Abbott Structural Heart Program for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation



Although first-generation devices for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have achieved favorable results in terms of clinical outcomes and valve performance, complications such as valve malpositioning, paravalvular leak, and conduction disturbances requiring permanent pacemaker implantation have emerged as important limitations of this procedure. Partially offsetting these negative effects, the Abbott Structural Heart Portico™ TAVI device is fully re-sheathable, repositionable, and retrievable until deployed. The Abbott Structural Heart Portico™ TAVI system provides a safe and effective treatment for patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who are considered to be at high or extreme risk for surgical aortic valve replacement. Early clinical results with outcome up to 1-year post-TAVI have been reported in the literature from approximately 300 patients. Accounting for the inevitable learning curve effect associated with the use of a new device, relatively low rates of mortality, stroke, and other major adverse events were reported, compared with other self-expanding and balloon-expandable TAVI systems. The observed rates of early mortality as well as of disabling stroke are comparable with those reported from first- and second-generation TAVI systems, and 30-day mortality approaches the low procedural mortality rates reported for third-generation aortic valves implanted via transfemoral access. In the current chapter, we describe the properties of the valve system and the implantation techniques, summarize the experience and available data, and provide an outlook to future developments.


Portico Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) Self-expandable valve Paravalvular leak 


  1. 1.
    Manoharan G, Spence M, Rodés-Cabau J, Webb J. St Jude Medical Portico™ valve. EuroIntervention. 2012;8(Suppl Q):Q97–Q101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Willson A, Rodès-Cabau J, Wood D, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the St. Jude Medical Portico™ valve: first-in-human experience. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:581–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Manoharan G, Linke A, Moellmann H, et al. Multicentre clinical study evaluating a novel resheathable annular functioning self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve system: safety and performance results at 30 days with the Portico™ system. EuroIntervention. 2016;12:768–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Möllmann H, Linke A, Holzhey D, et al. Implantation and 30-day follow-up on all 4 valve sizes within the portico™ transcatheter aortic bioprosthetic family. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:1538–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Linke A, Holzhey D, Möllmann H, et al. Treatment of aortic stenosis with a self-expanding, resheathable transcatheter valve: one-year results of the international multicenter portico™ transcatheter aortic valve implantation system study. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11:e005206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Perlman G, Cheung A, Dumont E, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the Portico™ valve: one-year results of the early Canadian experience. EuroIntervention. 2017;12:1653–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barbanti M, Buccheri S, Rodes-Cabau J, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with new-generation devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2017;245:83–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leon M, Smith C, Mack M. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1597–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Smith C, Leon M, Mack M, et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2187–98.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Popma J, Adams D, MJ R, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement using a self-expanding bioprosthesis in patients with severe aortic stenosis at extreme risk for surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:1972–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meredith I, Walters D, Dumonteil N, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis using a repositionable valve system—30-day primary endpoint results from the REPRISE II study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:1339–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Webb J, Gerosa G, Lefevre T, et al. Multicenter evaluation of a next-generation balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:2235–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Manoharan G, Walton A, Brecker S, et al. Treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis with a novel resheathable supra-annular self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve system. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2015;8:1359–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marzahn C, Koban C, Seifert M, et al. Conduction recovery and avoidance of permanent pacing after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. J Cardiol. 2018;71:101–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Adams D, Popma J, Reardon M, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1790–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Webb J, Doshi D, Mack MMR, et al. A randomized evaluation of the SAPIEN XT transcatheter heart valve system in patients with aortic stenosis who are not candidates for surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;8:1797–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of CardiologySt. Antonius HospitalNieuwegeinThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Hartcentrum ZNA MiddelheimAntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations