Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

BACKGROUND: Major uncertainties remain regarding disease activity within the retained native aortic valve, and regarding bioprosthetic valve durability, after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). We aimed to assess native aortic valve disease activity and bioprosthetic valve durability in patients with TAVI in comparison with 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, computed tomography angiography, and 18F-sodium fluoride (18F-NaF) positron emission tomography. Participants (n=47) were imaged once with 18F-NaF positron emission tomography/computed tomography either at 1 month (n=9, 19%), 2 years (n=22, 47%), or 5 years (16, 34%) after valve implantation. Patients subsequently underwent serial echocardiography to assess for changes in valve hemodynamic performance (change in peak aortic velocity) and evidence of structural valve dysfunction. Comparisons were made with 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 and 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), computed tomography (15% versus 14%, respectively; P=0.87), and positron emission tomography (15% versus 29%, respectively; P=0.09). Baseline 18F-NaF uptake was associated with a subsequent change in peak aortic velocity for both TAVI (r=0.7, P<0.001) and 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 midterm durability. Registration: URL:; Unique identifier: NCT02304276.

Original publication




Journal article



Publication Date





1396 - 1408


18F-sodium fluoride, aortic valve, positron emission tomography computed tomography, transcatheter aortic valve implantation, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aortic Valve Disease, Cohort Studies, Cross-Sectional Studies, Disease Progression, Female, Heart Valve Prosthesis, Humans, Male, Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement