Resilia Inspiris® Valve in Modern Times: A Useful Alternative in Younger Patients with Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis with Anticipation for Future Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation?
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Introduction: The outcome of the Inspiris Resilia valve implanted in aortic position is investigated with respect to its hemodynamic properties and durability. In case of structural valve degeneration, its design would allow valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation.
Methods: The PubMed database was consulted for last 5 years with the search term: “inspiris resilia aortic valve”. Exclusion criteria were not the IR valve under study, reviews, letters to the editor, use in pulmonary position and editorials. Case reports and in vitro studies were included as a separate category.
Results: Fifty-six papers were identified, of which 28 were retained. These included eleven comparative studies, ten single arm studies, with a follow-up to 5 years with one extension to 7 years, three in vitro studies, and four case reports as proof-of-concept for the valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation approach. Age and risk scores of the investigated population are low in most series. Thirty-day outcomes, including complication rates and hemodynamic profile, are satisfactory for the Inspiris Resilia as well as for the conventional valves. This applies also for the mid-and-long-term results.
Conclusion: There is cautious optimism for the Inspiris Resilia valve for its durability and there is proof of concept for a possible valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation in case of valve degeneration, but problems caused by calcification of a degenerated Inspiris Resilia valve should be considered.
Article Details
Copyright (c) 2026 Mistiaen W
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Briffa N, Chambers JB. Biological valves in younger patients undergoing aortic valve replacement: a word of caution. Circulation. 2017 Mar 21;135(12):1101-1103. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.116.026385
Glaser N, Jackson V, Holzmann MJ, Franco-Cereceda A, Sartipy U. Aortic valve replacement with mechanical vs. biological prostheses in patients aged 50–69 years. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:2658–2667. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehv580
Stassano P, Di Tommaso L, Monaco M, Iorio F, Pepino P, Spampinato N, et al. Aortic valve replacement: a prospective randomized evaluation of mechanical versus biological valves in patients ages 55 to 70 years. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54:1862-8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2009.07.032
Rodríguez-Caulo EA, Blanco-Herrera OR, Berastegui E, Arias-Dachary J, Souaf-Khalafi S, Parody-Cuerda G, et al. Biological versus mechanical prostheses for aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2023;165:609-617.e7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2021.01.118
Bowdish ME, Mehaffey JH, Chang SC, O'Gara PT, Mack MJ, Goldstone AB, et al. Bioprosthetic vs mechanical aortic valve replacement in patients 40 to 75 years of age. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2025;85:1289-1298. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2025.01.013
Watkins AR, El-Andari R, Fialka NM, Kang JJ, Hong Y, Bozso SJ, et al. Long-term outcomes following aortic valve replacement in bioprosthetic vs mechanical valves. Heart Lung. 2025;69:87-93. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrtlng.2024.09.016
Tasoudis PT, Varvoglis DN, Vitkos E, Mylonas KS, Sa MP, Ikonomidis JS, et al. Mechanical versus bioprosthetic valve for aortic valve replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis of reconstructed individual participant data. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2022. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezac268
Sadri V, Trusty PM, Madukauwa-David ID, Yoganathan AP. Long-term durability of a new surgical aortic valve: a 1 billion cycle in vitro study. JTCVS Open. 2021;9:59-69. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xjon.2021.10.056
Bhat SS, Kim JH, Karnik S, Bagheri M, Dasi LP. Long-term mechanical durability of Inspiris RESILIA surgical aortic valves. Ann Thorac Surg Short Rep. 2024;3:373-378. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atssr.2024.11.013
Sadat N, Scharfschwerdt M, Ensminger S. Functional performance of 2 different transcatheter heart valve models as valve-in-valve before and after expansion of the Inspiris Resilia: an in vitro study. Interdiscip Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2026;41:ivaf305. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivaf305
Bartus K, Bavaria JE, Thourani VH, Xu K, Keuffel EL. Structural hemodynamic valve deterioration durability of RESILIA-tissue versus contemporary aortic bioprostheses. J Comp Eff Res. 2023;12:e220180. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2022-0180
Bernard J, Georges G, Hecht S, Pibarot P, Clavel MA, Babaki S, et al. Mid-term clinical and echocardiographic results of the INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic valve: a retrospective comparison to the Magna Ease. Interdiscip Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2023;37:ivad117. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivad117
Brown CR, Szeto WY, Dratch A, Murphy SME, Shanbhag A, Reifenberger M, et al. Surgical aortic valve replacement with a novel bovine pericardial tissue valve: a real world comparison of short-term costs and outcomes in US hospitals. J Med Econ. 2025;29:40-49. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2025.2597133
Chiariello GA, Villa E, Bruno P, Pasquini A, Nesta M, Ferraro F, et al. Two innovative aortic bioprostheses evaluated in the real-world setting: first results from a two-center study. J Cardiovasc Surg. 2023;64:338-347. Available from: https://doi.org/10.23736/s0021-9509.23.12534-1
D'Alonzo M, Di Bacco L, Baudo M, D'Alonzo A, Dossena YT, Rattenni F, et al. Thrombocytopenia following isolated surgical aortic valve replacement with Inspiris Resilia bioprosthesis. Transl Med UniSa. 2024;26:145-152. Available from: https://doi.org/10.37825/2239-9747.1065
D'Onofrio A, Cibin G, Tessari C, Lorenzoni G, Luzi G, Manzan E, et al. Multicenter, propensity-weighted comparison of stented, rapid-deployment and new-generation aortic valves. Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2024;54:101487. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcha.2024.101487
Francica A, Tonelli F, Rossetti C, Galeone A, Perrone F, Luciani GB, et al. Perimount Magna Ease vs. Inspiris Resilia valve: a PS-matched analysis of the hemodynamic performances in patients below 70 years of age. J Clin Med. 2023;12:2077. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12052077
Maeda K, Shimamura K, Yoshioka D, Inoue K, Yamada S, Yamashita K, et al. Midterm outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement with the INSPIRIS RESILIA from a multicenter AVR registry. J Cardiol. 2023;82:261-267. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjcc.2023.05.012
Narita T, Nakayama T, Nishijima S, Nakamura Y. Early and midterm outcomes of INSPIRIS RESILIA versus AVALUS: a propensity score matching analysis. Heart Lung Circ. 2025;34:908-917. Available from: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Early-and-Midterm-Outcomes-of-INSPIRIS-RESILIA-A-Narita-Nakayama/468c88f2f3a9fdc5d9225638737330c7f2e88c84
Saiydoun G, Nassar E, Saadé S, Aludaat C, Rubin S, Alqdeimat I, et al. Mid-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement in patients under 70: a comparative study of INSPIRIS RESILIA versus PERIMOUNT MAGNA EASE bioprostheses. Interdiscip Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2025;40:ivaf169. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivaf169
Cibin G, D'Onofrio A, Lorenzoni G, Lombardi V, Bergonzoni E, Fabozzo A, et al. Predicted vs. observed prosthesis-patient mismatch after surgical aortic valve replacement. Medicina. 2025;61:743. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61040743
Zierer A, De Paulis R, Bakhtiary F, Ahmad AE, Andreas M, Autschbach R, et al. Sex-related differences among patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement: a propensity score matched study. Interdiscip Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2024;39:ivae140. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivae140
El-Sayed Ahmad A, Salamate S, Amer M, Sirat S, Akhavuz Ö, Bakhtiary F. The first 100 cases of two innovations combined: video-assisted minimally invasive aortic valve replacement through right anterior mini-thoracotomy using a novel aortic prosthesis. Adv Ther. 2021;38:2435-2446. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-021-01705-x
El-Sayed Ahmad A, Giammarino S, Salamate S, Fehske W, Sirat S, Amer M, et al. Clinical performance of a novel bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve in a German high-volume center. J Card Surg. 2022;37:4833-4840. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocs.17198
Bakhtiary F, Benedikt P, Bonaros N, Borger M, Doss M, Feyrer R, et al. Three-year outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement with a bioprosthetic valve from the multi-centre IMPACT registry. Interdiscip Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2026;41:ivag056. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivag056
Bavaria JE, Griffith B, Heimansohn DA, Rozanski J, Johnston DR, Bartus K, et al. Five-year outcomes of the COMMENCE trial investigating aortic valve replacement with RESILIA tissue. Ann Thorac Surg. 2023;115:1429-1436. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2021.12.058
Beaver T, Bavaria JE, Griffith B, Svensson LG, Pibarot P, Borger MA, et al. Seven-year outcomes following aortic valve replacement with a novel tissue bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2024;168:781-791. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2023.09.047
Berry T, Elnaggar AS, Walker JW. Benign intravalvular strut leak after placement of the Inspiris Resilia valve. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2024;38:2601-2605. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2024.07.004
Fukunaga N, Yoshida S, Shimoji A, Maeda T, Mori O, Yoshizawa K, et al. Hemodynamic performance of INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic bioprosthesis for severe aortic stenosis: 2-year follow-up in Japanese cohort. J Artif Organs. 2022;25:323-328. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10047-022-01316-5
Fukunaga N, Wakami T, Shimoji A, Mori O, Yoshizawa K, Tamura N. Mid-term hemodynamic performance of INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic bioprosthesis for severe aortic stenosis. J Med Invest. 2025;72(3-4):390-395. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2152/jmi.72.390
Meuris B, Roussel JC, Borger MA, Siepe M, Stefano P, Laufer G, et al. Durability of bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement in patients under the age of 60 years: 1-year follow-up from the prospective INDURE registry. Interdiscip Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2023;37:ivad115. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivad115
Porto A, Stolpe G, Badaoui R, Boudouresques V, Deutsch C, Amanatiou C, et al. One-year clinical outcomes following Edwards INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic valve implantation in 487 young patients with severe aortic stenosis: a single-center experience. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2023;10:1196447. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2023.1196447
Useini D, Schlömicher M, Haldenwang P, Naraghi H, Moustafine V, Bechtel M, et al. Early results after aortic valve replacement using last generation bioprosthetic aortic valve. Heart Surg Forum. 2021;24:E598-E962. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1532/hsf.4189
Kitano T, Taniguchi T, Ehara N, Nakane T, Esaki J, Furukawa Y. Emergent transcarotid transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation in degenerative INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic valve. Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2025. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12928-025-01212-8
Kobayashi Y, Okuyama K, Kuwata S, Koga M, Izumo M, Akashi YJ. Bioprosthetic valve failure of the Inspiris Resilia valve during transcatheter valve implantation. Cardiovasc Interv Ther. 2023;38:358-359. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12928-023-00923-0
Matsuda M, Maeda K, Shimamura K, Yamashita K, Kawamura A, Yoshioka D, Miyagawa S. A case of TAV-in-SAV in a patient with structural valve deterioration after surgical aortic valve replacement with the INSPIRIS RESILIA valve. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2024;30(1):22-00083. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5761/atcs.cr.22-00083
Mehdiani A, Chekhoeva A, Klein K, Lichtenberg A. The first report of transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation within the expandable Inspiris Resilia® bioprosthetic valve. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2022;62(2):ezac394. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezac394
Mylonas KS, Angouras DC. Bioprosthetic valves for lifetime management of aortic stenosis: pearls and pitfalls. J Clin Med. 2023;12:7063. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12227063
Forcillo J, Pellerin M, Perrault LP, Cartier R, Bouchard D, Demers P, et al. One thousand Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valves in the aortic position: what has changed in the past 20 years, and what are the effects on hospital complications? J Heart Valve Dis. 2007 Jul;16(4):417-22.
Deblier I, Dossche K, Vanermen A, Mistiaen W. The outcomes for different biological heart valve prostheses in surgical aortic valve replacement before and after the introduction of transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Prosthesis. 2024;6:708-725. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/prosthesis6030050
Cangut B, Schaff HV, Suri RM, Greason KL, Stulak JM, Lahr BD, et al. Excess reintervention with Mitroflow prosthesis for aortic valve replacement: ten-year outcomes of a randomized trial. Ann Thorac Surg. 2023;115:949-956. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2022.09.031
Hashem AM, Elkhapery A, Mohamed A, Buttar R, Khalouf A, Mohamed MS, et al. Rates and predictors of structural valve degeneration and failure of Trifecta bioprosthetic valve over a 5-year follow-up period: a single-center experience. J Cardiovasc Echogr. 2024;34:7-13. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4103/jcecho.jcecho_74_23
Bassano C, Gislao V, Bovio E, Melino S, Tropea I, Saitto G, et al. An unexpected risk factor for early structural deterioration of biological aortic valve prostheses. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018;105:521-527. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2017.07.014
Issa IF, Poulsen SH, Waziri F, Torp Pedersen C, Nielsen PH, Riber L, et al. Structural valve deterioration in the Mitroflow biological heart valve prosthesis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2018;53:136-142. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezx321
Ius F, Schulz J, Roumieh M, Fleissner F, Ismail I, Tudorache I, et al. Long-term results of the Mitroflow aortic pericardial bioprosthesis in over 800 patients: limited durability and mechanisms of dysfunction. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017;52:264-271. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezx161
Yokoyama Y, Sakurai Y, Kuno T, Takagi H, Fukuhara S. Externally mounted versus internally mounted leaflet aortic bovine pericardial bioprosthesis: meta-analysis. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2023;71:207-215. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11748-022-01904-5
Savvoulidis P, Nadir A, Ludman PF, Doshi SN. Early Acurate Neo transcatheter heart valve degeneration in a haemodialysis patient successfully managed with Sapien 3 Ultra: a case report. Eur Heart J Case Rep. 2022;6:ytac279. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjcr/ytac279
Deblier I, Dossche K, Vanermen A, Mistiaen W. The effect of coronary ischaemia associated with aortic valve disease: outcome of treatment modalities. Acta Cardiol. 2025;80:774-784. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/00015385.2024.2431760
Mitsuo H, Ando Y, Joo K, Sonoda H, Shiose A. Early onset of Inspiris Resilia valve regurgitation after pulmonary valve replacement. World J Pediatr Congenit Heart Surg. 2026;17:221-229. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/21501351251361479
Said SM, Hiremath G, Aggarwal V, Bass J, Sainathan S, Salem MI, et al. Early concerning outcomes for the Edwards Inspiris Resilia bioprosthesis in the pulmonary position. Ann Thorac Surg. 2023;115:1000-1007. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2022.09.026
Ragheb DK, Martin E, Jaggi A, Lui GK, Maskatia SA, Ma M, et al. Short- and mid-term results of pulmonary valve replacement with the Inspiris valve. Ann Thorac Surg. 2024;117:1203-1210. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2023.07.049
Seadler BD, Holland HK, Novalija J, Schena S, Almassi GH. Early Inspiris Resilia valve failure in a patient with idiopathic pulmonary valve regurgitation. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2025;20:183. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-025-03398-7
Knox A, Gimpel D, Baker RA, Crouch G, Bennetts JS. Inspiris Resilia in the pulmonary position: the need for discussion and collaboration of results. Ann Thorac Surg. 2023;116:651. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-025-03398-7
Sengupta A, Pastuszko P, Zaidi AN, Murthy RA. Early outcomes of pulmonary valve replacement with the Edwards Inspiris Resilia pericardial bioprosthesis. World J Pediatr Congenit Heart Surg. 2024;15:52-59. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/21501351231178750
Batlivala SP, Hagel JA, Hirsch R, Shahanavaz S. Transcatheter pulmonary valve-in-valve implantation within the expandable Inspiris Resilia® bioprosthetic valve. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2022;99:1157-1160. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.30079
Prandi FR, Niv Granot Y, Margonato D, Belli M, Illuminato F, Vinayak M, et al. Coronary obstruction during valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement: pre-procedural risk evaluation, intra-procedural monitoring, and follow-up. J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2023;10:187. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd10050187
Rogers T, Greenspun BC, Weissman G, Torguson R, Craig P, Shults C, et al. Feasibility of coronary access and aortic valve reintervention in low-risk TAVR patients. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;13:726-735. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2020.01.202