Edinburgh Imaging


01 Sep 21. Featured Paper

Native aortic valve disease progression & bioprosthetic valve degeneration in patients with transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Link to paper on Circulation



Jacek Kwiecinski, Evangelos Tzolos, Timothy R.G. Cartlidge, Alexander Fletcher, Mhairi K. Doris, Rong Bing, Jason M. Tarkin, Michael A. Seidman, Gaurav S. Gulsin, Nicholas L. Cruden, Anna K. Barton, Neal G. Uren, Michelle C. Williams, Edwin J.R. Van Beek, Jonathon Leipsic, Damini Dey, Raj R. Makkar, Piotr J. Slomka, James H.F. Rudd, David E. Newby, Stephanie L. Sellers, Daniel S. Berman, and Marc R. Dweck



Background: There remain major uncertainties regarding disease activity within the retained native aortic valve as well as bioprosthetic valve durability following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

We aimed to assess native aortic valve disease activity & bioprosthetic valve durability in patients with TAVI in comparison to subjects with bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

Methods: In a multicenter cross-sectional observational cohort study, patients with TAVI or bioprosthetic SAVR underwent baseline echocardiography, CT angiography & 18F-sodium fluoride (18F-NaF) positron emission tomography (PET).

Participants (n=47) were imaged once with 18F-NaF PET/CT either at one-month (n=9, 19%), 2 years (n=22, 47%) or 5 years (16, 34%) after valve implantation.

Subsequently patients underwent serial echocardiography to assess for changes in valve hemodynamic performance (change in peak aortic velocity) & evidence of structural valve dysfunction.

Comparisons were made to matched patients with bioprosthetic SAVR (n=51) who had undergone the same imaging protocol.

Results: In patients with TAVI, native aortic valves demonstrated 18F-NaF uptake around the outside of the bioprostheses that showed a modest correlation with the time from TAVI (r=0.36, p=0.023).

18F-NaF uptake in the bioprosthetic leaflets was comparable between the SAVR & TAVI groups (target-to-background ratio 1.3 [1.2-1.7] versus 1.3 [1.2-1.5] respectively, p=0.27).

The frequencies of imaging evidence of bioprosthetic valve degeneration at baseline were similar on echocardiography (6% versus 8% respectively, p=0.78), CT (15% versus 14% respectively, p=0.87) & PET (15% versus 29% respectively, p=0.09).

Baseline 18F-NaF uptake was associated with subsequent change in peak aortic velocity for both TAVI (r=0.7, p<0.001) & SAVR (r=0.7, p<0.001).

On multivariable analysis, 18F-NaF uptake was the only predictor of peak velocity progression (p<0.001).

Conclusions: In patients with TAVI, native aortic valves demonstrate evidence of ongoing active disease.

Across imaging modalities, TAVI degeneration is of similar magnitude to bioprosthetic SAVR suggesting comparable mid-term durability.





Social media tags & titles

Featured paper: Native aortic valve disease progression & bioprosthetic valve degeneration in patients with transcatheter aortic valve implantation

@TzolosEvangelos @MarcDweck @EdinUniCVS