Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

3D Printing Applications for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

  • Cardiac PET, CT, and MRI (P Schoenhagen and H Chen, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Cardiology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

A combination of evolving 3D printing technologies, new 3D printable materials, and multi-disciplinary collaborations have made 3D printing applications for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) a promising tool to promote innovation, increase procedural success, and provide a compelling educational tool. This review synthesizes the knowledge via publications and our group’s experience in this area that exemplify uses of 3D printing for TAVR.

Recent Findings

Patient-specific 3D-printed models have been used for TAVR pre-procedural device sizing, benchtop prediction of procedural complications, planning for valve-in-valve and bicuspid aortic valve procedures, and more. Recent publications also demonstrate how 3D printing can be used to test assumptions about why certain complications occur during THV implantation. Finally, new materials and combinations of existing materials are starting to bridge the large divide between current 3D material and cardiac tissue properties.

Summary

Several studies have demonstrated the utility of 3D printing in understanding challenges of TAVR. Innovative approaches to benchtop testing and multi-material printing have brought us closer to being able to predict how a THV will interact with a specific patient’s aortic anatomy. This work to date is likely to open the door for advancements in other areas of structural heart disease, such as interventions involving the mitral valve, tricuspid valve, and left atrial appendage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

NOCD:

New onset conduction disturbance

TAVR:

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement

PPI:

Permanent pacemaker implantation

BAV:

Balloon valvuloplasty

LVOT:

Left ventricular outflow tract

PVL:

Paravalvular leak

TAVI:

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation

AS:

Aortic stenosis

3DP:

Three-dimensional printing

CT:

Computed tomography

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

3D TEE:

Three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography

3D TTE:

Three-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography

THV:

Transcatheter heart valves

DICOM:

Digital imaging and communication in medicine

SAVR:

Surgical aortic valve replacement

BASILICA:

Intentional laceration to prevent iatrogenic coronary artery obstruction

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Wang DD, Gheewala N, Shah R, Levin D, Myers E, Rollet M, et al. Three-dimensional printing for planning of structural heart interventions. Interv Cardiol Clin. 2018;7(3):415–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Giannopoulos AA, Steigner ML, George E, Barile M, Hunsaker AR, Rybicki FJ, et al. Cardiothoracic applications of 3-dimensional printing. J Thorac Imaging. 2016;31(5):253–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bramlet M, Olivieri L, Farooqi K, Ripley B, Coakley M. Impact of three-dimensional printing on the study and treatment of congenital heart disease. Circ Res. 2017;120(6).

  4. Vukicevic M, Mosadegh B, Min JK, Little SH. Cardiac 3D printing and its future directions. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;10(2):171–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Farooqi KM, Sengupta PP. Echocardiography and three-dimensional printing: sound ideas to touch a heart. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015;28(4):398–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Himbert D, Vahanian A. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for patients with heart failure. Heart Fail Clin. 2015;11(2):231–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Thourani VH, Kodali S, Makkar RR, Herrmann HC, Williams M, Babaliaros V, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients: a propensity score analysis. Lancet. 2016;387(10034):2218–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(17):1597–607.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ, Miller DC, Moses JW, Svensson LG, et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(23):2187–98.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Popma JJ, Deeb GM, Yakubov SJ, Mumtaz M, Gada H, O’Hair D, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding valve in low-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(18):1706–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Alkhouli M, Sengupta PP. 3-dimensional–printed models for TAVR planning. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;10(7):732–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Achenbach S, Delgado V, Hausleiter J, Schoenhagen P, Min JK, Leipsic J. a. SCCT expert consensus document on computed tomography imaging before transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)/transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2012;6(6):366–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kasel AM, Cassese S, Bleiziffer S, Amaki M, Hahn RT, Kastrati A, et al. Standardized imaging for aortic annular sizing: implications for transcatheter valve selection. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;6(2):249–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. • Faletti R, Gatti M, Cosentino A, Bergamasco L, Cura Stura E, Garabello D, et al. 3D printing of the aortic annulus based on cardiovascular computed tomography: Preliminary experience in pre-procedural planning for aortic valve sizing. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2018;12(5):391–397. In this original research paper, the authors 3D printed the aortic roots of 20 patients from CT data. They then compared measurements of 3D-printed aortic valve size to gold standard CT annular measurements and surgical valve sizing via Hegar dilators. No significant difference was found between intra-operative and 3D model measurements, thus verifying accuracy of the models for pre-surgical planning in this study.

  15. Ripley B, Kelil T, Cheezum MK, Goncalves A, Di Carli MF, Rybicki FJ, et al. 3D printing based on cardiac CT assists anatomic visualization prior to transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2016;10(1):28–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bompotis G, Meletidou M, Karakanas A, Sotiriou S, Sachpekidis V, Konstantinidou M, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation using 3-D printing modeling assistance. A single-center experience. Hell J Cardiol. 2019;1.

  17. Hosny A, Dilley JD, Kelil T, Mathur M, Dean MN, Weaver JC, et al. Pre-procedural fit-testing of TAVR valves using parametric modeling and 3D printing. J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. 2018; 2:1–0.

  18. Schmauss D, Schmitz C, Bigdeli AK, Weber S, Gerber N, Beiras-Fernandez A, et al. Three-dimensional printing of models for preoperative planning and simulation of transcatheter valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012;93(2):e31–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fujita B, Kütting M, Seiffert M, Scholtz S, Egron S, Prashovikj E, et al. Calcium distribution patterns of the aortic valve as a risk factor for the need of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016;17(12):1385–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Tanaka Y, Saito S, Sasuga S, Takahashi A, Aoyama Y, Obama K, et al. Quantitative assessment of paravalvular leakage after transcatheter aortic valve replacement using a patient-specific pulsatile flow model. Int J Cardiol. 2018;258:313–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. •• Qian Z, Wang K, Liu S, Zhou X, Rajagopal V, Meduri C, et al. Quantitative prediction of paravalvular leak in transcatheter aortic valve replacement based on tissue-mimicking 3D printing. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;10(7):719–31 Building on Wang K et al (ref 38), the authors use a multimaterial 3D printing technique to create models that include hard calcifications and a meta-material meant to reproduce the stress-strain characteristics of aortic tissue. These models were CT scanned before and after benchtop deployment of a self-expanding stent to measure relative displacement of radiodense beads placed on the model surface. From this data, the authors propose a new assessment called the “bulge index” to predict which patients are at risk for paravalvular leak.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hatoum H, Dollery J, Lilly SM, Crestanello JA, Dasi LP. Sinus hemodynamics variation with tilted transcatheter aortic valve deployments. Ann Biomed Eng. 2019;47(1):75–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Yamawaki M, Obama K, Sasuga S, Takahashi A, Ito Y, Umezu M, et al. Underfilled balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve implantation with ad hoc post-dilation ― pulsatile flow simulation using a patient-specific three-dimensional printing model ―. Circ J. 2019;83(2):461–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dvir D, Webb JG, Bleiziffer S, Pasic M, Waksman R, Kodali S, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in failed bioprosthetic surgical valves. JAMA. 2014;312(2):162–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Dvir D, Webb J, Brecker S, Bleiziffer S, Hildick-Smith D, Colombo A, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerative bioprosthetic surgical valves. Circulation. 2012;126(19):2335–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Allen KB, Chhatriwalla AK, Cohen DJ, Saxon JT, Aggarwal S, Hart A, et al. Bioprosthetic valve fracture to facilitate transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation. In: Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2017.

  27. Chhatriwalla AK, Allen KB, Saxon JT, Cohen DJ, Aggarwal S, Hart AJ, et al. Bioprosthetic valve fracture improves the hemodynamic results of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;1:10(7).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Iung B, Vahanian A. Coronary obstruction: a rare but devastating complication during transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation. Eur Heart J. 2018;39(8):696–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Dvir D, Webb JG, Piazza N, Blanke P, Barbanti M, Bleiziffer S, et al. Multicenter evaluation of transcatheter aortic valve replacement using either SAPIEN XT or CoreValve: degree of device oversizing by computed-tomography and clinical outcomes. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;00(January):n/a-n/a.

  30. Dvir D, Khan J, Kornowski R, Komatsu I, Chatriwalla A, Mackenson GB, et al. Novel strategies in aortic valve-in-valve therapy including bioprosthetic valve fracture and BASILICA. EuroIntervention. 2018;14(AB):AB74–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Komatsu I, Mackensen GB, Aldea GS, Reisman M, Dvir D. Bioprosthetic or native aortic scallop intentional laceration to prevent iatrogenic coronary artery obstruction. Part 1: how to evaluate patients for BASILICA. EuroIntervention. 2019;15(1):47–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Khan A, Gilani S, Dharmashankar K, Jaffery Z, Rangasetty UC, Fujise K. Percutaneous coronary intervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: approach and challenges. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016.

  33. Yoon SH, Lefèvre T, Ahn JM, Perlman GY, Dvir D, Latib A, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with early- and new-generation devices in bicuspid aortic valve stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016.

  34. Sievers HH, Schmidtke C. A classification system for the bicuspid aortic valve from 304 surgical specimens. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007.

  35. Jilaihawi H, Chen M, Webb J, Himbert D, Ruiz CE, Rodés-Cabau J, et al. A bicuspid aortic valve imaging classification for the TAVR era. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2016.

  36. Tchetche D, de Biase C, van Gils L, Parma R, Ochala A, Lefevre T, et al. Bicuspid aortic valve anatomy and relationship with devices: the BAVARD multicenter registry. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12(1):e007107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. • Wang K, Zhao Y, Chang Y-H, Qian Z, Zhang C, Wang B, et al. Controlling the mechanical behavior of dual-material 3D printed meta-materials for patient-specific tissue-mimicking phantoms. Mater Des. 2016;90:704–12 This paper is the first description of a method for using sinusoidal elements and double helix structures printed out of high shore value material within flexible 3D printable material to mimic the stress-strain characteristics of arterial tissue.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Maragiannis D, Jackson MS, Igo SR, Schutt RC, Connell P, Grande-Allen J, et al. Replicating patient-specific severe aortic valve stenosis with functional 3D modeling. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2015;8(10):1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Vivian Hou and Carol Hagen for help with photographing 3D models for figures.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Dmitry Levin, Mark Reisman, James M. McCabe & Danny Dvir

  2. Division of Cardiothoracic Anesthesiology, Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    G. Burkhard Mackensen

  3. Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Beth Ripley

  4. Department of Radiology, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA, USA

    Beth Ripley

Authors
  1. Dmitry Levin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. Burkhard Mackensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mark Reisman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. James M. McCabe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Danny Dvir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Beth Ripley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Beth Ripley.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Dmitry Levin, G. Burkhard Mackensen, Mark Reisman, James McCabe, Danny Dvir, and Beth Ripley declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants by the authors were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (University of Washington Human Subjects Division + HSD Study # STUDY00003286) and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Cardiac PET, CT, and MRI

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Levin, D., Mackensen, G.B., Reisman, M. et al. 3D Printing Applications for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. Curr Cardiol Rep 22, 23 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-020-1276-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-020-1276-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation