There are at least three percutaneous valves that are approved in the US, one of which is for the pulmonary valve. Acceptance is confusing, as international requirements and approved types are not the same as US requirements, and these valves have been in use internationally for quite a bit longer than in the US.
However, my cardiologist, who is also a top-flight interventional cardiologist, pointed out that the catheters and valve stents that he's seen for this are five times larger than the type used for standard cardiac catheterization. This requires that the blood vessel used (usually femoral artery, I believe, top inside of thigh, groin area) has to be cut down, the introducer sheath then has to be sewn into the artery to keep the patient from bleeding to death, and afterwards, the sheath has to be removed and the artery stitched. This makes it an operation requiring anesthesia, rather than a simpler, light-dose procedure.
Of course, there may be devices in use internationally that are ahead of this design issue.
There is also still a fairly high percentage of placement and collapse results, which are very bad. This is one reason why most applications for percutaneous valves in the US require that the individual be unable to endure an open-heart procedure.
He acknowledged that once in, the valves are lasting well. He also said that they are finally starting to come down in size. I don't believe he is thilled with them yet, in their current state.
Best wishes,
