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.

  • Comment
  • Published:

A biological approach to aortic valve disease: durability and survival

Nature Reviews Cardiology volume 17, pages 754–756 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

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

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

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

References

  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  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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. 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  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, Translational Center of Excellence in Aortic Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Michael E. Ibrahim & Joseph E. Bavaria

  2. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City, NY, USA

    Ismail El-Hamamsy

Authors
  1. Michael E. Ibrahim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joseph E. Bavaria
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ismail El-Hamamsy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

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

Check for updates. 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

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41569-020-00446-8

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

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