Andrew C W Baldwin1, George Tolis2. 1. Division of Cardiac Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Division of Cardiac Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, USA. gtolis@mgh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The management of valvular heart disease has been dramatically influenced by recent evolutions in biomedical technology and surgical practice. With an aging population worldwide and accompanying increase in the prevalence of surgical valve disease, an understanding of prosthetic valve behavior and durability is essential for proper patient selection and management. This report offers an overview of the definitions, mechanisms, management, and clinical impact of structural valve degeneration and failure. RECENT FINDINGS: Published literature has employed variable definitions and outcome measures, complicating our understanding of bioprosthetic valve behavior and function. The pathophysiology leading to structural valve degeneration is multifactorial and involves mechanical, hematologic, and immunologic elements. Technological advancements have resulted in improved valve performance and new strategies to mitigate the risks of degeneration. While mechanical valves have demonstrated negligible durability concerns, the benefits of bioprosthetic valves must be weighed against their potential for structural degeneration and subsequent reintervention. Valve selection should involve patient-specific deliberation, and guidelines have been established to help guide risk reduction strategies. Surgical valve replacement remains the standard of care for prosthetic valve failure, but emerging technology offers the potential to slow the development of structural degeneration and transcatheter valve-in-valve options are being increasingly explored.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The management of valvular heart disease has been dramatically influenced by recent evolutions in biomedical technology and surgical practice. With an aging population worldwide and accompanying increase in the prevalence of surgical valve disease, an understanding of prosthetic valve behavior and durability is essential for proper patient selection and management. This report offers an overview of the definitions, mechanisms, management, and clinical impact of structural valve degeneration and failure. RECENT FINDINGS: Published literature has employed variable definitions and outcome measures, complicating our understanding of bioprosthetic valve behavior and function. The pathophysiology leading to structural valve degeneration is multifactorial and involves mechanical, hematologic, and immunologic elements. Technological advancements have resulted in improved valve performance and new strategies to mitigate the risks of degeneration. While mechanical valves have demonstrated negligible durability concerns, the benefits of bioprosthetic valves must be weighed against their potential for structural degeneration and subsequent reintervention. Valve selection should involve patient-specific deliberation, and guidelines have been established to help guide risk reduction strategies. Surgical valve replacement remains the standard of care for prosthetic valve failure, but emerging technology offers the potential to slow the development of structural degeneration and transcatheter valve-in-valve options are being increasingly explored.
Authors: K Hammermeister; G K Sethi; W G Henderson; F L Grover; C Oprian; S H Rahimtoola Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2000-10 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Cary W Akins; D Craig Miller; Marko I Turina; Nicholas T Kouchoukos; Eugene H Blackstone; Gary L Grunkemeier; Johanna J M Takkenberg; Tirone E David; Eric G Butchart; David H Adams; David M Shahian; Siegfried Hagl; John E Mayer; Bruce W Lytle Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: J M Jones; H O'kane; D J Gladstone; M A Sarsam; G Campalani; S W MacGowan; J Cleland; G W Cran Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Rizwan A Manji; Lin F Zhu; Nimrit K Nijjar; David C Rayner; Greg S Korbutt; Thomas A Churchill; Ray V Rajotte; Arvind Koshal; David B Ross Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-07-10 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Vuyisile T Nkomo; Julius M Gardin; Thomas N Skelton; John S Gottdiener; Christopher G Scott; Maurice Enriquez-Sarano Journal: Lancet Date: 2006-09-16 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Bernard Iung; Gabriel Baron; Eric G Butchart; François Delahaye; Christa Gohlke-Bärwolf; Olaf W Levang; Pilar Tornos; Jean-Louis Vanoverschelde; Frank Vermeer; Eric Boersma; Philippe Ravaud; Alec Vahanian Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Thierry Le Tourneau; Sylvestre Marechaux; André Vincentelli; Pierre Vladimir Ennezat; Thomas Modine; Anne-Sophie Polge; Georges Fayad; Alain Prat; Henri Warembourg; Ghislaine Deklunder Journal: J Heart Valve Dis Date: 2007-09
Authors: Manjula Maganti; Vivek Rao; Susan Armstrong; Christopher M Feindel; Hugh E Scully; Tirone E David Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Matteo Marro; Alexander P Kossar; Yingfei Xue; Antonio Frasca; Robert J Levy; Giovanni Ferrari Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2021-01-26 Impact factor: 5.501