, it is important for practicing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) operators to clearly understand the advantages, disadvantages, and evidence base for different valve technologies in different settings in order to achieve optimal outcomes for their patients.


The principal challenges of valve-in-valve (ViV) TAVI are the increased risk of coronary obstruction from the displaced bioprosthetic leaflets and the elevated postprocedural pressure gradients due to the interaction between the transcatheter and surgical valves. By far the greatest experience and evidence in ViV TAVI is with the use of the CoreValve/Evolut (Medtronic) and Sapien (Edwards Lifesciences) valves.

The incidence of coronary obstruction was noted to be 3.5% in the VIVID registry.1 This risk is primarily determined by the geometry of the surgical valve and the anatomy of the sinuses rather than TAVI valve type. In the VIVID registry, there was no difference between the CoreValve and Sapien valves in the incidence of coronary obstruction.1 In theory, a fully retrievable valve such as the Lotus device (Boston Scientific Corporation) may confer an advantage in allowing device retrieval in the event of coronary obstruction. However, there are no substantive data to back up this theoretical benefit.

In the VIVID registry, a high postprocedural gradient, defined as a mean gradient ≥ 20 mm Hg, was noted in 28.4% of cases and was an independent predictor of increased late mortality. A mean gradient ≥ 20 mm Hg was seen more frequently after use of Sapien valves than with CoreValve (40% vs 21.3%, respectively; P < .0001). This difference was most marked in small (internal diameter < 20 mm) surgical bioprostheses (58.8% vs 20%, respectively; P = .005).1 Sapien use was an independent predictor of an elevated gradient, a finding corroborated in a recent meta-analysis.2 This is likely to be explained by a fundamental design difference between the two valves; the CoreValve (and its successor Evolut) is a supra-annular device, in contrast to the intra-annular Sapien valve. As a result, the function of the CoreValve is less affected by the constraining surgical sewing ring, allowing for a larger potential orifice area.1 Although the use of bioprosthetic valve fracture with high-pressure noncompliant balloons has emerged as a treatment option for a high residual gradient after ViV TAVI, data on this strategy remain limited.3,4

There are very few data beyond case series describing outcomes with the other available TAVI valves.


Bicuspid aortic valves are often associated with larger annulus dimensions, an asymmetric valve orifice, heavy calcification, and a dilated and asymmetric aortic root and ascending aorta.5,6 These anatomic variations present a number of challenges to TAVI, and studies have highlighted poorer outcomes among this population. Complications arising more frequently after TAVI in this cohort include significant PVL, nonuniform/noncircular valve deployment, device migration/embolization, and annular rupture.7-13

When selecting a valve for TAVI within bicuspid anatomy, a number of specific attributes can be useful in mitigating these complications. A device with minimal PVL is desirable, given its increased incidence and the association of moderate to severe PVL with increased mortality.14 The ability to retrieve and reposition is also favorable in view of the elevated risk of malpositioning. Finally, a self-expanding or mechanically expanded valve may be preferable to a balloon-expandable device, both to conform to an asymmetric valve orifice and to reduce risk of annular rupture.

The Lotus valve has a number of attractive features for bicuspid anatomy, specifically very low rates of PVL, minimal need for postdilatation, slow and controlled deployment, and full retrievability and repositionability. An analysis of 31 patients with bicuspid anatomy included in the RESPOND postmarket Lotus valve registry showed good clinical and echocardiographic outcomes up to 1 year after implantation.15 The latest iteration, the Lotus Edge, is due to be rereleased in Europe and the United States in the first half of 2019.

The largest published experience in bicuspid anatomy is with the Sapien 3 valve, in which outcomes in 2,691 bicuspid cases from the TVT registry were compared in a recent propensity-matched analysis with 2,691 tricuspid patients. The Sapien valve appears to have some design features that are ill-suited to bicuspid anatomy (no repositionability, balloon-expandable). However, although this study did show an increase in periprocedural complications with bicuspid versus tricuspid anatomy, they remained infrequent (annular rupture [0.3% vs 0%; P = .02], conversion to open surgery [0.9% vs 0.4%; P = .03], and 30-day stroke [2.4% vs 1.6%; P = .02]). Furthermore, PVL rates were equally low in both groups, and overall outcomes were good, with no difference in stroke or mortality at 1 year.16 An earlier registry showed better outcomes, with less PVL, with the newer-generation Sapien 3 and Lotus valves compared to the early generation Sapien XT and CoreValve valves.17

More studies are needed on the efficacy of different valve types in bicuspid anatomy, and ongoing device-specific studies in low-risk bicuspid patients will provide valuable further data.


Heavy calcification of the left ventricular outflow tract and annulus is associated with an increased risk of PVL18 and, most significantly, of annular rupture—a rare but often fatal complication. Annular rupture occurs most frequently during deployment of a balloon-expandable valve19-22 or with postdilatation for PVL.23

The ideal valve in heavily calcified landing-zone anatomy would be self-expanding or mechanically expanded to minimize the risk of annular rupture, and it would offer a low incidence of PVL without the need for postdilatation.

The valve that best fits this template is Lotus. In the 1,014-patient RESPOND registry, Lotus was associated with a rate of moderate or greater PVL of only 0.3%.24 Other established self-expanding valves, such as CoreValve/Evolut, Portico (Abbott Vascular), and Acurate neo (Boston Scientific Corporation), have minimal risk of annular rupture on valve deployment, but their PVL rates are higher and potentially hazardous postdilatation is more frequently employed. In the REPRISE III randomized controlled trial, the 1-year incidence of moderate or severe PVL was 6.8% with CoreValve/Evolut versus 0.9% with Lotus, and postdilatation was performed in 31.2% versus 1.5%, respectively.25

The Centera valve (Edwards Lifesciences) is a novel, skirted, self-expanding system that has demonstrated extremely low rates of PVL in an initial 203-patient study (moderate or higher PVL in 0.6% of patients), although postdilatation was required in 33% of patients.26 More data are needed on this and other newer-generation, skirted, self-expanding devices, such as the Evolut Pro, Acurate neo 2, and the next-generation Portico, which may have a role in heavily calcified anatomy in the future.


The primary challenge for TAVI valves in the treatment of pure aortic regurgitation (AR) is the absence of calcification, leading to difficulty in anchoring, and hence to an increased risk of valve malposition, migration, or even embolization. This risk is compounded by the hyperdynamic left ventricle and regurgitant jet that make controlled positioning and release of the valve more challenging.27 A recently published registry reported device malpositioning in 19.3% of patients. There was a significant difference in the rate of device malposition when comparing early and new-generation devices, highlighting the importance of appropriate valve selection.28

The ideal transcatheter valve for treatment of pure AR would have an anchoring mechanism independent of calcium and be repositionable. The JenaValve (JenaValve Technology GmbH) is a self-expanding device that fixes to the annulus without use of calcium by engaging the native aortic cusps through an active clipping mechanism. It is also fully repositionable during the first step of implantation. The JUPITER registry demonstrated the JenaValve to be safe and effective,29 and its successful use in the treatment of pure AR has been reported.28,30 However, the major limitation of the device is its requirement to be deployed via transapical access, a route known to be associated with increased mortality. A transfemoral iteration of the JenaValve is under investigation, but neither the transapical nor transfemoral devices are currently available outside of clinical trials.

In the absence of a dedicated device for pure AR, a valve that is self-expanding (and therefore somewhat less dependent on calcium to anchor) and repositionable is favored. The Portico and Evolut valves are self-expanding and partially repositionable, and they both offer some anchoring in the ascending aorta. CoreValve/Evolut were the most frequently used valves in the De Backer et al study. Acceptable results were noted with careful sizing of the valve, but an increased risk of device malposition was associated with either undersizing or oversizing.28 The fully repositionable Lotus valve may also have a role in pure AR, but its successful use has only been reported in isolated cases to date.


Coronary obstruction during TAVI is caused by displacement of the aortic valve leaflets leading to occlusion either at the coronary ostia or at the sinotubular junction (STJ).31 Its occurrence is predominantly determined by patient anatomy, specifically coronary and STJ height, sinus of Valsalva and STJ diameter, and (to a lesser extent) length and bulk of the displaced leaflets.31 However, valve selection may also have a role in mitigating this catastrophic complication.

A systematic review demonstrated that coronary obstruction is more common after TAVI with a balloon-expandable valve than a self-expanding valve,32 a finding corroborated by a subsequent multicenter registry.33 The inability to reposition or retrieve also makes the Sapien family of balloon-expandable valves an unattractive choice in patients at high risk of coronary obstruction.

Features that may be helpful in preventing coronary obstruction are a valve design that actively controls leaflet deflection and the ability to reposition or retrieve the valve if obstruction occurs. During deployment of the JenaValve, the device clips and attaches to the native leaflets, thus moving them away from the coronary ostia.34 As a result, the reported rate of coronary obstruction using the JenaValve is low, with none of the 180 patients involved in the JUPITER registry experiencing this complication.29 The Acurate neo device has an upper crown that caps the native leaflets below the coronary ostia.35 This feature is designed to mitigate the risk of coronary obstruction, but its effectiveness is unconfirmed because the rate of this complication was not disclosed in the postmarket SAVI-TF registry.36

The Lotus valve is the only fully repositionable and retrievable device, and it is therefore also a favorable choice in patients at high risk of coronary obstruction.


The prevalence of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with severe aortic stenosis is high,37 and facilitating access for possible future percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with CAD is essential. This includes the possible need for emergency primary PCI in the setting of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and/or the need for PCI in non-TAVI centers by non-TAVI operators. Clinicians should, therefore, favor a TAVI valve that allows easy coronary access in all patients with existing CAD and in younger patients.

The principal factors determining ease of coronary access are frame height and frame mesh density. Devices with tall frames that extend into the ascending aorta, such as the Evolut and Portico valves, do not prohibit coronary access but undoubtedly render it more challenging. A number of studies have demonstrated greater difficulty in achieving coaxial coronary engagement after TAVI with a self-expanding device as compared to a balloon-expandable device.38,39

The current generation of Sapien 3 and Sapien Ultra valves usually extend above the coronary ostia, but they have a low-density mesh and large cells that facilitate coronary cannulation. The Centera valve has a low overall frame height, and the Acurate neo valve has a short stent component that usually sits below the ostia. Both of these devices are also favorable in this patient group. Finally, the Lotus valve will often sit below the coronary ostia, but it has an extremely dense mesh. Coronary access will be difficult whenever the top of the valve frame is above the ostia, and it may be impossible if the device sits at or above the STJ. With this device, as well as with all of the other valves, careful consideration of the aortic root dimensions and a clear knowledge of the device dimensions are essential both in device selection and deployment if coronary access is to be maintained.


Increasing evidence confirming the safety and effectiveness of TAVI in intermediate- and low-risk patient populations will inevitably translate to the use of TAVI in younger patients with a life expectancy measured in decades. The three principal factors TAVI operators must consider when selecting a TAVI valve for a younger patient are durability, the feasibility of TAVI-in-TAVI if and when structural valve degeneration (SVD) occurs, and the ability to access the coronary arteries if required. The last of these considerations is discussed in the previous section.

The CoreValve/Evolut and Sapien platforms have significantly more data on long-term durability than other valve types. Five-year data from the pivotal PARTNER I study found that of the 348 patients treated with a Sapien valve, none experienced SVD requiring reintervention. Furthermore, there was no significant difference with respect to hemodynamic valve parameters when comparing TAVI to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) at 5 years after the procedure.40 Similarly, 5-year data from the ADVANCE study demonstrated excellent durability of the CoreValve device; SVD was reported in only 0.9% of patients and paired echocardiographic measurements demonstrated stable valve hemodynamics.41 The NOTION study comparing TAVI and SAVR in low-risk patients demonstrated superior hemodynamics with CoreValve in the TAVI group. There was also a lower incidence of SVD in the TAVI group, mainly driven by a larger valve area and lower incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch.42

These studies provide encouraging 5-year results for TAVI, but less is known about valve durability beyond this. Recently published data from the UK TAVI registry have given some insight into longer-term durability. Of the 241 patients included in this study assessing the incidence of SVD at 5 to 10 years postprocedure, 149 (64%) were treated with CoreValve and 80 (34.7%) with Sapien. Only one patient (0.4%) developed severe SVD and 21 (8.7%) had moderate SVD, meaning that 91% of patients remained free of SVD at 5 to 10 years after TAVI.43

In cases where significant SVD occurs, a redo TAVI-in-TAVI procedure may be required. The feasibility of this will largely depend on the patient’s anatomy, because implantation of a new prosthesis risks coronary obstruction due to displacement of the leaflets of the existing device, in particular at the level of the STJ. In patients with a large aortic root and/or high STJ, this risk will be trivial; however, in those with a small and/or low STJ, TAVI-in-TAVI in a supra-annular valve with a tall frame, such as the CoreValve/Evolut, will carry a prohibitive risk of complete obstruction of coronary flow at the level of the STJ. Operators need to consider the anatomic feasibility of TAVI-in-TAVI when treating younger patients. In general, and particularly in patients with small anatomy, the use of a valve with a shorter frame and intra-annular leaflets, such as Sapien, should be considered.

Finally, a low incidence of significant PVL and conduction abnormalities, including left bundle branch block as well as permanent pacemaker implantation, are of particular relevance to younger patients. In this regard, Sapien 3 would be favored over Evolut.


It is beyond the scope of this article to address every anatomic consideration in patients undergoing TAVI. However, in addition to the larger patient groups already discussed, operators should be aware of a number of other challenging scenarios where some valve types may confer advantages. These include extreme iliac or aortic tortuosity, in which a flexible delivery system such as Portico or Acurate neo may be advantageous; mechanical mitral valve replacement and marked septal bulge, in which a self-expanding prosthesis may be preferred to avoid the risk of valve displacement due to interaction during deployment of a balloon-expandable device; and small iliofemoral vessels, in which a low-profile system such as the 14-F Evolut R may be favorable.


Technical advances, increased experience, and a growing evidence base have led to an expansion of TAVI into increasingly diverse and challenging anatomic and patient subgroups. Many patients can be successfully and effectively treated with any one of a number of valve types. Furthermore, each TAVI operator needs to strike a balance between the number of different valve types used and personal experience with each one. Nonetheless, an appreciation of the technical challenges associated with different anatomic scenarios, along with the strengths and weaknesses of the various transcatheter aortic valves, will allow an optimal valve to be selected for each and every patient, minimizing complications and maximizing success.

1. Dvir D, Webb J, Brecker S, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerative bioprosthetic surgical valves: results from the global valve-in-valve registry. Circulation. 2012;126:2335-2344.

2. Nalluri N, Atti V, Munir AB, et al. Valve in valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) versus redo-surgical aortic valve replacement (redo-SAVR): a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Interv Cardiol. 2018;31:661-671.

3. Nielsen-Kudsk JE, Christiansen EH, Terkelsen CJ, et al. Fracturing the ring of small mitroflow bioprostheses by high-pressure balloon predilatation in transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:e002667.

4. Chhatriwalla AK, Allen KB, Saxon JT, et al. Bioprosthetic valve fracture improves the hemodynamic results of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:e005216.

5. Philip F, Faza NN, Schoenhagen P, et al. Aortic annulus and root characteristics in severe aortic stenosis due to bicuspid aortic valve and tricuspid aortic valves: implications for transcatheter aortic valve therapies. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;86:e88-98.

6. Watanabe Y, Chevalier B, Hayashida K, et al. Comparison of multislice computed tomography findings between bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves before and after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;86:323-330.

7. Kochman J, Huczek Z, Scisło P, et al. Comparison of one- and 12-month outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with severely stenotic bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valves (results from a multicenter registry). Am J Cardiol. 2014;114:757-762.

8. Yoon S-H, Bleiziffer S, De Backer O, et al. Outcomes in transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valve stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:2579-2589.

9. Guyton RA, Padala M. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in bicuspid aortic stenosis: early success but concerning red flags. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:825-827.

10. Perlman GY, Blanke P, Dvir D, et al. Bicuspid aortic valve stenosis: favorable early outcomes with a next-generation transcatheter heart valve in a multicenter study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:817-824.

11. Zegdi R, Lecuyer L, Achouh P, et al. Increased radial force improves stent deployment in tricuspid but not in bicuspid stenotic native aortic valves. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010;89:768-772.

12. Bauer T, Linke A, Sievert H, et al. Comparison of the effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with stenotic bicuspid versus tricuspid aortic valves (from the German TAVI registry). Am J Cardiol. 2014;113:518-521.

13. Mylotte D, Lefevre T, Søndergaard L, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in bicuspid aortic valve disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:2330-2339.

14. Abdelghani M, Soliman OI, Schultz C, et al. Adjudicating paravalvular leaks of transcatheter aortic valves: a critical appraisal. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:2627-2644.

15. Blackman DJ, Van Gils L, Bleiziffer S, et al. Clinical outcomes of the Lotus valve in patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis: an analysis from the RESPOND study [published online February 17, 2019]. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv.

16. Makkar RR, Yoon S-H, Leon MB, et al. Outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement with balloon-expandable Sapien 3 valve in bicuspid anatomy. An analysis of the STS/ACC TVT Registry. Presented at: American College of Cardiology (ACC) 2019 Scientific Session; March 16–18, 2019. New Orleans, LA.

17. Yoon SH, Lefèvre T, Ahn JM, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with early- and new-generation devices in bicuspid aortic valve stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68:1195-1205.

18. Buellesfeld L, Stortecky S, Heg D, et al. Extent and distribution of calcification of both the aortic annulus and the left ventricular outflow tract predict aortic regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. EuroIntervention. 2014;10:732-738.

19. Griese DP, Reents W, Kerber S, et al. Emergency cardiac surgery during transfemoral and transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation: incidence, reasons, management, and outcome of 411 patients from a single center. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;82:e726-733.

20. Pasic M, Unbehaun A, Dreysse S, et al. Rupture of the device landing zone during transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a life-threatening but treatable complication. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5:424-432.

21. Barbanti M, Yang T-H, Rodès Cabau J, et al. Anatomical and procedural features associated with aortic root rupture during balloon expandable transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Circulation. 2013;128:244-253.

22. Eggebrecht H, Schmermund A, Kahlert P, et al. Emergent cardiac surgery during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): a weighted meta-analysis of 9,251 patients from 46 studies. EuroIntervention. 2013;8:1072-1080.

23. Pasic M, Unbehaun A, Buz S, et al. Annular rupture during transcatheter aortic valve replacement: classification, pathophysiology, diagnostics, treatment approaches, and prevention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:1-9.

24. Falk V, Wöhrle J, Hildick-Smith D, et al. Safety and efficacy of a repositionable and fully retrievable aortic valve used in routine clinical practice: the RESPOND Study. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:3359-3366.

25. Feldman TE, Reardon MJ, Rajagopal V, et al. Effect of mechanically expanded vs self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement on mortality and major adverse clinical events in high-risk patients with aortic stenosis: the REPRISE III randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;319:27-37.

26. Reichenspurner H, Schaefer A, Schäfer U, et al. Self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve system for symptomatic high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70:3127-3136.

27. Franzone A, Piccolo R, Siontis GCM, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for the treatment of pure native aortic valve regurgitation: a systematic review. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:2308-2317.

28. De Backer O, Pilgrim T, Simonato M, et al. Usefulness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation for treatment of pure native aortic valve regurgitation. Am J Cardiol. 2018;122:1028-1035.

29. Silaschi M, Treede H, Rastan AJ, et al. The JUPITER registry: 1-year results of transapical aortic valve implantation using a second-generation transcatheter heart valve in patients with aortic stenosis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016;50:874-881.

30. Seiffert M, Bader R, Kappert U, et al. Initial German experience with transapical implantation of a second-generation transcatheter heart valve for the treatment of aortic regurgitation. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:1168-1174.

31. Barbanti M. Avoiding coronary occlusion and root rupture in TAVI: the role of pre-procedural imaging and prosthesis selection. Interv Cardiol. 2015;10:94-97.

32. Ribeiro HB, Nombela-Franco L, Urena M, et al. Coronary obstruction following transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a systematic review. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;6:452-461.

33. Ribeiro HB, Webb JG, Makkar RR, et al. Predictive factors, management, and clinical outcomes of coronary obstruction following transcatheter aortic valve implantation: insights from a large multicenter registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:1552-1562.

34. Treede H, Mohr FW, Baldus S, et al. Transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the JenaValve system: acute and 30-day results of the multicentre CE-mark study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012;41:e131-138.

35. Möllmann H, Walther T, Siqueira D, et al. Transfemoral TAVI using the self-expanding ACURATE neo prosthesis: one-year outcomes of the multicentre "CE-approval cohort". EuroIntervention. 2017;13:e1040-1046.

36. Kim W-K, Hengstenberg C, Hilker M, et al. The SAVI-TF Registry: 1-year outcomes of the European post-market registry using the ACURATE neo transcatheter heart valve under real-world conditions in 1,000 patients. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11:1368-1374.

37. Goel SS, Ige M, Tuzcu EM, et al. Severe aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease–implications for management in the transcatheter aortic valve replacement era: a comprehensive review. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62:1-10.

38. Blumenstein J, Kim W-K, Liebetrau C, et al. Challenges of coronary angiography and intervention in patients previously treated by TAVI. Clin Res Cardiol 2015;104:632-639.

39. Boukantar M, Gallet R, Mouillet G, et al. Coronary procedures after TAVI with the self-expanding aortic bioprosthesis Medtronic CoreValve, not an easy matter. J Interv Cardiol. 2017;30:56-62.

40. Mack MJ, Leon MB, Smith CR, 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;385:2477-2484.

41. Gerckens U, Tamburino C, Bleiziffer S, et al. Final 5-year clinical and echocardiographic results for treatment of severe aortic stenosis with a self-expanding bioprosthesis from the ADVANCE Study. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:2729-2738.

42. Søndergaard L, Ihlemann N, Capodanno D, et al. Durability of transcatheter and surgical bioprosthetic aortic valves in patients at lower surgical risk. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73:546-553.

43. Blackman DJ, Saraf S, MacCarthy PA, et al. Long-term durability of transcatheter aortic valve prostheses. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73:537-545.

Noman Ali, PhD
Department of Cardiology
Leeds General Infirmary
Leeds, United Kingdom
Disclosures: None.

Daniel J. Blackman, MD
Department of Cardiology
Leeds General Infirmary
Leeds, United Kingdom
Disclosures: Consultant and proctor for Boston Scientific Corporation and Medtronic.


Contact Info

For advertising rates and opportunities, contact:
Craig McChesney

Stephen Hoerst

Charles Philip

About Cardiac Interventions Today

Cardiac Interventions Today (ISSN 2572-5955 print and ISSN 2572-5963 online) is a publication dedicated to providing comprehensive coverage of the latest developments in technology, techniques, clinical studies, and regulatory and reimbursement issues in the field of coronary and cardiac interventions. Cardiac Interventions Today premiered in March 2007 and each edition contains a variety of topics in a flexible format, including articles covering various perspectives on current clinical topics, in-depth interviews with expert physicians, overviews of available technologies, industry news, and insights into the issues affecting today's interventional cardiology practices.