TAVR—present, future, and challenges in developing countries

  • Ajeet BanaEmail author
Review Article


Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a well-established therapy for inoperable and high-risk patients of Aortic Stenosis in most of the part of the world. The technological advancements in the hemodynamic performance and design of valve prosthesis and also the data provided by various trials regarding the safety and efficacy of TAVR have widened the scope of TAVR in intermediate and low-risk groups also. The main focus of this review is to discuss the feasibility of TAVR in developing countries. Along with this review, it also gives a detailed outlook of the pros and cons of TAVR along with insight into the future of TAVR and its adoption into the low-risk group.


Transcatheter aortic valve Para-valvular leak Bicuspid aortic valve 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declare that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Not required.


  1. 1.
    Athappan G, Patvardhan E, Tuzcu EM, et al. Incidence, predictors, and outcomes of aortic regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: meta-analysis and systematic review of literature. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:1585–95. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Généreux P, Head SJ, Hahn RH, et al. Paravalvular leak after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the new Achilles' heel? A comprehensive review of the literature. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:1125–36. Scholar
  3. 3.
    Waterbury TM, Reeder GS, Pislaru SV, Cabalka AK, Rihal CS, Eleid MF. Techniques and outcomes of paravalvular leak repair after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;90:870–7. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Krasopoulos G, Falconieri F, Benedetto U, et al. European real world trans-catheter aortic valve implantation: systematic review and meta-analysis of European national registries. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016;11:159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reardon MJ, Van Mieghem NM, Popma JJ, et al. Surgical or transcatheter aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1321–31. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack MJ, et al. Transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:1609–20. Scholar
  7. 7.
    George I, Guglielmetti LC, Bettinger N, et al. Aortic Valve Annular Sizing: Intraoperative Assessment Versus Preoperative Multidetector Computed Tomography. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 2017;10. pii: e005968.
  8. 8.
    Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1597–607. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ, et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2187–98. Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kodali S, Thourani VH, White J, et al. Early clinical and echocardiographic outcomes after SAPIEN 3 transcatheter aortic valve replacement in inoperable, high-risk and intermediate-risk patients with aortic stenosis. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:2252–62. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Adams DH, Popma JJ, Reardon MJ, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1790–8. Scholar
  12. 12.
    Forrest JK. 30-Day Safety and Echocardiographic Outcomes Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with the Self-Expanding Repositionable Evolut PRO System. Presented at: ACC 17. March 2017, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nazif TM, Dizon JM, Hahn RT, et al. Predictors and clinical outcomes of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) trial and registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:60–9. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bagur R, Rodés-Cabau J, Gurvitch R, et al. Need for permanent pacemaker as a complication of transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement in elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis and similar baseline electrocardiographic findings. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5:540–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Muñoz-García AJ, Hernández-García JM, Jiménez-Navarro MF, et al. Factors predicting and having an impact on the need for a permanent pacemaker after CoreValve prosthesis implantation using the new Accutrak delivery catheter system. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5:533–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guetta V, Goldenberg G, Segev A, et al. Predictors and course of high-degree atrioventricular block after transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the CoreValve Revalving System. Am J Cardiol. 2011;108:1600–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bagur R, Solo K, Alghofaili S, et al. Cerebral embolic protection devices during transcatheter aortic valve implantation: systematic review and meta-analysis. Stroke. 2017;48:1306–15. Scholar
  18. 18.
    Haussig S, Mangner N, Dwyer MG, et al. Effect of a cerebral protection device on brain lesions following transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with severe aortic stenosis: the CLEAN-TAVI randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;316:592–601. Scholar
  19. 19.
    Giustino G, Sorrentino S, Mehran R, Faggioni M, Dangas G. Cerebral embolic protection during TAVR: a clinical event meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69:465–6. Scholar
  20. 20.
    Makkar RR, Fontana G, Jilaihawi H, et al. Possible subclinical leaflet thrombosis in bioprosthetic aortic valves. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2015–24. Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chakravarty T, Søndergaard L, Friedman J, et al. Subclinical leaflet thrombosis in surgical and transcatheter bioprosthetic aortic valves: an observational study. Lancet. 2017;389:2383–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kappetein AP, Head SJ, Genereux P, et al. Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document. Eur Heart J. 2012;33:2403–18. Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rahimtoola SH. Choice of prosthetic heart valve in adults an update. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:2413–26. Scholar
  24. 24.
    Alavi SH, Groves EM, Kheradvar A. The effect of transcatheter valve crimping on pericardial leafleats. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;97:1260–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Alavi SH, Ruiz V, Krasieva T, Botvinick EL, Kheradvar A. Characterizing the collagen fiber orientation in pericardial leaflets under mechanical loading conditions. Ann Biomed Eng. 2013;41:547–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Daubert MA, Weissman NJ, Hahn RT, et al. Long-term valve performance of TAVR and SAVR: a report from the PARTNER I trial. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016.
  27. 27.
    Reeves BC, Pike K, Rogers CA, et al. A multicentre randomised controlled trial of Transfusion Indication Threshold Reduction on transfusion rates, morbidity and health-care resource use following cardiac surgery (TITRe2). Health Technol Assess. 2016;20:1–260.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Généreux P, Cohen DJ, Williams MR, et al. Bleeding complications after surgical aortic valve replacement compared with transcatheter aortic valve replacement: insights from the PARTNER I Trial (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:1100–9. Scholar
  29. 29.
    Généreux P, Cohen DJ, Mack M, et al. Incidence, predictors, and prognostic impact of late bleeding complications after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:2605–15. Scholar
  30. 30.
    Najjar M, Yerebakan H, Sorabella RA, et al. Acute kidney injury following surgical aortic valve replacement. J Card Surg. 2015;30:631–9. Scholar
  31. 31.
    Thourani VH, Kodali SK, Makkar RR, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients: a propensity score analysis. Lancet. 2016;387:2218–25. Scholar
  32. 32.
    Langer NB, Hamid NB, Nazif TM, et al. Injuries to the aorta, aortic annulus, and left ventricle during transcatheter aortic valve replacement: management and outcomes. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10. pii: e004735.
  33. 33.
    Kim WK, Hamm CW. The future of TAVI. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:2704–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    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;68:1195–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ueshima D, Fovino LN, DÁmico G, Brener SJ, Esposito G, Tarantini G. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in low- and intermediate – risk patients : an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2018.
  36. 36.
    Ruge H, Lange R, Bleiziffer S, et al. First successful aortic valve implantation with the CoreValveReValving System via right subclavian artery access: a case report. Heart Surg Forum. 2008;11:E323–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bauernschmitt R, Schreiber C, Bleiziffer S, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation through the ascending aorta: an alternative option for no-access patients. Heart Surg Forum. 2009;12:E63–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rougé A, Huttin O, Aslam R, et al. Mid-term results of 150 TAVI comparing apical versus femoral approaches. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;10:147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wenaweser P, Stortecky S, Heg D, et al. Short-term clinical outcomes among patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation in Switzerland: the Swiss TAVI registry. EuroIntervention. 2014;10:982–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Modine T, Sudre A, Delhaye C, et al. Transcutaneous aortic valve implantation using the left carotid access: feasibility and early clinical outcomes. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;93:1489–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bickler SN, Weiser TG, Kassebaum N, et al. Global burden of surgical conditions. In: Debas HT, Donkor P, Gawande A, Jamison DT, Kruk ME, Mock CN, editors. Essential surgery: disease control priorities, vol. 1. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2015. p. 19–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Akenroye AT, Stack AM. The development and evaluation of an evidence-based guideline programme to improve care in a paediatric emergency department. Emerg Med J. 2016;33:109–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Weiser TG, Regenbogen SE, Thompson KD, et al. An estimation of the global volume of surgery: a modelling strategy based on available data. Lancet. 2008;372:139–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Frost LJ, Reich MR. Creating access to health technologies in poor countries. In: Parker R, Sommer M, editors. Routledge handbook of global public health. New York: Routledge; 2011. chap. 36.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bergmann T, Sengupta PP, Narula J. Is TAVR ready for the global aging population? Glob Heart. 2017;12:291–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    World Health Organization. Prevention of cardiovascular disease: guidelines for assessment and management of cardiovascular risk. Geneva: WHO; 2007.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mishra S. Will percutaneous valves replace the surgical valves: another one bites the dust? Indian Heart J. 2016;68:249–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    McDermott FD, Kelly ME, Warwick A, et al. Problems and solutions in delivering global surgery in the 21st century. Br J Surg. 2016;103:165–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Nutley T, Reynolds HW. Improving the use of health data for health system strengthening. Glob Health Action. 2013;6:20001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Elder G, Murphy RA, Herard P, Dilworth K, Olson D, Heinzelmann A. Challenging the barriers to accessing surgery in low-resource settings: lessons learned from burns. Surgery. 2015;158:33–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ruparelia N, Prendergast BD. TAVI in 2015: who, where and how? Heart. 2015;101:1422–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Roemer JE, Pedro RD. Barefoot and footloose doctors: optimal resource allocation in developing countries with medical migration. Soc Choice Welf. 2016;46:335–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Nagarajan N, Varadaraj V. Helping meet surgical needs in under-resourced settings: the role of task shifting. JAMA Surg. 2015;150:687–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Stuart C. The lowdown on TAVR: as risk drops, expectations rise. Cardiovascular Business. Available at:¼1. Accessed 3 Apr 2016.
  55. 55.
    Mandrola J. TAVR costs put cardiologists in a tough spot. Medscape. Available at: Accessed 3 Apr 2016.
  56. 56.
    Arsalan M, Ballard A, MacLachlan CR, et al. Comparison of current costs and reimbursement for transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67:10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Coylewright M, Mack MJ, Holmes DR Jr, O'Gara PT. A call for an evidence-based approach to the heart team for patients with severe aortic stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:1472–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Association of Cardiovascular-Thoracic Surgeons 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Eternal HospitalJaipurIndia

Personalised recommendations