Compared with autologous vein transfer, cryovalve insertion is associated with high morbidity, high occlusion rate, poor cumulative midterm rate of patent graft with competent valve, and poor clinical results. The procedure should not be used as a primary technique for valve reconstruction, and it is questionable whether it is useful even in patients in whom autologous reconstruction techniques have been exhausted. The basis of the high failure rate is unclear; it may be immunologic or due to loss of endothelial cover after implantation. If cryovalves are to be a viable valve repair alternative, improved cryopreservation technique, immunologic modifications, or better matching must be achieved.