The utility of trans‐catheter aortic valve replacement after commercialization: Does the European experience provide a glimpse into the future use of this technology in the United States?

Treatment of aortic stenosis remains challenging in older individuals, as their perioperative mortality for open heart surgery is increased due to comorbidities. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation using the CoreValve ReValving System (Medtronic, Minneapolis, USA) and the Edwards SAPIEN transcatheter heart valve (THV; Edwards Lifescience, Irvine, California, USA) represents an alternative to conventional valve replacement in elderly patients that have a high risk for conventional surgery. This article summarizes the evidence‐base from recent clinical trials. The early results of these landmark studies suggest that transcatheter aortic valve implantation with either one of the prosthesis is feasible, safe, improves hemodynamics and, therefore, might be an alternative to conventional aortic valve replacement in very high‐risk patients. However, all of the available transcatheter heart valves have certain disadvantages, limiting their use in daily clinical practice. The process of decision making, which valve to use and which access route to choose is illustrated in this article through clinical case scenarios. Additionally, the lessons learned thus far from the European perspective and the potential impact on the future use in the US are discussed. Despite of the progress in this field, we are still lacking an optimal transcatheter heart valve. Once it is available, we can take the plunge to compare transcatheter valve implantation with convention surgery in severe aortic stenosis! © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.