ライフサイエンスコーパス: valve replacement

1 of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

2 ansplant 103 days after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

3 n be safely applied for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

4 of CT-FFR for coronary evaluation pre-aortic valve replacement.

5 ortic annuli undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

6 ortality, and treatment futility with aortic valve replacement.

7 sion aortic stenosis and the need for aortic valve replacement.

8 bstruction required elective surgical mitral valve replacement.

9 omen and men undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

10 the need for PPMI after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

11 nts should be promptly considered for aortic valve replacement.

12 were both associated with a need for repeat valve replacement.

13 adverse outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

14 of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

15 er-term follow-up after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

16 is treated medically or with surgical aortic valve replacement.

17 udied in the context of transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

18 s PPMI at 1 month after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

19 ion and from patients who underwent surgical valve replacement.

20 valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic-valve replacement.

21 atients who may benefit from elective aortic valve replacement.

22 and need for PPMI after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

23 rtality at 1 year after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

24 to lung transplant via transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

25 ) are devastating complications after aortic valve replacement.

26 traditional surgical or percutaneous aortic valve replacement.

27 n patients eligible for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

28 fraction recovery post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

29 propriate valve sizing is critical in aortic valve replacement.

30 s many of the risks associated with surgical valve replacement.

31 d current guidelines recommend prompt aortic valve replacement.

32 ted tomography within 3 months before aortic valve replacement.

33 nferiority of TAVR as compared with surgical valve replacement.

34 ity did not differ before and 3 months after valve replacement.

35 high or extreme risk for conventional mitral valve replacement.

36 placement and from 16.8% to 53.7% for mitral-valve replacement.

37 (RBC) transfusion after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

38 independently associated with repeat mitral valve replacement.

39 ransplant 56 days after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

40 nly available treatment strategy is surgical valve replacement.

41 volut bioprostheses for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

42 of death who may derive benefit from aortic valve replacement.

43 anterior leaflet before transcatheter mitral valve replacement.

44 after TAVR as compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement.

45 There were 47 primary end points (41 valve replacement, 1 death, and 5 hospitalizations-1 che

46 patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (11.8% PPMI rate), we included 136 pat

47 4%-1.6%) including 1 case of surgical aortic valve replacement and 4 redo-transcatheter aortic valve

48 isk patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement and assessed 1-year clinical and hemod

49 r] p = 0.019), and increased risk for aortic valve replacement and death (n = 145; hazard ratio: 1.87

50 older adults undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement and draws attention to the impact of p

51 replacement, from 11.5% to 51.6% for aortic-valve replacement and from 16.8% to 53.7% for mitral-val

52 logistic regression to assess for changes in valve replacement and in-hospital mortality rates after

53 dney injury early after transcatheter aortic valve replacement and is an independent predictor of 30-

54 g a better alternative to concomitant aortic valve replacement and lung transplant in elderly patient

55 a common finding after transcatheter aortic valve replacement and often result in permanent pacemake

56 ement (TMVR) for patients with failed mitral valve replacement and repair.

57 e completely percutaneous approach to aortic valve replacement and revascularization has not been com

58 Delaying definitive mechanical mitral valve replacement and the constraints of anticoagulation

59 ings may have implications for the timing of valve replacement and the role of adjunctive medical the

60 reported outcome after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement and to translate this to age-specific

61 an early safety benefit over surgical aortic valve replacement and was associated with faster dischar

62 Of these, ten patients had a surgical valve replacement, and eight patients had successful tra

63 pared bioprostheses for transcatheter aortic valve replacement, and no trials have compared bioprosth

64 After transcatheter aortic valve replacement, aortic flow was nonsignificantly redu

65 Transcatheter aortic valve replacements are minimally invasive procedures, an

66 tricular mass, aortic valve area, and aortic valve replacement as a time-dependent covariate, patient

67 n multivariable analysis adjusted for aortic valve replacement as a time-dependent variable (hazard r

68 cation for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement as agreed by the heart team were rando

69 ment for outcome predictors including aortic valve replacement as time-dependent covariate, low flow

70 age, sex, and surgical/transcatheter aortic valve replacement (as time-dependent covariates); comorb

71 groups after successful transcatheter aortic valve replacement at 14 centers in Spain.

72 893 patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement at 445 hospitals were analyzed.

73 3 patients required elective surgical mitral valve replacement at 6- to 54-month follow-up.

74 aortic root enlargement (ARE) during aortic valve replacement (AVR) allows for larger prosthesis imp

75 ary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and aortic valve replacement (AVR) and the relationship between pos

76 data on loss in life expectancy after aortic valve replacement (AVR) are scarce, particularly in youn

77 e aortic stenosis undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) are unknown.

78 Aortic valve replacement (AVR) does not usually restore physiol

79 icoagulation (AC) after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR) on valve hemodynamics and clinic

80 atients, 63.8% (n = 49,706) underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR), 18.9% (n = 14,686) underwent mi

81 97]) and after further adjustment for aortic valve replacement (AVR; adjusted HR, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.15-

82 patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement, baseline LVEF was an independent pred

83 Survival free of valve replacement because of infective endocarditis was

84 patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement between the years 2011 and 2014.

85 art valves (BHVs) are commonly used as heart valve replacements but they are prone to fatigue failure

86 -expanding transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement, but these findings did not correlate

87 y slow progression to the point where aortic valve replacement can be avoided.

88 has been reported after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement, characterized using 4-dimensional com

89 re commonly reported in transcatheter aortic valve replacement clinical trials.

90 undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement comparing CS versus GA.

91 ical mechanisms of post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement complications and provide updated insi

92 13, relative to baseline trends, the odds of valve replacement decreased by 4.0% per quarter (odds ra

93 distribution including transcatheter aortic valve replacement eligibility in low-risk patients acros

94 Evolut R, and SAPIEN 3 transcatheter aortic valve replacement enrolled in the RESOLVE study (Assessm

95 warranting further analysis in modern aortic valve replacement experience.

96 ients who had undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis, patients with bic

97 undergoing transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis.

98 efficacy and safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bicuspid aortic stenosis.

99 lyzed 78 patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis between 201

100 their risk of reaching a clinical end point (valve replacement for symptoms, hospitalization, or card

101 e payments for patients who underwent aortic valve replacement from 90 days before aortic valve repla

102 ted patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement from November 1, 2011 to June 30, 2016

103 ed substantially for aortic-valve and mitral-valve replacement, from 11.5% to 51.6% for aortic-valve

104 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement has become the procedure of choice for

105 vidual end points after transcatheter aortic valve replacement has been conducted to date.

106 More recently, transcatheter aortic valve replacement has emerged as a valid alternative for

107 The performance of transcatheter aortic valve replacement has expanded considerably during the p

108 In recent years, use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement has expanded to include patients at in

109 psies (10x1x1 mm(3)) were obtained at aortic valve replacement (HFpEF(AVR), n=5; and HFrEF(AVR), n=4)

110 tion at 1 year compared with surgical aortic valve replacement; however, the effect of treatment stra

111 reased every year, exceeding surgical aortic valve replacement in 2019 (72,991 vs. 57,626), and it is

112 30-day stroke following transcatheter aortic valve replacement in a US registry population remained s

113 AVI trials (Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients) to 100%

114 AVI trials (Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients) were li

115 (Medtronic Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Risk Patients; NCT02701283).

116 kground To support decision-making in aortic valve replacement in nonelderly adults, we aim to provid

117 aortic valve hemodynamic status after aortic valve replacement in patients at low risk for surgery.

118 prosthesis was compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement in patients who had severe aortic sten

119 ould postpone or prevent the need for aortic valve replacement in patients with asymptomatic AS.

120 ment (TAVR) as compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosi

121 luate the potential for transcatheter mitral valve replacement in patients with severe MAC using an a

122 Surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with small annular dimensi

123 tracorporeal membrane oxygenation, denial of valve replacement in patients with subacute bacterial en

124 ar atrial fibrillation; transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with symptomatic severe ao

125 merging as an alternative to surgical mitral valve replacement in selected high-risk patients.

126 Transcatheter mitral valve replacement in severe mitral annular calcification

127 ive patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement in Switzerland between February 2011 a

128 Patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the PARTNER 2 trials (Placement of

129 In patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the US, vascular complications and

130 perienced in performing transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the USA and Australia.

131 tic valve replacement versus surgical aortic valve replacement in the whole cohort and within each fl

132 t 50% of patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement in the younger patients.

133 Transcatheter mitral valve replacement is a novel therapeutic approach aiming

134 Although aortic valve replacement is associated with a major benefit in

135 -stage renal disease (ESRD), surgical aortic valve replacement is associated with higher early and la

136 ure research on long-term outcomes following valve replacement is needed to identify opportunities fo

137 After aortic valve replacement, left ventricular afterload is often c

138 AS and concomitant CA, transcatheter aortic valve replacement may be preferred to surgery in these p

139 is report suggests that transcatheter aortic valve replacement may favorably impact lung transplant c

140 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement might be a good alternative; however,

141 t (AVR), 18.9% (n = 14,686) underwent mitral valve replacement (MVR), 10.5% (n = 8,219) underwent mit

142 tic stenosis to undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (n = 221) or surgery (n = 214).

143 evere valvular heart disease with mechanical valve replacement necessitates lifelong anticoagulation

144 lves) and registry the outcomes after aortic valve replacement of the 4 flow-gradient groups.

145 The benefit of transcatheter aortic valve replacement on 12-month KCCQ scores was greatest i

146 e estimated benefits of transcatheter aortic valve replacement on survival and health status compared

147 overview of current clinically adopted heart valve replacement options, with a focus on transcatheter

148 rts of patients who underwent primary aortic-valve replacement or mitral-valve replacement with a mec

149 nd 17 additional patients underwent surgical valve replacement or valve-in-valve TPVR.

150 However, the transcatheter aortic valve replacement patient presents a unique challenge as

151 d by current generation transcatheter aortic valve replacement, percutaneous endovascular abdominal a

152 in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, percutaneous endovascular abdominal a

153 mitations when used for transcatheter aortic valve replacement, percutaneous endovascular abdominal a

154 ents after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement; propensity score-matching identified

155 lmonary stenosis (PS) referred for pulmonary valve replacement (PVR).

156 Among patients who underwent aortic-valve replacement, receipt of a biologic prosthesis was

157 d Aortic Valve Stenosis Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Registry; NCT03836521).

158 egimen after successful transcatheter aortic valve replacement remains unclear, in the absence of ran

159 cement (TAVR) is supplanting surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and medical therapy (MT).

160 Patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are considered at high risk of

161 erior and may be superior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for mortality, stroke, and reho

162 a reasonable alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with severe aortic

163 valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for real-world propensity-match

164 valve replacement (TAVR) to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients 70 years or older w

165 (TAVR) is an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic

166 valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in the PARTNER (Placement of Ao

167 valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is preferred for patients with

168 severe aortic stenosis after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve r

169 replacement (TAVR) and redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) represent the 2 treatments for

170 valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) results in similar rates of dea

171 generally better than after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), especially in patients with a

172 adopted as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

173 gh, or intermediate risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

174 valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

175 ve replacement [TAVR] versus surgical aortic valve replacement [SAVR]) using trial-adjudicated outcom

176 (Cerebral Protection in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement [SENTINEL]; NCT02214277).

177 Echocardiography post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement showed a low mean residual gradient (1

178 with the Melody valve to surgical pulmonary valve replacement (SPVR) are lacking.

179 68 male/46 female patients undergoing aortic valve replacement surgery were obtained at baseline and

180 on, such as coronary artery bypass graft and valve replacement surgery, extracorporeal membrane oxyge

181 of a novel transseptal transcatheter mitral valve replacement system (Cephea Valve Technologies, San

182 delivery of the Cephea transcatheter mitral valve replacement system in an experimental model was fe

183 endocarditis (IE) post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) according to transcatheter valv

184 s the widespread use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) among patients who are at low t

185 Valve-in-valve (VIV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and redo surgical aortic valve

186 tcomes are similar with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic-valve repla

187 sist device (LVAD), and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are expensive cardiovascular te

188 tion disturbances after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are often transient.

189 he risk of IE following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are sparse and limited by the l

190 ic-valve function after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) as compared with surgical aorti

191 316 patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) at sites in all U.S. states.

192 About one-half of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) candidates have coronary artery

193 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for degenerated surgical biopro

194 With the approval of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for patients with severe sympto

195 ials support the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for the treatment of aortic ste

196 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a well-accepted opti

197 tion disturbances after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been elusive.

198 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a reasonable alt

199 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a safe and effec

200 luating the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in diabetic patients are limite

201 8 and 2017, when use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in older adults was becoming mo

202 strated the benefits of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with aortic stenosi

203 safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with pure native ao

204 ing the introduction of transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) in the United States, requireme

205 The role of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in this high-risk population is

206 computer simulation of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in tricuspid aortic valve has b

207 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) indications are expanding, lead

208 Transfemoral aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a guideline-recommended trea

209 Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgery in

210 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgical a

211 Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an option when a surgical va

212 nce of prostheses after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is generally better than after

213 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly being adopted a

214 ial results showed that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is noninferior and may be super

215 e these phenomena after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is not known.

216 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is standard therapy for patient

217 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is supplanting surgical aortic

218 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is the preferred treatment opti

219 mboembolic events after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is unclear.

220 cal complications after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may be reduced with transcathet

221 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) offers another alternative, but

222 to assess the effect of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) on hospitalizations in severe A

223 The effect of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) on kidney function stage in pat

224 0 days and 1 year after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgery.

225 al risk, treatment with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replac

226 ilar after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replac

227 mized to treatment with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replac

228 e aortic stenosis given transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replac

229 often determine whether transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replac

230 e major improvements in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) periprocedural complications in

231 ombotic treatment after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains a matter of debate.

232 al risk, treatment with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) results in lower rates of death

233 Two competing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) technologies are currently avai

234 Restricting transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to centers based on volume thre

235 ding the indication for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to low-risk patients with sympt

236 was designed to compare transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to surgical aortic valve replac

237 nding the indication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) toward lower-risk and younger p

238 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) use is increasing in patients w

239 sedation is used during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with limited evidence as to the

240 Early experience with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) within failed bioprosthetic sur

241 ronary events following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), and no study has determined th

242 ronary occlusion during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)-in-TAVR and present challenges

243 tic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

244 valve durability after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

245 y affect patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

246 in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

247 alizations 1 year after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

248 ospital complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

249 es following successful transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

250 s relationship (VOR) in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

251 protection (CEP) during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

252 o improve the safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

253 s the gold standard for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

254 dmission is common post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

255 e replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

256 ical explantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

257 results in futility of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

258 as secondary access in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

259 nce (EP) >=1 year after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

260 eath after transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR, SAVR) warranting further analys

261 oss treatment arms (eg, transcatheter aortic valve replacement [TAVR] versus surgical aortic valve re

262 oing bioprosthetic AVR (transcatheter aortic valve replacement [TAVR], n = 3,889 and surgical AVR [SA

263 an effective adjunct to transcatheter mitral valve replacement that prevents left ventricular outflow

264 well established after transcatheter aortic valve replacement, the role of Tei has not been evaluate

265 s with severe symptomatic AS awaiting aortic valve replacement, there has been a trend of increasing

266 valve replacement from 90 days before aortic valve replacement through 90 days after hospital dischar

267 ed data exist regarding transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) for patients with failed mitral

268 More recently, transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) has emerged as a potential ther

269 Transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) is a rapidly evolving therapy.

270 ercutaneous transseptal transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) system.

271 lity and exclusion from transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR).

272 Transcatheter pulmonary valve replacement (TPVR) is associated with a risk of pr

273 cused on outcomes of transcatheter pulmonary valve replacement (TPVR) with either a Sapien XT or Sapi

274 lated outcomes after transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement (TTVR), including valve function, thro

275 undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement, use of CS compared with GA resulted i

276 ra-large aortic annuli, transcatheter aortic valve replacement using 29-mm Sapien-3 and 34-mm ER is s

277 Transcatheter mitral valve replacement using aortic transcatheter heart valve

278 nd (2) to a theoretical transcatheter aortic valve replacement valve size.

279 ranscatheter Valves) of transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus standard care.

280 clinical events between transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical aortic valve replaceme

281 the survival benefit of transcatheter aortic valve replacement was also greater in the joint model (h

282 rimary analysis cohort, transcatheter aortic valve replacement was performed in 210 (79.8%), and perc

283 sis of the FRAILTY-AVR study (Frailty Aortic Valve Replacement) was performed to analyze the determin

284 ntation (eg, transcatheter aortic and mitral valve replacements) was further elucidated in large-coho

285 who may have undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement, we conducted a subgroup analysis of p

286 diography pre- and post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement were considered eligible for this anal

287 w generation devices for transfemoral aortic valve replacement were optimized on valve positioning an

288 imes (from traversal to transcatheter mitral valve replacement) were shorter, compared with the retro

289 aortic annuli underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement with 29-mm Sapien-3 (n=640) or 34-mm E

290 t primary aortic-valve replacement or mitral-valve replacement with a mechanical or biologic prosthes

291 Conclusions Aortic valve replacement with bioprostheses in young adults is

292 pers reporting clinical outcome after aortic valve replacement with currently available bioprostheses

293 undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the 25-mm Meridian valve.

294 Transfemoral aortic valve replacement with the ES3 and the Lotus were associ

295 cular access method, to transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the first generation Portico valv

296 safety, and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the HLT Meridian valve (HLT, Inc)

297 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the Meridian valve was feasible a

298 Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the self-expanding ACURATE neo di

299 ed of a total of 22 876 referrals for aortic valve replacement, with (N=8098) TAVR and (N=14 778) SAV

300 f patients treated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement, yet there remain conflicting reports