{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028505392912172575, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0007704160246533128, 'mean_word_length': 5.5606060606060606, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Degeneration of prosthesis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

With the expanding indication of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) to younger, lower risk population, transcatheter aortic valve (TAV) long-term durability is becoming an emerging issue to face with. Recently, the standardization of structural valve deterioration (SVD) definition by a join committee of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI), the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) has permitted to evaluate for the first time the rates of TAV durability with comparable endpoint. A few studies reporting on structural valve dysfunction (SVD) after TAVI up to 8 years using these standardized criteria have found very low rates of valve deterioration, thus supporting the adoption of TAVI treatment even for younger patients. For patients showing SVD at follow-ups, the VIVID (Valve-in-Valve International Data) group recently proposed an algorithm for their management. Re-do TAVI seems to be a safer and valid alternative to re-do surgery for symptomatic patients. This article review will go through the current evidence of TAV durability, describing the types of failure and strategies of treatment.