Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Advances in the management of severe aortic stenosis

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -) Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Recent developments in the management of severe aortic stenosis have resulted in a paradigm shift in the way we view the condition. Patients previously denied intervention in the form of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are now candidates for transcatheter aortic valve implantation and the risk and age profiles of those undergoing SAVR are rising with the ageing population. This review article is designed to provide an overview of developments in the surgical management of severe aortic stenosis. We also discuss the expanding role of minimally invasive surgical approaches to outline the current techniques available to treat patients with severe aortic stenosis.

Methods

PubMed was searched using the terms ‘severe aortic stenosis’, ‘surgical aortic valve replacement’, ‘transcatheter aortic valve replacement’, ‘mechanical aortic valve replacement’ and ‘sutureless aortic valve replacement’. Selection of articles was based on peer review, journal and relevance. Where possible articles from high-impact factor peer review journals were included.

Results

Minimally invasive operative approaches include mini-sternotomy and mini-thoracotomy. Sutureless aortic prostheses reduce aortic cross-clamp time and cardiopulmonary bypass time; however, long-term follow-up data are unavailable at this time. Mechanical prostheses are advised for those under 60.

Conclusion

Multiple advances in the surgical management of aortic stenosis have occured in the past decade. An evolving spectrum of surgical and transcatheter interventions is now available depending on patient age and operative risk.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Christensen K, Doblhammer G, Rau R, Vaupel JW (2009) Ageing populations: the challenges ahead. Lancet 374(9696):1196–1208

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Jagger C, McKee M, Christensen K, Lagiewka K, Nusselder W, Van Oyen H et al (2013) Mind the gap—reaching the European target of a 2-year increase in healthy life years in the next decade. Eur J Pub Health 23(5):829–833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Thaden JJ, Nkomo VT, Enriquez-Sarano M (2014) The global burden of aortic stenosis. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 56(6):565–571

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Horstkotte D, Loogen F (1998) The natural history of aortic valve stenosis. Eur Heart J 9(Suppl E):57–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Nkomo VT, Gardin JM, Skelton TN, Gottdiener JS, Scott CG, Enriquez-Sarano M (2006) Burden of valvular heart diseases: a population-based study. Lancet 368(9540):1005–1011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rayner J, Coffey S, Newton J, Prendergast BD (2014) Aortic valve disease. Int J Clin Pract 68(10):1209–1215

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Barreto-Filho JA, Wang Y, Dodson JA, Desai MM, Sugeng L, Geirsson A et al (2013) Trends in aortic valve replacement for elderly patients in the United States, 1999–2011. J Am Med Assoc (JAMA) 310(19):2078–2085

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Cribier A (2012) Development of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): a 20-year odyssey. Arch Cardiovasc Dis 105(3):146–152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cribier A, Eltchaninoff H, Bash A, Borenstein N, Tron C, Bauer F et al (2002) Percutaneous transcatheter implantation of an aortic valve prosthesis for calcific aortic stenosis: first human case description. Circulation 106(24):3006–3008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Seiffert M, Sinning JM, Meyer A, Wilde S, Conradi L, Vasa-Nicotera M et al (2014) Development of a risk score for outcome after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Clin Res Cardiol 103(8):631–640

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Erwin JP 3rd, Guyton RA et al (2014) 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation 129(23):2440–2492

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Brown JM, O’Brien SM, Wu C, Sikora JA, Griffith BP, Gammie JS (2009) Isolated aortic valve replacement in North America comprising 108,687 patients in 10 years: changes in risks, valve types, and outcomes in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 137(1):82–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Borger MA, Nette AF, Maganti M, Feindel CM (2007) Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna valve versus Medtronic Hancock II: a matched hemodynamic comparison. Ann Thorac Surg 83(6):2054–2058

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Asch FM, Heimansohn D, Doyle D, Dembitsky W, Ferdinand FD, Swanson J et al (2012) Mitroflow aortic bioprosthesis 5-year follow-up: north american prospective multicenter study. Ann Thorac Surg 94(4):1198–1203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Investigators I (2011) The Italian study on the Mitroflow postoperative results (ISTHMUS): a 20-year, multicentre evaluation of Mitroflow pericardial bioprosthesis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 39(1):18–26 (discussion)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bavaria JE, Desai ND, Cheung A, Petracek MR, Groh MA, Borger MA et al (2014) The St Jude Medical Trifecta aortic pericardial valve: results from a global, multicenter, prospective clinical study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 147(2):590–597

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jamieson WR, Lewis CT, Sakwa MP, Cooley DA, Kshettry VR, Jones KW et al (2011) St Jude Medical Epic porcine bioprosthesis: results of the regulatory evaluation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 141(6):1449–1454.e2

  18. Akins CW (1995) Results with mechanical cardiac valvular prostheses. Ann Thorac Surg 60(6):1836–1844

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kaneko T, Aranki SF (2013) Anticoagulation for prosthetic valves. Thrombosis 2013:346752

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Puskas J, Gerdisch M, Nichols D, Quinn R, Anderson C, Rhenman B et al (2014) Reduced anticoagulation after mechanical aortic valve replacement: interim results from the prospective randomized on-X valve anticoagulation clinical trial randomized Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 147(4):1202–1210 (discussion 10-1)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Chan V, Jamieson WR, Lam BK, Ruel M, Ling H, Fradet G et al (2010) Influence of the On-X mechanical prosthesis on intermediate-term major thromboembolism and hemorrhage: a prospective multicenter study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 140(5):1053–1058.e2

  22. Chambers JB, Pomar JL, Mestres CA, Palatianos GM (2013) Clinical event rates with the On-X bileaflet mechanical heart valve: a multicenter experience with follow-up to 12 years. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 145(2):420–424

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Yezbick AB, Ho JK, Crowley R, Sanchez E, Mahajan A (2008) Echocardiographic signature of the On-X valve. Echocardiography 25(9):1016–1018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Weber A, Noureddine H, Englberger L, Dick F, Gahl B, Aymard T et al (2012) Ten-year comparison of pericardial tissue valves versus mechanical prostheses for aortic valve replacement in patients younger than 60 years of age. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 144(5):1075–1083

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Magovern GJ, Cromie HW (1963) Sutureless prosthetic heart valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 46:726–736

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Magovern GJ, Liebler GA, Cushing WJ, Park SB, Burkholder JA (1977) A thirteen-year review of the Magovern-Cromie aortic valve. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 73(1):64–74

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wendt D, Thielmann M, Pizanis N, Janosi RA, Kamler M, Jakob H (2009) Sutureless aortic valves over the last 45 years. Minim Invasive Therapy Allied Technol (MITAT) 18(3):122–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Magovern GJ, Liebler GA, Park SB, Burkholder JA, Sakert T, Simpson KA (1989) Twenty-five-year review of the Magovern-Cromie sutureless aortic valve. Ann Thorac Surg 48(3 Suppl):S33–S34

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. D’Onofrio A, Messina A, Lorusso R, Alfieri OR, Fusari M, Rubino P et al (2012) Sutureless aortic valve replacement as an alternative treatment for patients belonging to the “gray zone” between transcatheter aortic valve implantation and conventional surgery: a propensity-matched, multicenter analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 144(5):1010–1016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Santarpino G, Fischlein T (2014) Use of sutureless prosthetic aortic valves in cardiac surgery. G Ital Cardiol 15(3):170–176

    Google Scholar 

  31. Chalmers J, Pullan M, Mediratta N, Poullis M (2014) A need for speed?. Bypass time and outcomes after isolated aortic valve replacement surgery, Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg

    Google Scholar 

  32. Shrestha M, Maeding I, Hoffler K, Koigeldiyev N, Marsch G, Siemeni T et al (2013) Aortic valve replacement in geriatric patients with small aortic roots: are sutureless valves the future? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 17(5):778–782 (discussion 82)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Pollari F, Santarpino G, Dell’Aquila AM, Gazdag L, Alnahas H, Vogt F et al (2014) Better short-term outcome by using sutureless valves: a propensity-matched score analysis. Ann Thorac Surg 98(2):611–616 (discussion 6–7)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Concistre G, Miceli A, Chiaramonti F, Glauber M (2012) Delayed dislocation of a sutureless aortic bioprosthesis: the first case. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 14(6):892–893

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Paredes FA, Canovas SJ, Gil O, Garcia-Fuster R, Hornero F, Vazquez A et al (2013) Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery. a safe and useful technique beyond the cosmetic benefits. Rev Esp Cardiol 66(9):695–699

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ceresa F, Sansone F, Patane F (2012) Aortic valve replacement through the upper ministernotomy: preliminary experience with modified technique. G Chir 33(10):311–313

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Olin CL, Peterffy A (1995) Minimal access aortic valve surgery. Eur J Cardio-thorac Surg 15(Suppl 1):S32–S38 (discussion S9-43)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Chang YS, Lin PJ, Chang CH, Chu JJ, Tan PP (1999) “I” ministernotomy for aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg 68(1):40–45

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Aris A, Camara ML, Montiel J, Delgado LJ, Galan J, Litvan H (1999) Ministernotomy versus median sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a prospective, randomized study. Ann Thorac Surg 67(6):1583–1587 (discussion 7-8)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Bonacchi M, Prifti E, Giunti G, Frati G, Sani G (2002) Does ministernotomy improve postoperative outcome in aortic valve operation? A prospective randomized study. Ann Thorac Surg 73(2):460–465 (discussion 5-6)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Mihaljevic T, Cohn LH, Unic D, Aranki SF, Couper GS, Byrne JG (2004) One thousand minimally invasive valve operations: early and late results. Ann Surgery 240(3):529–534 (discussion 34)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Doll N, Borger MA, Hain J, Bucerius J, Walther T, Gummert JF et al (2002) Minimal access aortic valve replacement: effects on morbidity and resource utilization. Ann Thorac Surg 74(4):S1318–S1322

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Dooley A, Asimakopoulos G (2013) Does a minimally invasive approach result in better pulmonary function postoperatively when compared with median sternotomy for coronary artery bypass graft? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 16(6):880–885

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Elhmidi Y, Bleiziffer S, Piazza N, Voss B, Krane M, Deutsch MA et al (2013) Long-term results after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: what do we know today? Curr Cardiol Rev 9(4):295–298

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Conradi L, Seiffert M, Schirmer J, Koschyk D, Blankenberg S, Reichenspurner H et al (2014) Transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation without prior balloon aortic valvuloplasty: feasible and safedagger. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 46(1):61–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Laflamme M, Mazine A, Demers P, Lamarche Y, Ibrahim R, Asgar A et al (2014) Transcatheter aortic valve implantation by the left axillary approach: a single-center experience. Ann Thorac Surg 97(5):1549–1554

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Dahle G, Rein KA (2014) Direct aorta ascending approach in transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Innovations 9(1):1–9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Azmoun A, Amabile N, Ramadan R, Ghostine S, Caussin C, Fradi S et al (2014) Transcatheter aortic valve implantation through carotid artery access under local anaesthesia. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 46(4):693–698 (discussion 8)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Bleiziffer S, Krane M, Deutsch MA, Elhmidi Y, Piazza N, Voss B et al (2013) Which way in? The necessity of multiple approaches to transcatheter valve therapy. Curr Cardiol Rev 9(4):268–273

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Holmes DR Jr, Mack MJ, Kaul S, Agnihotri A, Alexander KP, Bailey SR et al (2012) 2012 ACCF/AATS/SCAI/STS expert consensus document on transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol 59(13):1200–1254

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Cribier A (2012) Development of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): a 20-year odyssey. Arch Cardiovasc Dis 105(3):146–152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. TAVIinformation.com 2011. http://taviinformation.com

  53. Vahanian A (2001) Balloon valvuloplasty. Heart 85(2):223–228

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Aksoy O, O’Brien BL, Menon V (2013) Options for managing severe aortic stenosis: a case-based review. Clevel Clin J Med 80(4):243–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M, Miller DC, Moses JW, Svensson LG et al (2010) Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med 363(17):1597–1607

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Neragi-Miandoab S, Skripochnik E, Salemi A, Girardi L (2013) Recently patented transcatheter aortic valves in clinical trials. Recent Pat Cardiovasc Drug Discov 8(3):186–191

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. O’Sullivan KE, Gough A, Segurado R, Barry M, Sugrue D, Hurley J (2014) Is valve choice a significant determinant of paravalular leak post-transcatheter aortic valve implantation? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 45(5):826–833

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Eggebrecht H, Schmermund A, Voigtlander T, Kahlert P, Erbel R, Mehta RH (2012) Risk of stroke after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): a meta-analysis of 10,037 published patients. EuroIntervention 8(1):129–138

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Aggarwal S, Reinthaler M, Cheang MH, Mullen M (2014) 104 transcranial Doppler-detected emboli can be differentiated between solid and gaseous emboli during transcatheter aortic valve implantation and this has implications for neuroprotective strategies. Heart 100(Suppl 3):A60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Onsea K, Agostoni P, Samim M, Voskuil M, Kluin J, Budde R et al (2012) First-in-man experience with a new embolic deflection device in transcatheter aortic valve interventions. EuroIntervention 8(1):51–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. KE OS, Casserly I, Hurley J (2014) Transapical JenaValve in a patient with mechanical mitral valve prosthesis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 85(5):916–919

    Google Scholar 

  62. O’Sullivan KE, Early SA, Casserly I, Chugtai Z, Sugrue D, Hurley J (2014) Experience of a high-risk aortic valve clinic in Ireland. Ir J Med Sci 183(4):653–657

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Showkathali R, Chelliah R, Brickham B, Dworakowski R, Alcock E, Deshpande R et al (2014) Multi-disciplinary clinic: next step in “Heart team” approach for TAVI. Int J Cardiol 174(2):453–455

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Vahanian A, Himbert D, Brochet E, Depoix JP, Iung B, Nataf P (2012) Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: our vision of the future. Arch Cardiovasc Dis 105(3):181–186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Kocher AA, Laufer G, Haverich A, Shrestha M, Walther T, Misfeld M et al (2013) One-year outcomes of the Surgical Treatment of Aortic Stenosis With a Next Generation Surgical Aortic Valve (TRITON) trial: a prospective multicenter study of rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement with the EDWARDS INTUITY Valve System. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 145(1):110–115 (discussion 5-6)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Miceli A, Santarpino G, Pfeiffer S, Murzi M, Gilmanov D, Concistre G et al (2014) Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement with perceval S sutureless valve: early outcomes and one-year survival from two European centers. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 148(6):2838–2843

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Rubino AS, Santarpino G, De Praetere H, Kasama K, Dalen M, Sartipy U et al (2014) Early and intermediate outcome after aortic valve replacement with a sutureless bioprosthesis: Results of a multicenter study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 148(3):865–871 (discussion 71)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Martens S, Sadowski J, Eckstein FS, Bartus K, Kapelak B, Sievers HH et al (2011) Clinical experience with the ATS 3f Enable(R) Sutureless Bioprosthesis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 40(3):749–755

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Mater Private Hospital, Eccles St., Dublin 7, Ireland

    K. E. O’Sullivan, S. Bargenda & J. Hurley

  2. Department of Cardiology, Mater Private Hospital, Dublin, Ireland

    D. Sugrue

Authors
  1. K. E. O’Sullivan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Bargenda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. Sugrue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Hurley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. E. O’Sullivan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

O’Sullivan, K.E., Bargenda, S., Sugrue, D. et al. Advances in the management of severe aortic stenosis. Ir J Med Sci 185, 309–317 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-016-1417-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-016-1417-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation