Age Differences in Aortic Stenosis

Abstract

Aortic stenosis (AS) is a significant and growing concern, with a prevalence of 2–3% in individuals aged over 65 years. Moreover, with an aging global population, the prevalence is anticipated to double by 2050. Indeed, AS can arise from various etiologies, including calcific trileaflets, congenital valve abnormalities (e.g., bicuspid and unicuspid valves), and post-rheumatic, whereby each has a distinct influence that shapes the onset and progression of the disease. The normal aortic valve has a trilaminar structure comprising the fibrosa, spongiosa, and ventricularis, which work together to maintain its function. In calcific AS, the disease begins with early calcification starting in high mechanical stress areas of the valve and progresses slowly over decades, eventually leading to extensive calcification resulting in impaired valve function. This process involves mechanisms similar to atherosclerosis, including lipid deposition, chronic inflammation, and mineralization. The progression of calcific AS is strongly associated with aging, with additional risk factors including male gender, smoking, dyslipidemia, and metabolic syndrome exacerbating the condition. Conversely, congenital forms of AS, such as bicuspid and unicuspid aortic valves, result in an earlier disease onset, typically 10–20 years earlier than that observed in patients with a normal tricuspid aortic valve. Rheumatic AS, although less common in developed countries due to effective antibiotic treatments, also exhibits age-related characteristics, with an earlier onset in individuals who experienced rheumatic fever in their youth. The only curative therapies currently available are surgical and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, these options are sometimes too invasive for older patients; thus, management of AS, particularly in older patients, requires a comprehensive approach that considers age, disease severity, comorbidities, frailty, and each patient’s individual needs. Although the valves used in TAVR demonstrate promising midterm durability, long-term data are still required, especially when used in younger individuals, usually with low surgical risk. Moreover, understanding the causes and mechanisms of structural valve deterioration is crucial for appropriate treatment selections, including valve selection and pharmacological therapy, since this knowledge is essential for optimizing the lifelong management of AS.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

aortic stenosis / calcific aortic valve disease / bioprosthetic valve failure

1. Introduction

The prevalence of clinical aortic stenosis (AS) increases with age, affecting approximately 2–3% of individuals >65 years of age and rising to 7% in those >80 years [1, 2, 3]. With increasing life expectancy and an aging population, the prevalence of AS is growing worldwide [4]. AS is the most prevalent type of valvular heart disease in developed countries and is becoming an ever-increasing public health burden [5, 6]. Furthermore, the number of elderly patients with calcific AS is expected to more than double over the next 30 years in both Europe and the United States [7]. Nonetheless, there are no effective medical therapies, and the only available therapeutic options are invasive procedures: surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

The etiology of AS is diverse, with varying epidemiological and histopathological features, molecular mechanisms, and optimal treatment strategies. Therefore, a deeper understanding based on its different etiologies is essential for addressing this increasingly prevalent disease, which poses a significant global health burden.

In this review, we summarize the current understanding of the mechanisms underlying the natural progression of calcific aortic valve disease. We then provide a detailed description of the epidemiological, histopathological, and molecular mechanisms of calcific, congenital, and rheumatic AS individually. Lastly, we discuss the lifetime management of AS, incorporating our histopathological insights into bioprosthetic valve dysfunction.

2. Normal Anatomy and Histological Structure of the Aortic Valve

A normal aortic valve apparatus is located in the aortic root, which is anatomically defined as the section of the thoracic aorta extending from the sinotubular junction to the basal ring (aortic annulus). The aortic root, approximately 2 to 3 cm in length, comprises three main components: the three aortic valve leaflets, the sinus of Valsalva (the expanded portion of the aortic root), and the three interleaflet triangles (Fig. 1A,B) [8, 9]. The coronary ostia are typically located in the left and right coronary sinuses. The aortic valve has three semicircular cusps and leaflets (left, right, and non-coronary), which are attached to the aortic sinus in a ring-like structure (semi-lunar attachment) and are cornet-shaped, called the annulus fibrosus (surgical aortic annulus). For the interventionist, the annulus, which means “ring”, is the ventriculoaortic junction. The geometric height of the leaflet is different from the effective height of the leaflet [10]. The three leaflets are uneven; the free margin length varies (right 35.2 \pm 4.1 mm, range 27.6 to 46.4 mm; left 32.6 \pm 3.8 mm, range 25.8 to 43.7; and non-coronary 34.2 \pm 4.3, range 26.4 to 47.8 mm). The aortic cusps are thin and translucent with a thickness of under 1 mm. The “hinge” portion of the cusps is located at the ventriculoaortic junction, and is susceptible to greater mechanical stress (Fig. 1C) [11]. This is usually the site where fibrosis is observed, typically by 20 years of age. The line of closure of the leaflet is located away from the free margin of the leaflet and is typically the first site of calcification (Fig. 1C).

Histologically, each leaflet consists of three layers: lamina fibrosa, spongiosa, and ventricularis (Fig. 1D,E). The aortic and ventricular surfaces are covered by valvular endothelial cells (VECs), which work as the interface between the blood and the leaflet. Valvular interstitial cells (VICs) are quiescent, fibroblast-like cells present throughout these three layers and are the major cell component of the valve leaflet. The fibrosa layer, located on the aortic side, consists largely of type I and type III fibrillar collagen with dispersed VICs, which are thought to reinforce the valvular structure [12, 13]. The middle spongiosa layer is composed primarily of proteoglycans and glycosaminoglycans, which absorb a portion of the mechanical stress generated during the cardiac cycle. The ventricularis layer, localized on the ventricular inflow side, consists of collagen and elastin fibers [14, 15].

The aortic valve is structured to allow low-impedance, unidirectional forward blood flow during opening, and to close with enough strength to endure systemic blood pressure [16]. During systole, the aortic valve experiences laminar shear stress on the ventricular side as blood flows past the leaflets, while during diastole, oscillatory shear stress acts on the aortic side as blood pools into the sinuses [17]. Diastolic coronary flow partially generates laminar shear stress on the left and right cusp, while the non-coronary cusp may be solely exposed to oscillatory shear stress. Therefore, throughout the cardiac cycle, the ventricularis layer is subjected to higher, unidirectional forces due to blood flow, while the fibrosa layer experiences lower, bidirectional wall shear stress, especially on the non-coronary leaflet [18, 19].

The earliest change occurs on the aortic surface and is the result of stress-induced cellular senescence, which includes endothelial barrier dysfunction and allows blood lipids to enter the subendothelial space. The mechanical stress pattern generated by the blood flow over time likely initiates aortic valve sclerosis, primarily affecting the aortic side of the valve, typically beginning at the base of the leaflet. This, like the atherosclerotic process, may be followed by inflammatory infiltrate, cell death, and eventual calcification.

3. Etiology and Epidemiology of Aortic Stenosis

AS is caused by three main etiologies: calcific AS (previously referred to as degenerative or senile AS), congenital abnormalities such as bicuspid or unicuspid valve, and rheumatic AS [11]. Table 1 (Ref. [11]) shows the frequency of each AS etiology among patients who underwent SAVR.

Unicuspid aortic valve (UAV), has 2 subtypes that are associated with valve dysfunction, one found in childhood and adolescence (under the age of 25 years), and the second in adulthood (mean age 51 \pm 14 years). UAV is uncommon, affecting only 0.02% of the population [20], and accounts for only 4–5% of patients who have undergone SAVR [21, 22]. In contrast, bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) occurs in 0.5–2% of the general population [23, 24] and accounts for 20–30% of patients who underwent SAVR [25, 26]. Both UAV and BAV are more common in men than women (UAV: male:female = 4:1, BAV: male:female = 1.4–4:1) [23, 27].

Calcific AS in patients with tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) occurs in approximately 2–3% of those 65 and over, as well as 7% of those over 80 years old [1, 2, 3]. Overall, calcific AS is more prevalent in men than women (male:female = 1.6:1) [11]. The rarest form is quadricuspid valve, with an estimated incidence of 0.013–0.043% in the general population. The most common clinical manifestation is aortic regurgitation (75%), and pure AS is seen only in 0.7% of cases [28, 29]. A histopathological study from Toronto General Hospital involving over 1000 consecutive surgically excised aortic valves found that TAV, BAVs, and UAVs were present in 64.5%, 31.9%, and 3.0% of patients, respectively [30]. Rheumatic heart disease was present in 11% of all cases, which is lower than earlier studies, indicating that the prevalence of post-rheumatic AS has declined over the past half-century in developed countries.

The burden of calcific AS is expected to increase in the coming decades, due to the aging population and the lack of effective prevention strategies. Current prevalence data and demographic projections indicate that the number of patients over 70 years old with calcific AS will double to triple over the next 50 years in developed countries [7, 31].

4. Histopathology of Calcific Aortic Stenosis

Calcific AS is a progressive disease, characterized by pathological features that progress from minimal fibrocalcific changes in early lesions to fibrotic thickening and calcium nodules in advanced stages. Our laboratory has observed varying degrees of calcification in valves removed during both surgery and autopsy.

Early calcification can be clearly identified using von Kossa staining, appearing as finely stippled calcifications or small nodular concretions, typically located in the fibrosa, especially in areas with early atherosclerotic changes (Fig. 2A,B, Ref. [32]). The location is often specific and is seen along the “line of closure” just below the free margin of the aortic leaflets and at “hinge” points. These areas, forming a radial pattern near the attachment of the aortic root, are where early calcific deposits are found, representing regions prone to greater mechanical forces. Early calcifications gradually merge into larger, more complex nodules, extending toward the middle of the leaflet while sparing the free margin, and may eventually protrude onto the aortic surface. Calcification in each cusp has been observed in various forms, including bridges, fingers, and other patterns, such as “radiation” in radiographs (Fig. 3, Ref. [33, 34]) [33].

Aortic valve sclerosis (fibrosis) and calcification have been described to occur as age advances [35]. Stewart et al. [35] showed that in healthy individuals 65 to 74 years old undergoing echocardiography, aortic valve sclerosis was observed in 20% and calcification in 2%; in individuals 75 to 84 years old, sclerosis occurred in 35% and calcification in 2.4%; the highest was in individuals >85 years, with sclerosis observed in 48% and calcification in 4%. We have measured aortic valves from histologic sections, which show that valve thickness at the line of closure is 0.55 \pm 0.11 mm in individuals 0–19 years of age, increasing to 1.12 \pm 0.81 mm in individuals >65 years, and calcium was observed in 27.9% of valves. In late stages, calcification often develops on a thickened and fibrotic cusp and may even show focal bone formation with histologic evidence of bone matrices, osteocytes, osteoclasts, and marrow elements (Fig. 2C–H, Ref. [11]) [36]. In cases of severe calcific AS, gross examination reveals that valve cusps are significantly thickened and distorted by several calcium nodules, often filling the sinuses of the cusps involved, which ultimately compromises the function and integrity of the valve (Fig. 2D). Of note, calcification is often more prominent in the non-coronary cusps than the left and right coronary cusps, possibly as a result of relatively increased bidirectional and oscillatory shear stress in the non-coronary cusp.

5. Risk Factors

Previous epidemiological studies have identified several risk factors for calcific AS, many of which overlap with those for coronary atherosclerosis, including age, male sex, smoking, elevated cholesterol and lipoprotein(a) levels, hypertension, and metabolic syndrome [35, 37, 38, 39]. Furthermore, calcific AS has been linked to chronic kidney diseases and abnormalities in calcium and phosphate metabolism [40].

Since calcific AS and coronary artery disease (CAD) share common risk factors, CAD frequently coexists in patients with severe AS. The prevalence of significant CAD in severe AS patients ranges from 25–50% [41, 42]. CAD is reported in 35–65% of cases among those undergoing SAVR [43, 44] and in 40–75% of TAVR cases [41]. The impact of concomitant CAD on the prognosis of severe AS remains controversial. For SAVR, some studies have indicated higher long-term mortality in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery with SAVR compared to SAVR alone [45]. In contrast, a large observational study using propensity matching for comorbidities and risk factors found no significant difference in long-term mortality between these groups [44]. Regarding TAVR, while earlier studies suggested that the presence of CAD does not increase mortality rates [46, 47], recent findings indicate that the severity of CAD, rather than its presence alone, may influence outcomes of patients undergoing TAVR [48, 49]. Collectively, whether CAD directly affects the prognosis of patients with severe AS or serves as a bystander condition remains unresolved.

6. Pathophysiology of Calcific Aortic Stenosis

Calcific AS was once regarded as a degenerative disease, both passive and age-related. However, recent studies have suggested that it is a disease involving active cellular processes, with identifiable clinical and genetic risk factors, as well as specific cellular and molecular pathways (Fig. 4, Ref. [11]). Indeed, similarities in clinical risk profiles and extensive experimental research revealed that aortic valve calcification involves mechanisms akin to atherosclerosis, including lipoprotein deposition, chronic inflammation, and mineralization.

Endothelial damage allows for lipid infiltration, specifically low-density lipoprotein and Lp(a), which triggers the recruitment of inflammatory cells [50]. This endothelial injury can be induced by several factors including lipid-derived species, cytokines, and mechanical stress [31]. Proteoglycans such as biglycan and decorin are highly expressed in early phases of calcific aortic valve disease, potentially playing a key role in lipid retention and modification [51, 52]. Additionally, the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), which is enhanced by the uncoupling of nitric oxide synthase, promotes the oxidization of lipids with osteogenic properties [53, 54].

Inflammation, encompassing innate and adaptive responses, follows endothelial damage and oxidized phospholipid deposition, driving disease progression [55, 56]. Macrophages and T lymphocytes are key players in the inflammatory process; however, the involved immune cell network is highly complex, comprising a diverse and heterogeneous array of immune cell phenotypes [55]. Briefly, pro-inflammatory (M1) macrophages, which are the predominant subset found in calcific AS, produce pleiotropic cytokines, such as tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-\alpha, interleukin (IL)-1\beta, and IL-6. TNF-\alpha strongly activates the canonical nuclear factor kappa-B (NF-\kappaB) pathway, which promotes the expression of genes associated with inflammation and affects the mineralization of VIC [57]. Additionally, both TNF-\alpha and IL-6 contribute to extracellular matrix (ECM) remodeling, trigger endothelial-to-mesenchymal transition, increase expression of bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2), and promote osteogenic differentiation of VICs in vitro [57, 58, 59]. In contrast, anti-inflammatory (M2) macrophages release cytokine transforming growth factor (TGF)-\beta, which promotes myofibroblastic differentiation of VICs and contributes to calcification [16, 60]. T lymphocytic infiltrate is also observed in calcific aortic valve disease, accompanied by increased neovascularization and osseous metaplasia [61, 62]. Both CD8⁺ T cells and CD4⁺ T cells are infiltrated in aortic valves, with a predominance of CD4⁺ T cells [61, 63]. Furthermore, transcriptomic data from calcific AS showed that T lymphocytes, both in the valve and circulation, exhibit a clonal expansion, suggesting the proliferation of antigen-specific T cell repertoire that may or may not be in response to disease-related antigens [64, 65]. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) and chymase facilitate the production of angiotensin II, which enhances the synthesis and secretion of collagen by VICs [66, 67]. In addition, angiotensin II is a strong activator of the NF-\kappaB pathway, leading to a significant fibrotic response [68].

The phase of mineralization largely involves two mechanisms: osteogenic differentiation of VICs and mineral deposition. Osteogenic differentiation occurs through several distinct pathways, including osteoprotegerin/RANKL (receptor activator of nuclear kappa B ligand) signaling, NOTCH1 signaling, BMP-2 signaling, Wnt/\beta-catenin pathways, and increased expression of runt-related transcription factor (RUNX) family of genes (Runx2) and Msh homeobox 2 (Msx2) [69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74]. On the other hand, mineral deposition is characterized by the formation of a nidus for apoptosis-mediated calcification through apoptotic remnants from dysfunctional VICs and immune cells [31, 55, 72]. This mechanism can be further facilitated by membrane-bound ectonucleotidases [72, 75]. Valve calcification results in compliance mismatch, leading to increased mechanical stress and injury, which in turn, promotes further calcification through osteogenic differentiation and apoptosis. In this way, the development of calcific AS shares many similarities with the pathophysiology of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

7. Etiology, Classification, and Histopathology of Congenital Valve Disease

7.1 Bicuspid Aortic Valve

BAV is one of the most common congenital heart diseases. Although it initially functions normally at birth, BAV undergoes a degenerative process similar to that of TAV. However, BAVs typically develop stenosis about 10–20 years earlier than TAVs [76]. BAV features a conjoint area of two underdeveloped leaflets that are joined together in the area of commissure. These leaflets are malformed and known as a “raphe”. Normally, the commissure of the aortic valve is the space where two adjacent leaflets attach parallelly without adhering to each other. In BAVs, one or two commissures may be obliterated, or a raphe may be absent [21].

The pathogenesis of congenital BAV formation remains unknown. Several researchers believe that abnormal blood flow during valvulogenesis leads to improper separation of the valve cusp [77], although this claim lacks sufficient evidence. BAV is widely accepted to have a genetic basis and is hereditary within families, occasionally associated with genetic syndromes such as Marfan syndrome, Turner syndrome, and Loeys-Dietz syndrome [78, 79]. However, BAV is a complex disorder with a polygenic basis, exhibiting incomplete penetrance and variable expressivity [80]. To date, variants in NOTCH1, MYH6, GATA4, GATA5, GATA6, PALMD, EXOC4, TEX41, FBN1, ROBO4, and SMAD6 have been reported to be associated with BAV [81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88]. BAV is also strongly associated with congenital abnormalities of the aorta, such as coarctation and patent ductus arteriosus, as well as the proximal coronary vasculature. Additionally, after development, it could be linked to conditions like aortic dilation, aneurysm, and dissection. In this context, BAV should be recognized as a condition that impacts the entire aortic root.

BAVs are categorized into three main types based on their morphologic characteristics: types 0, 1, and 2 (Fig. 5, Ref. [32]) [89]. Sievers et al. [89] demonstrated the prevalence of BAV types from 304 patients undergoing surgery. The classification is based on: (1) the number of raphes, (2) the spatial positioning of cusps or raphes, and (3) the functional status of the valve (i.e., stenosis, regurgitation, or both). Type 0, found in 7% of cases, is considered purely bicuspid without a raphe, with commissures located either anterior/posterior or left/right. Type 1, which is the most common (88%), consists of three developmental cusps and two commissures instead of three. In this type, two of the cusps are unequal in size, with the larger conjoint cusp featuring a central raphe. The conjoint cusp is generally less than twice the size of the non-conjoint cusp. The most prevalent common type is the fusion of the left and right coronary cusps (71%), followed by fusion of the non-coronary and right coronary cusps (15%), and the least common is fusion of the left and non-coronary cusps (3%). According to Sievers’ classification, BAVs with two raphes are categorized as type 2 (5%), while several other studies categorize them as unicommissural or unicuspid valves [90, 91].

BAVs often exhibit signs of calcification by the time individuals reach their thirties [92]. Calcification typically initiates in the raphe, appearing as a linear opacity on radiographs, and gradually extends toward the free margin of the leaflet, generally sparing the true commissures (Fig. 6). In severe AS cases related to BAVs, calcification spreads diffusely through the conjoint and non-conjoint cusps, involving the body of the leaflets. Calcific nodules potentially ulcerate the aortic surface (Fig. 6). The variability of the raphe in BAVs sometimes complicates the distinction between congenital and acquired BAV (e.g., rheumatic AS). In congenital BAVs, the raphe typically contains abundant elastic fibers, whereas acquired BAVs show collagen-rich fibrous tissue at fused commissures due to inflammatory scaring [93].

7.2 Unicuspid Aortic Valve

UAVs are classified into two morphologic types: (1) an acommissural valve shaped like a dome with three aborted commissures (or raphes) and (2) a unicommissural valve, characterized by a slit-like opening extending through the aortic wall, with a single intact commissure (Fig. 7) [27]. The acommissural form is typically accompanied by left heart failure symptoms that develop early in life, whereas the unicommissural form has a less-aggressive course, as the presence of a commissure results in a relatively larger valvular orifice area compared to the acommissural form. Unicommissural unicuspid aortic valve accounts for 60% of AS cases in patients under 15 years of age [23]. Leaflet dysplasia is frequently observed, with varying degrees of leaflet calcification; however, dysplasia in UAVs is generally more severe compared to BAVs, and its severity is influenced by the patient’s age [30].

7.3 Rheumatic Valve Disease

Rheumatic heart disease occurs due to valvular damage triggered by an abnormal autoimmune response to a group A streptococcal infection, typically during childhood [94]. The use of penicillin as a preventive measure is highly effective and, in developed countries, has nearly eliminated rheumatic heart disease [95]. Nevertheless, this disease remains the leading cause of heart failure in children and young adults, resulting in at least 200,000–250,000 premature deaths every year in emerging nations [96]. A global cohort including 14 developing countries reported that rheumatic heart disease was twice as common among females, with a median age of 28 years [97].

The precise pathophysiology of the disease is not fully understood, but previous reviews have indicated that the main mechanism involves antigenic mimicry combined with an abnormal immune response from the host [98]. This process is based on three key factors: the presence of rheumatogenic group A streptococcal strains, a genetically susceptible host, and an abnormal immune response from the host. Genetically, human leukocyte antigen (HLA) class II molecules have been linked to an increased risk of the disease, although no single HLA haplotype or combination has consistently been tied to disease susceptibility [99]. CD4⁺ T cells are key players responding to cross-reactive antigens from streptococcal strains, which produce Th1 and potentially Th17 cytokines, leading to further inflammatory response in the heart valves [100, 101].

Typically, rheumatic heart disease affects multiple valves. The most common pattern is a combination of aortic and mitral valve disease, followed by mixed mitral valve disease. Isolated aortic valve disease is rare (2–10%) [97, 102, 103]. In contrast to bicuspid AS and senile AS, rheumatic AS has relatively little calcification [21]. Cuspid thickening and commissural fusion of at least one and generally two or three commissures are the hallmark of this disease (Fig. 8, Ref. [9]) [104, 105].

When conducting valve replacement surgery, the selection of prosthesis (whether bioprosthetic or mechanical) requires careful consideration, taking into account the patient’s age, potential for pregnancy, and the likelihood of adherence to anticoagulant therapy, particularly in remote or socioeconomically disadvantaged areas [106].

8. Management of AS

The only curative treatment available for patients with symptomatic severe AS is the implantation of a prosthetic heart valve, either surgically or percutaneously. Traditionally, the choice between TAVR and SAVR was often straightforward, based on age, anatomy, and surgical risk. However, current recommendations emphasize a more comprehensive approach, considering multiple factors when choosing a prosthetic valve, including the severity, symptoms, left ventricular function, comorbidities, frailty, cognitive function, and patients’ preferences [107, 108].

Specifically, in current American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines, SAVR is recommended for patients who are 65 years of age or have a life expectancy >20 years who require AVR, whereas transfemoral TAVR is recommended for patients >80 years of age or those with a life expectancy 10 years, and either TAVR or transfemoral TAVR is recommended for patients who are 65 to 80 years of age without anatomic contraindication to TAVR, after shared decision-making (class IA) [107]. On the other hand, in current European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) guidelines, SAVR is recommended in younger patients who are low risk for surgery (75 years and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)-Predicted Risk of Mortality (PROM)/EuroScore II 4%), TAVR is recommended in older patients (\ge75 years) or in those who are high risk (STS-PROM/ EuroScore II >8%), and either SAVR or TAVR are recommended for remaining patients according to individual clinical, anatomical, and procedural characteristics (class IA) [108]. SAVR is generally recommended for younger patients primarily due to concern about the durability of the TAVR valves. Additionally, when opting for SAVR, mechanical heart valves are often preferred for younger patients because bioprosthetic heart valves tend to have limited durability, though they have the advantage of not requiring lifelong anticoagulants.

Moreover, both the ACC/AHA and the ESC/EACTS guidelines suggest that SAVR is more appropriate for BAV cases [107, 108]. However, a recent randomized trial showed that among low-risk patients aged \le75 years with severe symptomatic AS, the rate of all-cause death, stroke, and rehospitalization at 1 year was comparable between SAVR (7.1%) and TAVR (10.2%), although the study was underpowered due to its small sample size [109].

Although no medical therapies are currently approved, several novel treatment strategies have been explored based on an advanced understanding of the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms [110]. These include therapies targeting lipoprotein(a), such as niacin, antisense oligonucleotide therapy, and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors; bisphosphonates targeting the receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B (NF-\kappaB)/receptor activator of NF-\kappaB ligand/osteoprotegerin (RANK/RANKL/OPG) pathway; vitamin K as a cofactor in the activation of matrix-Gla proteins; and therapies targeting the nitric oxide pathway—such as nitrates, ataciguat, and phosphodiesterase inhibitors. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, which target osteogenic differentiation of VICs via modulation of insulin-like growth factor-1 signaling, and anti-inflammatory agents like colchicine have also shown potential. Collectively, while several promising therapeutic targets have been identified and are under investigation, further research is required to translate these findings into clinical practice.

9. Long-Term Durability of SAVR and TAVR Valves

Previous analyses of randomized control trials or propensity score-matched analyses from registries comparing TVAR vs. SAVR revealed assuring results on the midterm durability of TAVR, which are favorable when compared to SAVR [111]. The incidence of all-cause TAVR bioprosthetic valve failure was as follows: (i) PARTNER 2A and SAPIEN 3 intermediate-risk registry: 4.7% in TAVR with SAPIEN XT, 2.6% in TAVR with SAPIEN 3 vs. 1.3% in SAVR at 5 years [112]; (ii) PARTNER 3: 3.3% in TAVR with SAPIEN 3 vs. 3.8% in SAVR at 5 years [113]; and (iii) NOTION RCT: 9.7% in TVAR with CoreValve vs. 13.8% in SAVR at 10 years [114]. Therefore, with the exception of the first generation of SAPIEN valves, the midterm (up to 7–8 years) durability of TAVR valves is at least comparable to that of SAVR valves. The NOTION RCT is the only trial that has reached 10-year follow-up. Although the results of this trial are quite promising, no definitive conclusion can be made on the long-term durability of TAVR based on these findings, because this trial had several limitations: one was that only 25% of the patients remained alive after 10 years; the other was that the TAVR arm only included first-generation valves, and the SAVR arm included 35% of the Trifecta (Abbott) or Mitroflow (Sorin) valves, which have both been shown to have durability concerns. The long-term durability of TVAR valves will need to be confirmed by analyses of the low-risk TAVR vs. SAVR trials at 10 years [113, 115].

We have recently reported our findings on bioprosthetic valve dysfunction in SAVR and TAVR valves that were removed surgically or at autopsy. Bioprosthetic valve dysfunction means impaired functional performance of the bioprosthetic valve, encompassing four types: structural valve deterioration (SVD), non-SVD, thrombosis, and endocarditis [108, 116, 117]. Among these, SVD is the most prevalent cause of failure, and is characterized by irreversible changes in the bioprostheses due to leaflet thickening, fibrosis, pannus formation, calcification, and leaflet tear [111]. We previously published on 43 TAVR cases [118, 119] from the PARTNER trial [120] as well as the CoreValve U.S. Pivotal High-Risk Trial [121]. In two cases of Edwards SAPIEN valves with bovine pericardial leaflets, valve calcification was observed (Fig. 9, Ref. [118]). In addition, valve leaflet thrombosis is one of the most important causes of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction, which can be observed as “hypo-attenuated leaflet thickening (HALT)” by computed tomography. Subclinical leaflet thrombosis may occur in as much as 5 to 25% of patients during the first year following TAVR or SAVR [122, 123]. Valve thrombi observed histologically within 30 days are primarily platelet-rich, whereas those seen after 30 days are predominantly fibrin-rich, with or without signs of organization. These later-stage thrombi show the presence of smooth muscle cells within a proteoglycan- and type III collagen-rich matrix (neointima formation) (Fig. 10, Ref. [124]) [118, 119].

10. Conclusions

AS is an age-related disease and previous clinical trials have identified age as the most significant risk factor associated with aortic stenosis or sclerosis [35]. However, recent studies have revealed that calcific AS is not merely a “degenerative” disease caused by time-dependent wear and tear of the leaflets Instead, it is now considered to involve active cellular mechanisms including lipoprotein deposition, chronic inflammation, and mineralization, similar to that of atherosclerotic disease progression. These processes could potentially be targeted by medical treatments; however, to date, no pharmacological treatments are able to successfully halt the progression of AS or improve long-term outcomes. As a result, treatment is currently limited to SAVR or TAVR, which can be too invasive for elderly patients.

The onset and progression of AS varies significantly depending on the types of AS. Congenital AS (e.g., bicuspid and unicuspid AS) and rheumatic AS tend to develop at a younger age. In contrast, degenerative AS in tricuspid valve typically occurs at an older age. Given the aging population and increased life expectancy, the need for treatment of symptomatic AS in elderly patients is growing and is expected to continue increasing without effective medical treatment. TAVR has become an important, minimally invasive option for elderly AS patients; however, its long-term outcome remains to be fully elucidated. A key concern is the durability of TAVR valves over time, as bioprosthetic valve dysfunction can occur due to various mechanisms. Understanding the underlying causes and mechanisms is crucial for making appropriate treatment choices (i.e., valve selection and pharmacological therapy) and essential for effective lifetime management of AS.

References

[1] Nkomo VT, Gardin JM, Skelton TN, Gottdiener JS, Scott CG, Enriquez-Sarano M. Burden of valvular heart diseases: a population-based study. Lancet (London, England). 2006; 368: 1005–1011. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69208-8.

[2] Eveborn GW, Schirmer H, Heggelund G, Lunde P, Rasmussen K. The evolving epidemiology of valvular aortic stenosis. the Tromsø study. Heart (British Cardiac Society). 2013; 99: 396–400. https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2012-302265.

[3] Danielsen R, Aspelund T, Harris TB, Gudnason V. The prevalence of aortic stenosis in the elderly in Iceland and predictions for the coming decades: the AGES-Reykjavík study. International Journal of Cardiology. 2014; 176: 916–922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.08.053.

[4] Tsao CW, Aday AW, Almarzooq ZI, Anderson CAM, Arora P, Avery CL, et al. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2023 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2023; 147: e93–e621. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001123.

[5] Conrad N, Molenberghs G, Verbeke G, Zaccardi F, Lawson C, Friday JM, et al. Trends in cardiovascular disease incidence among 22 million people in the UK over 20 years: population based study. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.). 2024; 385: e078523. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-078523.

[6] Tan MC, Yeo YH, San BJ, Suleiman A, Lee JZ, Chatterjee A, et al. Trends and Disparities in Valvular Heart Disease Mortality in the United States From 1999 to 2020. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2024; 13: e030895. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.123.030895.

[7] Osnabrugge RLJ, Mylotte D, Head SJ, Van Mieghem NM, Nkomo VT, LeReun CM, et al. Aortic stenosis in the elderly: disease prevalence and number of candidates for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis and modeling study. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2013; 62: 1002–1012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2013.05.015.

[8] Kunihara T. Anatomy of the aortic root: implications for aortic root reconstruction. General Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2017; 65: 488–499. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11748-017-0792-y.

[9] Virmani R, Burke AP, Farb A, Atkinson et al. Pathology of Cardiac Valves. In Virginia AL (ed.) Cardiovascular pathology (pp. 231–279). 2nd edn. W.B. Saunders Company: Philadelphia. 2001.

[10] Jelenc M, Jelenc B, Poglajen G, Lakič N. Aortic valve leaflet and root dimensions in normal tricuspid aortic valves: A computed tomography study. Journal of Cardiac Surgery. 2022; 37: 2350–2357. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocs.16587.

[11] Ladich E, Nakano M, Carter-Monroe N, Virmani R. Pathology of calcific aortic stenosis. Future Cardiology. 2011; 7: 629–642. https://doi.org/10.2217/fca.11.53.

[12] Alushi B, Curini L, Christopher MR, Grubitzch H, Landmesser U, Amedei A, et al. Calcific Aortic Valve Disease-Natural History and Future Therapeutic Strategies. Frontiers in Pharmacology. 2020; 11: 685. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2020.00685.

[13] Dweck MR, Boon NA, Newby DE. Calcific aortic stenosis: a disease of the valve and the myocardium. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2012; 60: 1854–1863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2012.02.093.

[14] Leopold JA. Cellular mechanisms of aortic valve calcification. Circulation. Cardiovascular Interventions. 2012; 5: 605–614. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.112.971028.

[15] Chen JH, Simmons CA. Cell-matrix interactions in the pathobiology of calcific aortic valve disease: critical roles for matricellular, matricrine, and matrix mechanics cues. Circulation Research. 2011; 108: 1510–1524. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.110.234237.

[16] Dayawansa NH, Baratchi S, Peter K. Uncoupling the Vicious Cycle of Mechanical Stress and Inflammation in Calcific Aortic Valve Disease. Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine. 2022; 9: 783543. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.783543.

[17] Bäck M, Gasser TC, Michel JB, Caligiuri G. Biomechanical factors in the biology of aortic wall and aortic valve diseases. Cardiovascular Research. 2013; 99: 232–241. https://doi.org/10.1093/cvr/cvt040.

[18] Gomel MA, Lee R, Grande-Allen KJ. Comparing the Role of Mechanical Forces in Vascular and Valvular Calcification Progression. Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine. 2019; 5: 197. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2018.00197.

[19] Cao K, Bukač M, Sucosky P. Three-dimensional macro-scale assessment of regional and temporal wall shear stress characteristics on aortic valve leaflets. Computer Methods in Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering. 2016; 19: 603–613. https://doi.org/10.1080/10255842.2015.1052419.

[20] Novaro GM, Mishra M, Griffin BP. Incidence and echocardiographic features of congenital unicuspid aortic valve in an adult population. The Journal of Heart Valve Disease. 2003; 12: 674–678.

[21] Subramanian R, Olson LJ, Edwards WD. Surgical pathology of pure aortic stenosis: a study of 374 cases. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 1984; 59: 683–690. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0025-6196(12)62057-6.

[22] Roberts WC, Ko JM. Frequency by decades of unicuspid, bicuspid, and tricuspid aortic valves in adults having isolated aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis, with or without associated aortic regurgitation. Circulation. 2005; 111: 920–925. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000155623.48408.C5.

[23] Roberts WC. Morphologic aspects of cardiac valve dysfunction. American Heart Journal. 1992; 123: 1610–1632. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-8703(92)90817-f.

[24] Lewin MB, Otto CM. The bicuspid aortic valve: adverse outcomes from infancy to old age. Circulation. 2005; 111: 832–834. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000157137.59691.0B.

[25] Çelik M, Milojevic M, Durko AP, Oei FBS, Bogers AJJC, Mahtab EAF. Differences in baseline characteristics and outcomes of bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valves in surgical aortic valve replacement. European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery: Official Journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery. 2021; 59: 1191–1199. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezaa474.

[26] Mehta CK, Liu TX, Bonnell L, Habib RH, Kaneko T, Flaherty JD, et al. Age-Stratified Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2024; 118: 430–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2024.01.013.

[27] Pan J. Unicuspid Aortic Valve: A Rare Congenital Anomaly. Cardiology. 2022; 147: 207–215. https://doi.org/10.1159/000521623.

[28] Saith S, Saith S, Murthy A. Quadricuspid Aortic Valve: An Introduction for Clinicians. Cardiology Research. 2022; 13: 2–10. https://doi.org/10.14740/cr1308.

[29] Tutarel O, Westhoff-Bleck M. Functional status of the quadricuspid aortic valve/an uncommon coincidence of congenital quadricuspid aortic valve accompanied by hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy. Anadolu Kardiyoloji Dergisi: AKD = the Anatolian Journal of Cardiology. 2008; 8: 86; author reply 86–7.

[30] Collins MJ, Butany J, Borger MA, Strauss BH, David TE. Implications of a congenitally abnormal valve: a study of 1025 consecutively excised aortic valves. Journal of Clinical Pathology. 2008; 61: 530–536. https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.2007.051904.

[31] Lindman BR, Clavel MA, Mathieu P, Iung B, Lancellotti P, Otto CM, et al. Calcific aortic stenosis. Nature Reviews. Disease Primers. 2016; 2: 16006. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrdp.2016.6.

[32] Sato Y, Virmani R. Pathology Insights of Aortic Valve Disease. In de Marchena EJ (ed.) Mastering Structural Heart Disease (pp. 12) .1st edn. Wiley: NJ. 2023.

[33] Thubrikar MJ, Aouad J, Nolan SP. Patterns of calcific deposits in operatively excised stenotic or purely regurgitant aortic valves and their relation to mechanical stress. The American Journal of Cardiology. 1986; 58: 304–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9149(86)90067-6.

[34] John D, Buellesfeld L, Yuecel S, Mueller R, Latsios G, Beucher H, et al. Correlation of Device landing zone calcification and acute procedural success in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantations with the self-expanding CoreValve prosthesis. JACC. Cardiovascular Interventions. 2010; 3: 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2009.11.015.

[35] Stewart BF, Siscovick D, Lind BK, Gardin JM, Gottdiener JS, Smith VE, et al. Clinical factors associated with calcific aortic valve disease. Cardiovascular Health Study. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 1997; 29: 630–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0735-1097(96)00563-3.

[36] Mohler ER, 3rd, Gannon F, Reynolds C, Zimmerman R, Keane MG, Kaplan FS. Bone formation and inflammation in cardiac valves. Circulation. 2001; 103: 1522–1528. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.103.11.1522.

[37] Thanassoulis G, Massaro JM, Cury R, Manders E, Benjamin EJ, Vasan RS, et al. Associations of long-term and early adult atherosclerosis risk factors with aortic and mitral valve calcium. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2010; 55: 2491–2498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2010.03.019.

[38] Owens DS, Katz R, Takasu J, Kronmal R, Budoff MJ, O’Brien KD. Incidence and progression of aortic valve calcium in the Multi-ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). The American Journal of Cardiology. 2010; 105: 701–708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2009.10.071.

[39] Briand M, Lemieux I, Dumesnil JG, Mathieu P, Cartier A, Després JP, et al. Metabolic syndrome negatively influences disease progression and prognosis in aortic stenosis. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2006; 47: 2229–2236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2005.12.073.

[40] Carrai P, Camarri S, Pondrelli CR, Gonnelli S, Caffarelli C. Calcification of Cardiac Valves in Metabolic Bone Disease: An Updated Review of Clinical Studies. Clinical Interventions in Aging. 2020; 15: 1085–1095. https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S244063.

[41] Goel SS, Ige M, Tuzcu EM, Ellis SG, Stewart WJ, Svensson LG, et al. Severe aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease–implications for management in the transcatheter aortic valve replacement era: a comprehensive review. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2013; 62: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2013.01.096.

[42] Pepe M, Larosa C, Rosa I, Biondi-Zoccai G, Nestola PL, Di Cillo O, et al. Degenerative Severe Aortic Stenosis and Concomitant Coronary Artery Disease: What Is Changing in the Era of the “Transcatheter Revolution”? Current Atherosclerosis Reports. 2020; 22: 17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11883-020-0835-1.

[43] Kvidal P, Bergström R, Hörte LG, Ståhle E. Observed and relative survival after aortic valve replacement. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2000; 35: 747–756. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0735-1097(99)00584-7.

[44] Beach JM, Mihaljevic T, Svensson LG, Rajeswaran J, Marwick T, Griffin B, et al. Coronary artery disease and outcomes of aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2013; 61: 837–848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2012.10.049.

[45] Tjang YS, van Hees Y, Körfer R, Grobbee DE, van der Heijden GJMG. Predictors of mortality after aortic valve replacement. European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery: Official Journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery. 2007; 32: 469–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcts.2007.06.012.

[46] Gautier M, Pepin M, Himbert D, Ducrocq G, Iung B, Dilly MP, et al. Impact of coronary artery disease on indications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation and on procedural outcomes. EuroIntervention: Journal of EuroPCR in Collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology. 2011; 7: 549–555. https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJV7I5A90.

[47] D’Ascenzo F, Conrotto F, Giordana F, Moretti C, D’Amico M, Salizzoni S, et al. Mid-term prognostic value of coronary artery disease in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a meta-analysis of adjusted observational results. International Journal of Cardiology. 2013; 168: 2528–2532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2013.03.062.

[48] Witberg G, Regev E, Chen S, Assali A, Barbash IM, Planer D, et al. The Prognostic Effects of Coronary Disease Severity and Completeness of Revascularization on Mortality in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. JACC. Cardiovascular Interventions. 2017; 10: 1428–1435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2017.04.035.

[49] D’Ascenzo F, Verardi R, Visconti M, Conrotto F, Scacciatella P, Dziewierz A, et al. Independent impact of extent of coronary artery disease and percutaneous revascularisation on 30-day and one-year mortality after TAVI: a meta-analysis of adjusted observational results. EuroIntervention: Journal of EuroPCR in Collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology. 2018; 14: e1169–e1177. https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-18-00098.

[50] O’Brien KD, Reichenbach DD, Marcovina SM, Kuusisto J, Alpers CE, Otto CM. Apolipoproteins B, (a), and E accumulate in the morphologically early lesion of ‘degenerative’ valvular aortic stenosis. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. 1996; 16: 523–532. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.atv.16.4.523.

[51] Derbali H, Bossé Y, Côté N, Pibarot P, Audet A, Pépin A, et al. Increased biglycan in aortic valve stenosis leads to the overexpression of phospholipid transfer protein via Toll-like receptor 2. The American Journal of Pathology. 2010; 176: 2638–2645. https://doi.org/10.2353/ajpath.2010.090541.

[52] Mahmut A, Boulanger MC, Fournier D, Couture C, Trahan S, Pagé S, et al. Lipoprotein lipase in aortic valve stenosis is associated with lipid retention and remodelling. European Journal of Clinical Investigation. 2013; 43: 570–578. https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.12081.

[53] Miller JD, Chu Y, Brooks RM, Richenbacher WE, Peña-Silva R, Heistad DD. Dysregulation of antioxidant mechanisms contributes to increased oxidative stress in calcific aortic valvular stenosis in humans. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2008; 52: 843–850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2008.05.043.

[54] Greenberg HZE, Zhao G, Shah AM, Zhang M. Role of oxidative stress in calcific aortic valve disease and its therapeutic implications. Cardiovascular Research. 2022; 118: 1433–1451. https://doi.org/10.1093/cvr/cvab142.

[55] Bartoli-Leonard F, Zimmer J, Aikawa E. Innate and adaptive immunity: the understudied driving force of heart valve disease. Cardiovascular Research. 2021; 117: 2506–2524. https://doi.org/10.1093/cvr/cvab273.

[56] Mathieu P, Bouchareb R, Boulanger MC. Innate and Adaptive Immunity in Calcific Aortic Valve Disease. Journal of Immunology Research. 2015; 2015: 851945. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/851945.

[57] Passos LSA, Lupieri A, Becker-Greene D, Aikawa E. Innate and adaptive immunity in cardiovascular calcification. Atherosclerosis. 2020; 306: 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2020.02.016.

[58] Byon CH, Sun Y, Chen J, Yuan K, Mao X, Heath JM, et al. Runx2-upregulated receptor activator of nuclear factor κB ligand in calcifying smooth muscle cells promotes migration and osteoclastic differentiation of macrophages. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. 2011; 31: 1387–1396. https://doi.org/10.1161/ATVBAHA.110.222547.

[59] Kraler S, Blaser MC, Aikawa E, Camici GG, Lüscher TF. Calcific aortic valve disease: from molecular and cellular mechanisms to medical therapy. European Heart Journal. 2022; 43: 683–697. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab757.

[60] Borland SJ, Morris TG, Borland SC, Morgan MR, Francis SE, Merry CLR, et al. Regulation of vascular smooth muscle cell calcification by syndecan-4/FGF-2/PKCα signalling and cross-talk with TGFβ. Cardiovascular Research. 2017; 113: 1639–1652. https://doi.org/10.1093/cvr/cvx178.

[61] Raddatz MA, Madhur MS, Merryman WD. Adaptive immune cells in calcific aortic valve disease. American Journal of Physiology. Heart and Circulatory Physiology. 2019; 317: H141–H155. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpheart.00100.2019.

[62] Coté N, Mahmut A, Bosse Y, Couture C, Pagé S, Trahan S, et al. Inflammation is associated with the remodeling of calcific aortic valve disease. Inflammation. 2013; 36: 573–581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10753-012-9579-6.

[63] Steiner I, Krbal L, Rozkoš T, Harrer J, Laco J. Calcific aortic valve stenosis: Immunohistochemical analysis of inflammatory infiltrate. Pathology, Research and Practice. 2012; 208: 231–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prp.2012.02.009.

[64] Winchester R, Wiesendanger M, O’Brien W, Zhang HZ, Maurer MS, Gillam LD, et al. Circulating activated and effector memory T cells are associated with calcification and clonal expansions in bicuspid and tricuspid valves of calcific aortic stenosis. Journal of Immunology (Baltimore, Md.: 1950). 2011; 187: 1006–1014. https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.1003521.

[65] Wu HD, Maurer MS, Friedman RA, Marboe CC, Ruiz-Vazquez EM, Ramakrishnan R, et al. The lymphocytic infiltration in calcific aortic stenosis predominantly consists of clonally expanded T cells. Journal of Immunology (Baltimore, Md.: 1950). 2007; 178: 5329–5339. https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.178.8.5329.

[66] Helske S, Lindstedt KA, Laine M, Mäyränpää M, Werkkala K, Lommi J, et al. Induction of local angiotensin II-producing systems in stenotic aortic valves. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2004; 44: 1859–1866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2004.07.054.

[67] O’Brien KD, Shavelle DM, Caulfield MT, McDonald TO, Olin-Lewis K, Otto CM, et al. Association of angiotensin-converting enzyme with low-density lipoprotein in aortic valvular lesions and in human plasma. Circulation. 2002; 106: 2224–2230. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.0000035655.45453.d2.

[68] Côté N, Pibarot P, Pépin A, Fournier D, Audet A, Arsenault B, et al. Oxidized low-density lipoprotein, angiotensin II and increased waist cirumference are associated with valve inflammation in prehypertensive patients with aortic stenosis. International Journal of Cardiology. 2010; 145: 444–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2009.05.054.

[69] Kaden JJ, Bickelhaupt S, Grobholz R, Haase KK, Sarikoç A, Kiliç R, et al. Receptor activator of nuclear factor kappaB ligand and osteoprotegerin regulate aortic valve calcification. Journal of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology. 2004; 36: 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yjmcc.2003.09.015.

[70] Irtyuga O, Malashicheva A, Zhiduleva E, Freylikhman O, Rotar O, Bäck M, et al. NOTCH1 Mutations in Aortic Stenosis: Association with Osteoprotegerin/RANK/RANKL. BioMed Research International. 2017; 2017: 6917907. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/6917907.

[71] Yang X, Meng X, Su X, Mauchley DC, Ao L, Cleveland JC, Jr, et al. Bone morphogenic protein 2 induces Runx2 and osteopontin expression in human aortic valve interstitial cells: role of Smad1 and extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1/2. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2009; 138: 1008–1015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2009.06.024.

[72] Pawade TA, Newby DE, Dweck MR. Calcification in Aortic Stenosis: The Skeleton Key. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2015; 66: 561–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2015.05.066.

[73] Miller JD, Weiss RM, Serrano KM, Castaneda LE, Brooks RM, Zimmerman K, et al. Evidence for active regulation of pro-osteogenic signaling in advanced aortic valve disease. Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. 2010; 30: 2482–2486. https://doi.org/10.1161/ATVBAHA.110.211029.

[74] Khan K, Yu B, Kiwan C, Shalal Y, Filimon S, Cipro M, et al. The Role of Wnt/β-Catenin Pathway Mediators in Aortic Valve Stenosis. Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology. 2020; 8: 862. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2020.00862.

[75] Côté N, El Husseini D, Pépin A, Guauque-Olarte S, Ducharme V, Bouchard-Cannon P, et al. ATP acts as a survival signal and prevents the mineralization of aortic valve. Journal of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology. 2012; 52: 1191–1202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yjmcc.2012.02.003.

[76] Yang LT, Tribouilloy C, Masri A, Bax JJ, Delgado V, Girdauskas E, et al. Clinical presentation and outcomes of adults with bicuspid aortic valves: 2020 update. Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases. 2020; 63: 434–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcad.2020.05.010.

[77] Fedak PWM, Verma S, David TE, Leask RL, Weisel RD, Butany J. Clinical and pathophysiological implications of a bicuspid aortic valve. Circulation. 2002; 106: 900–904. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.0000027905.26586.e8.

[78] Cripe L, Andelfinger G, Martin LJ, Shooner K, Benson DW. Bicuspid aortic valve is heritable. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2004; 44: 138–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2004.03.050.

[79] Prakash SK, Bossé Y, Muehlschlegel JD, Michelena HI, Limongelli G, Della Corte A, et al. A roadmap to investigate the genetic basis of bicuspid aortic valve and its complications: insights from the International BAVCon (Bicuspid Aortic Valve Consortium). Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2014; 64: 832–839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2014.04.073.

[80] Bravo-Jaimes K, Prakash SK. Genetics in bicuspid aortic valve disease: Where are we? Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases. 2020; 63: 398–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcad.2020.06.005.

[81] Garg V, Muth AN, Ransom JF, Schluterman MK, Barnes R, King IN, et al. Mutations in NOTCH1 cause aortic valve disease. Nature. 2005; 437: 270–274. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03940.

[82] Yang B, Zhou W, Jiao J, Nielsen JB, Mathis MR, Heydarpour M, et al. Protein-altering and regulatory genetic variants near GATA4 implicated in bicuspid aortic valve. Nature Communications. 2017; 8: 15481. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15481.

[83] Padang R, Bagnall RD, Richmond DR, Bannon PG, Semsarian C. Rare non-synonymous variations in the transcriptional activation domains of GATA5 in bicuspid aortic valve disease. Journal of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology. 2012; 53: 277–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yjmcc.2012.05.009.

[84] Xu YJ, Di RM, Qiao Q, Li XM, Huang RT, Xue S, et al. GATA6 loss-of-function mutation contributes to congenital bicuspid aortic valve. Gene. 2018; 663: 115–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gene.2018.04.018.

[85] Luyckx I, MacCarrick G, Kempers M, Meester J, Geryl C, Rombouts O, et al. Confirmation of the role of pathogenic SMAD6 variants in bicuspid aortic valve-related aortopathy. European Journal of Human Genetics: EJHG. 2019; 27: 1044–1053. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-019-0363-z.

[86] Hanchard NA, Swaminathan S, Bucasas K, Furthner D, Fernbach S, Azamian MS, et al. A genome-wide association study of congenital cardiovascular left-sided lesions shows association with a locus on chromosome 20. Human Molecular Genetics. 2016; 25: 2331–2341. https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddw071.

[87] Fulmer D, Toomer K, Guo L, Moore K, Glover J, Moore R, et al. Defects in the Exocyst-Cilia Machinery Cause Bicuspid Aortic Valve Disease and Aortic Stenosis. Circulation. 2019; 140: 1331–1341. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.038376.

[88] Bjornsson T, Thorolfsdottir RB, Sveinbjornsson G, Sulem P, Norddahl GL, Helgadottir A, et al. A rare missense mutation in MYH6 associates with non-syndromic coarctation of the aorta. European Heart Journal. 2018; 39: 3243–3249. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehy142.

[89] Sievers HH, Schmidtke C. A classification system for the bicuspid aortic valve from 304 surgical specimens. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2007; 133: 1226–1233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2007.01.039.

[90] Falcone MW, Roberts WC, Morrow AG, Perloff JK. Congenital aortic stenosis resulting from a unicommisssural valve. Clinical and anatomic features in twenty-one adult patients. Circulation. 1971; 44: 272–280. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.44.2.272.

[91] EDWARDS JE. PATHOLOGY OF LEFT VENTRICULAR OUTFLOW TRACT OBSTRUCTION. Circulation. 1965; 31: 586–599. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.31.4.586.

[92] Yener N, Oktar GL, Erer D, Yardimci MM, Yener A. Bicuspid aortic valve. Annals of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery: Official Journal of the Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia. 2002; 8: 264–267.

[93] Isner JM, Chokshi SK, DeFranco A, Braimen J, Slovenkai GA. Contrasting histoarchitecture of calcified leaflets from stenotic bicuspid versus stenotic tricuspid aortic valves. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 1990; 15: 1104–1108. https://doi.org/10.1016/0735-1097(90)90249-o.

[94] Kaplan MH, Bolande R, Rakita L, Blair J. PRESENCE OF BOUND IMMUNOGLOBULINS AND COMPLEMENT IN THE MYOCARDIUM IN ACUTE RHEUMATIC FEVER. ASSOCIATION WITH CARDIAC FAILURE. New England Journal of Medicine. 1964; 271: 637–645. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm196409242711301.

[95] Marijon E, Mirabel M, Celermajer DS, Jouven X. Rheumatic heart disease. Lancet (London, England). 2012; 379: 953–964. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61171-9.

[96] Carapetis JR, Steer AC, Mulholland EK, Weber M. The global burden of group A streptococcal diseases. The Lancet. Infectious Diseases. 2005; 5: 685–694. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(05)70267-X.

[97] Zühlke L, Engel ME, Karthikeyan G, Rangarajan S, Mackie P, Cupido B, et al. Characteristics, complications, and gaps in evidence-based interventions in rheumatic heart disease: the Global Rheumatic Heart Disease Registry (the REMEDY study). European Heart Journal. 2015; 36: 1115–22a. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehu449.

[98] Bisno AL, Brito MO, Collins CM. Molecular basis of group A streptococcal virulence. The Lancet. Infectious Diseases. 2003; 3: 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1473-3099(03)00576-0.

[99] Bryant PA, Robins-Browne R, Carapetis JR, Curtis N. Some of the people, some of the time: susceptibility to acute rheumatic fever. Circulation. 2009; 119: 742–753. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.792135.

[100] Guilherme L, Kalil J. Rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease: cellular mechanisms leading autoimmune reactivity and disease. Journal of Clinical Immunology. 2010; 30: 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10875-009-9332-6.

[101] Watkins DA, Beaton AZ, Carapetis JR, Karthikeyan G, Mayosi BM, Wyber R, et al. Rheumatic Heart Disease Worldwide: JACC Scientific Expert Panel. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2018; 72: 1397–1416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.06.063.

[102] Laudari S, Subramanyam G. A study of spectrum of rheumatic heart disease in a tertiary care hospital in Central Nepal. International Journal of Cardiology. Heart & Vasculature. 2017; 15: 26–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcha.2017.03.007.

[103] Sani MU, Karaye KM, Borodo MM. Prevalence and pattern of rheumatic heart disease in the Nigerian savannah: an echocardiographic study. Cardiovascular Journal of Africa. 2007; 18: 295–299.

[104] Waller B, Howard J, Fess S. Pathology of aortic valve stenosis and pure aortic regurgitation. A clinical morphologic assessment–Part I. Clinical Cardiology. 1994; 17: 85–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/clc.4960170208.

[105] Dare AJ, Veinot JP, Edwards WD, Tazelaar HD, Schaff HV. New observations on the etiology of aortic valve disease: a surgical pathologic study of 236 cases from 1990. Human Pathology. 1993; 24: 1330–1338. https://doi.org/10.1016/0046-8177(93)90267-k.

[106] North RA, Sadler L, Stewart AW, McCowan LM, Kerr AR, White HD. Long-term survival and valve-related complications in young women with cardiac valve replacements. Circulation. 1999; 99: 2669–2676. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.99.20.2669.

[107] Writing Committee Members, Otto CM, Nishimura RA, Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Erwin JP, 3rd, et al. 2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2021; 77: e25–e197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.11.018.

[108] Vahanian A, Beyersdorf F, Praz F, Milojevic M, Baldus S, Bauersachs J, et al. 2021 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. European Heart Journal. 2022; 43: 561–632. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab395.

[109] Jørgensen TH, Thyregod HGH, Savontaus M, Willemen Y, Bleie Ø Tang M, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in low-risk tricuspid or bicuspid aortic stenosis: the NOTION-2 trial. European Heart Journal. 2024; 45: 3804–3814. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae331.

[110] Chong T, Lan NSR, Courtney W, He A, Strange G, Playford D, et al. Medical Therapy to Prevent or Slow Progression of Aortic Stenosis: Current Evidence and Future Directions. Cardiology in Review. 2024; 32: 473–482. https://doi.org/10.1097/CRD.0000000000000528.

[111] Ternacle J, Hecht S, Eltchaninoff H, Salaun E, Clavel MA, Côté N, et al. Durability of transcatheter aortic valve implantation. EuroIntervention: Journal of EuroPCR in Collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology. 2024; 20: e845–e864. https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJ-D-23-01050.

[112] Pibarot P, Ternacle J, Jaber WA, Salaun E, Dahou A, Asch FM, et al. Structural Deterioration of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Bioprostheses in the PARTNER-2 Trial. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2020; 76: 1830–1843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.08.049.

[113] Mack MJ, Leon MB, Thourani VH, Makkar R, Kodali SK, Russo M, et al. Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement with a Balloon-Expandable Valve in Low-Risk Patients. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2019; 380: 1695–1705. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1814052.

[114] Thyregod HGH, Jørgensen TH, Ihlemann N, Steinbrüchel DA, Nissen H, Kjeldsen BJ, et al. Transcatheter or surgical aortic valve implantation: 10-year outcomes of the NOTION trial. European Heart Journal. 2024; 45: 1116–1124. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae043.

[115] Forrest JK, Deeb GM, Yakubov SJ, Gada H, Mumtaz MA, Ramlawi B, et al. 3-Year Outcomes After Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2023; 81: 1663–1674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2023.02.017.

[116] Capodanno D, Petronio AS, Prendergast B, Eltchaninoff H, Vahanian A, Modine T, et al. Standardized definitions of structural deterioration and valve failure in assessing long-term durability of transcatheter and surgical aortic bioprosthetic valves: a consensus statement from the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) endorsed by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). European Heart Journal. 2017; 38: 3382–3390. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx303.

[117] VARC-3 WRITING COMMITTEE, Généreux P, Piazza N, Alu MC, Nazif T, Hahn RT, et al. Valve Academic Research Consortium 3: updated endpoint definitions for aortic valve clinical research. European Heart Journal. 2021; 42: 1825–1857. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa799.

[118] Yahagi K, Ladich E, Kutys R, Mori H, Svensson LG, Mack MJ, et al. Pathology of balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valves. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions: Official Journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions. 2017; 90: 1048–1057. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.27160.

[119] Yahagi K, Torii S, Ladich E, Kutys R, Romero ME, Mori H, et al. Pathology of self-expanding transcatheter aortic valves: Findings from the CoreValve US pivotal trials. Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions: Official Journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions. 2018; 91: 947–955. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.27314.

[120] Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M, Miller DC, Moses JW, Svensson LG, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2010; 363: 1597–1607. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1008232.

[121] Adams DH, Popma JJ, Reardon MJ, Yakubov SJ, Coselli JS, Deeb GM, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2014; 370: 1790–1798. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1400590.

[122] Cahill TJ, Kirtane AJ, Leon M, Kodali SK. Subclinical Leaflet Thrombosis and Anticoagulation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Review. JAMA Cardiology. 2022; 7: 866–872. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2022.1591.

[123] Makkar RR, Blanke P, Leipsic J, Thourani V, Chakravarty T, Brown D, et al. Subclinical Leaflet Thrombosis in Transcatheter and Surgical Bioprosthetic Valves: PARTNER 3 Cardiac Computed Tomography Substudy. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2020; 75: 3003–3015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.043.

[124] Yahagi K, Sato Y, Virmani R. A Controlled Trial of Rivaroxaban after Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2020; 383: e8. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2017351.