{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023657289002557546, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0012787723785166241, 'mean_word_length': 6.081447963800905, '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}}
Biomarkers of aortic bioprosthetic valve structural degeneration

Purpose of review Bioprosthetic valves are now used for the majority of surgical aortic valve replacements and for all transcatheter aortic valve replacements. However, bioprostheses are subject to structural valve deterioration (SVD) and have, therefore limited durability. Recent findings Clinical, imaging, and circulating biomarkers may help to predict or indicate the presence of bioprosthetic valve SVD. The most important biomarkers of SVD includes: patient-related clinical biomarkers, such as diabetes and renal failure; valve-related biomarkers, such as absence of antimineralization process and severe prosthesis-patient mismatch; imaging biomarkers: the presence of valve leaflet mineralization on multidetector computed tomography or sodium fluoride uptake on positron emission tomography; and circulating biomarkers including: increased levels of HOMA index, ApoB/ApoA-I ratio, PCSK9, Lp-PLA2, phosphocalcic product. The assessment of these biomarkers may help to enhance risk stratification for SVD following AVR and may contribute to open novel pharmacotherapeutic avenues for the prevention of SVD. Summary SVD may affect all bioprostheses after aortic valve replacement, and is the main cause of bioprosthetic valve failure and reintervention during the follow-up. Comprehensive assessment of clinical, imaging, and circulating biomarkers associated with earlier SVD could help strengthen the follow-up in high-risk patients and provide novel pharmacologic therapeutic strategies.