ライフサイエンスコーパス: TAVR

1 TAVR resulted in larger aortic-valve areas than did surg

2 TAVR resulted in lower mean gradients and larger aortic-

3 TAVR using the next-generation THV is clinically safe an

4 TAVR was a noninferior alternative to surgery in patient

5 TAVR was associated with global improvement in cognitive

6 TAVR was performed in the same setting if percutaneous c

7 TAVR with SAPIEN 3 in intermediate-risk patients with se

8 TAVR-related conduction disturbances, mainly new-onset l

9 r randomization to TAVR vs SAVR (PARTNER 1A; TAVR, n = 321; SAVR, n = 313), TAVR vs medical treatment

10 313), TAVR vs medical treatment (PARTNER 1B; TAVR, n = 165), and continued access (TAVR, n = 1996).

11 From January 2016 to December 2016, TAVR with the next-generation self-expanding THV was att

12 o underwent attempted implantation, 383 (202 TAVR and 181 SAVR) had an STS PROM of 7% or less (median

13 Of 12 221 TAVR patients, 2188 (17.9%) were readmitted within 30 da

14 included 963 patients treated with SAPIEN 3 TAVR and 747 with surgical valve replacement.

15 (PARTNER 1A; TAVR, n = 321; SAVR, n = 313), TAVR vs medical treatment (PARTNER 1B; TAVR, n = 165), a

16 Compared with SAVR patients (N=357), TAVR patients (N=390) had a lower mean aortic valve grad

17 ons Predicted Risk of Mortality score 5.6%), TAVR and SAVR patients experienced no difference in 1-ye

18 atus was available for 1833 individuals (950 TAVR, 883 SAVR) who formed the primary analytic cohort.

19 ER 1B; TAVR, n = 165), and continued access (TAVR, n = 1996).

20 After TAVR, all-cause and cardiovascular 30-day mortality rate

21 After TAVR, women had more vascular complications (17.3% vs. 1

22 tation was noted in 89 patients (3.7%) after TAVR and increased over time.

23 vention occurred in 20 patients (0.8%) after TAVR and in 1 (0.3%) after SAVR and became less frequent

24 Lower SBP at 30 days after TAVR was associated with higher mortality (20.0% for SBP

25 and an echocardiogram obtained 30 days after TAVR.

26 association of conduction disturbances after TAVR and propose a strategy for the management of these

27 es of patients who had CT imaging done after TAVR or SAVR.

28 s and permanent pacemaker implantation after TAVR, with prior right bundle-branch block and transcath

29 imaging protocol at varying intervals after TAVR and SAVR.

30 ltidetector computed tomography (MDCT) after TAVR.

31 rse remodeling and increased mortality after TAVR and improves risk prediction of mortality when adde

32 30-day mortality, and 1-year mortality after TAVR in patients with and without DM were evaluated usin

33 le in ventricular recovery and outcome after TAVR.

34 had improved 3-year clinical outcomes after TAVR compared with surgery.

35 independently associated with outcomes after TAVR is unknown.

36 Despite excellent outcomes after TAVR with the new-generation valves, prevention and trea

37 ve medical therapy to improve outcomes after TAVR.

38 ndocarditis occurred in 20006 patients after TAVR (incidence, 1.1% per person-year; 95% CI, 1.1%-1.4%

39 m data were available for 424 patients after TAVR and 49 after SAVR.

40 status outcomes of surviving patients after TAVR in the context of an unselected population.

41 Thirty-day readmissions after TAVR are frequent and are related to baseline comorbidit

42 Mean valve gradients were similar after TAVR and SAVR.

43 patients, improvement in health status after TAVR was similar to that seen in the pivotal clinical tr

44 Patients were stratified after TAVR into tertiles by discharge LVSVI status (severe low

45 Predictors of early stroke after TAVR included clinical and procedural factors; predictor

46 During the first year of follow-up after TAVR, patients with LV dysfunction and low AVG had highe

47 at baseline and at 30 days and 1 year after TAVR using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire

48 ssociated with health status at 1 year after TAVR were examined using multivariable linear regression

49 1 in 3 still had a poor outcome 1 year after TAVR.

50 Based on annual TAVR volume, hospitals were classified as low (<50), med

51 From the pure native AR TAVR multicenter registry, procedural and clinical outco

52 Off-label TAVR was defined as TAVR in patients with known bicuspid valve, moderate aor

53 r aiding patient selection and management as TAVR use becomes widespread.

54 these patients, 1660 underwent an attempted TAVR or surgical procedure.

55 and Cys-C (cystatin-C) were assessed before TAVR and in 100 sex-matched healthy controls.

56 here were no significant differences between TAVR and SAVR in any health status measures at 1 or 2 ye

57 ce in all-cause mortality at 2 years between TAVR and SAVR (8.0% versus 9.8%, respectively; P=0.54) o

58 alth status improved significantly with both TAVR and SAVR through 2 years of follow up.

59 Over 2 years, both TAVR and SAVR were associated with significant improveme

60 es of death, stroke, and DAOH to 1 year, but TAVR patients were more likely to be discharged home.

61 PCI followed by TAVR in the same session had similar outcomes than TAVR

62 common among patients undergoing commercial TAVR via transfemoral and nontransfemoral access.

63 /=3%) U.S. patients who underwent commercial TAVR or SAVR were examined.

64 t and are related to baseline comorbidities, TAVR access site, and post-procedure complications.

65 tic stenosis in a randomized trial comparing TAVR (performed with the use of a self-expanding prosthe

66 y two-thirds of patients during contemporary TAVR.

67 changing for a rigid guidewire, conventional TAVR was performed through transcaval introducer sheaths

68 Compared with the early-generation devices, TAVR using the new-generation devices was associated wit

69 t risk profiles and treated with a different TAVR device.

70 Direct-TAVR was possible in 99% of patients, whereas device suc

71 f 761 consecutive patients (BAVP=372; direct-TAVR=389) were included.

72 lar between groups (BAVP=81.2% versus direct-TAVR=78.1%; P=0.3).

73 e coronary angiography and ad hoc PCI during TAVR is feasible and was not associated with increased p

74 uated the safety and efficacy of TCEP during TAVR.

75 th excess death or reintervention for either TAVR or SAVR.

76 Denmark and Sweden were randomized to either TAVR (n=145) or SAVR (n=135) with follow-up planned for

77 patients with severe AS treated with either TAVR or SAVR.

78 Transcaval access enabled TAVR in patients who were not good candidates for transt

79 abase to identify hospitals with established TAVR programs (performing at least 5 TAVRs in the first

80 Conclusions and Relevance: Self-expanding TAVR compares favorably with SAVR in high-risk patients

81 re randomly assigned (1:1) to self-expanding TAVR or to SAVR.

82 sk factor for death and disability following TAVR and SAVR.

83 ith an increased risk of mortality following TAVR in patients with severe AS and preexisting LF.

84 ty scales to predict poor outcomes following TAVR or SAVR.

85 d effect on 1-year outcomes of PVR following TAVR with a third-generation balloon-expandable transcat

86 r, single-arm trial of transcaval access for TAVR in patients who were ineligible for femoral artery

87 Two-year all-cause mortality for TAVR vs SAVR was 15.0% (95% CI, 8.9-10.0) vs 26.3% (95%

88 ospital TAVR volume and patient outcomes for TAVR by using data from 42,988 commercial procedures con

89 The 30-day readmission rate for TAVR was recently reported at 17.9%.

90 Patients receiving commercially funded TAVR in the United States are included in the Transcathe

91 To assess the association between hospital TAVR volume and 30-day readmission.

92 dge, an inverse association between hospital TAVR volume and 30-day readmissions.

93 uthors evaluated the association of hospital TAVR volume and patient outcomes for TAVR by using data

94 However, TAVR patients were more likely to be discharged home aft

95 In TAVR, death/reintervention was associated with lower eje

96 residual aortic regurgitation was higher in TAVR patients (6.8% vs. 0.0% in SAVR; p < 0.001).

97 tilization and the continuous improvement in TAVR outcomes, these data have important implications to

98 Furthermore, improvements in TAVR technology, akin to the increasing experience of op

99 Thus, sex-specific risk in TAVR is the opposite of that in SAVR, for which female s

100 provided reassuring data regarding trends in TAVR performance in an all-comers population on a nation

101 Of 16252 index TAVR procedures, 663 (4.1%), 3067 (18.9%), and 12522 (77

102 The association between institutional TAVR volume and the 30-day readmission metric has not be

103 as higher among patients receiving off-label TAVR than those receiving on-label TAVR (6.3% vs 4.7%; P

104 Frequency of off-label TAVR use and the association with in-hospital, 30-day, a

105 The median rate of off-label TAVR use per hospital was 6.8% (range, 0%-34.7%; interqu

106 tional research on the efficacy of off-label TAVR use.

107 Off-label TAVR was defined as TAVR in patients with known bicuspid

108 nterquartile range, 78-88 years]), off-label TAVR was used in 2272 patients (9.5%).

109 off-label TAVR than those receiving on-label TAVR (6.3% vs 4.7%; P < .001), as was 30-day mortality (

110 DM status and therapy in the world's largest TAVR registry.

111 At 1 month, TAVR was associated with better health status than SAVR,

112 and female subjects from the U.S. nationwide TAVR registry.

113 Nonetheless, TAVR with BAVP was associated with a higher rate of new

114 of 7780 patients undergoing nontransfemoral TAVR had PAD.

115 The initial adoption of TAVR into practice in the United States showed that incr

116 Unplanned LM PCI performed because of TAVR-related coronary complication, compared with planne

117 ed when evaluating the risks and benefits of TAVR for individual patients, neither severe LV dysfunct

118 ated that a reduction in the initial cost of TAVR by approximately $1,650 would lead to an incrementa

119 Within 30 days of TAVR, 87 (3.3%) patients experienced a stroke (TF 58 [3.

120 To determine the effect of TAVR among patients with baseline renal impairment.

121 c valve replacement (TAVR) and the effect of TAVR on subsequent renal function are, to our knowledge,

122 The effect of TAVR vs SAVR on health status in patients at intermediat

123 e the continuing safety and effectiveness of TAVR in lower-risk patients.

124 timate the incremental cost-effectiveness of TAVR versus SAVR from a U.S.

125 to determine the safety and effectiveness of TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), pa

126 dy was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis compared with surg

127 s for HMW multimers and CT-ADP at the end of TAVR were each associated with mortality at 1 year.

128 linical outcomes of the latest generation of TAVR devices demonstrated at least parity with surgical

129 Modifications of TAVR, emboli-prevention devices, and better intraprocedu

130 n of 0.07) to evaluate the noninferiority of TAVR as compared with surgical valve replacement.

131 performance trends and clinical outcomes of TAVR during a 6-year period.

132 Outcomes of TAVR plus LM PCI have not been previously reported.

133 This study sought to compare the outcomes of TAVR with early- and new-generation devices in symptomat

134 by insulin dependency in the performance of TAVR.

135 ive functions was observed in one-quarter of TAVR recipients, persisting at 1 year in 10% of patients

136 g patients in whom the risk-benefit ratio of TAVR is not favorable and should not be performed.

137 argest database available on late results of TAVR.

138 R) should include assessment of the risks of TAVR compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SA

139 entific trials are investigating the role of TAVR in lower-risk aortic stenosis populations, in patie

140 Studies of TAVR in low-flow severe aortic stenosis patients have de

141 ents undergoing CAD screening at the time of TAVR procedure were prospectively included in this study

142 Use of TAVR for off-label indications has not been previously r

143 rns and adverse outcomes of off-label use of TAVR in US clinical practice.

144 Off-label use of TAVR.

145 roups of patients undergoing elective BAV or TAVR were evaluated.

146 -matched patients undergoing elective BAV or TAVR, rates of in-hospital mortality (2.9% versus 3.5%;

147 ervention (PCI) was uncomplicated; otherwise TAVR was postponed.

148 lected intermediate- and high-risk patients, TAVR and SAVR resulted in similar rates of death, stroke

149 In high-risk patients, TAVR for bioprosthetic aortic valve failure is associate

150 After PCI, TAVR was postponed in 2 patients (0.3%).

151 of 23847 patients from 328 sites performing TAVR between November 9, 2011, and September 30, 2014, w

152 In a high-risk clinical trial population, TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis provided meaningfu

153 mean overall distances walked pre- and post-TAVR (6 months post-TAVR) were 204+/-119 and 263+/-116 m

154 g exercise capacity assessment pre- and post-TAVR may help to improve patient risk stratification.

155 e is an independent association between post-TAVR blood pressure, systemic arterial load, and mortali

156 ack of improvement in exercise capacity post-TAVR.

157 ognostic value of AR as assessed by CMR post-TAVR.

158 dies that reported the incidence of CVE post-TAVR while providing raw data for predictors of interest

159 to analyze the predictors of 30-day CVE post-TAVR.

160 The need for PPI early post-TAVR did not increase the risk of death.

161 and with new-onset atrial fibrillation post-TAVR (RR: 1.85; p = 0.005), and for procedures performed

162 The lack of functional improvement post-TAVR was predicted by a mix of baseline and periprocedur

163 event rates, measured from the 6-month post-TAVR period onward.

164 0.009) and new-onset anemia at 6 months post-TAVR (P=0.009).

165 ces walked pre- and post-TAVR (6 months post-TAVR) were 204+/-119 and 263+/-116 m, respectively (Delt

166 capacity between baseline and 6 months post-TAVR, and ascertain factors associated with and clinical

167 vorable changes in the first few months post-TAVR, with a decrease of -2.9 mm Hg in aortic valve mean

168 ercise capacity assessments at 6 months post-TAVR.

169 portant factors in predicting mortality post-TAVR, with particularly poor survival when flow or eject

170 Periprocedural PPI post-TAVR was not associated with any increased risk of all-c

171 ether a specific antithrombotic therapy post-TAVR may reduce the risk of VHD.

172 specific cognitive domains up to 1 year post-TAVR were evaluated.

173 rge (1.65; 95% CI, 1.21-2.26; P = .001), pre-TAVR mean transvalvular gradient (0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.9

174 ollow-up eGFR>/=10% higher than baseline pre-TAVR), worsened eGFR (>/=10% lower), or no change in ren

175 , and no dual antiplatelet therapy; high pre-TAVR aortic peak gradient was a risk factor for stroke e

176 ed among those with cognitive impairment pre-TAVR.

177 of 7% or less (median [interquartile range]: TAVR, 5.3% [4.3%-6.1%]; SAVR, 5.3% [4.1%-5.9%]).

178 patients in the United States have received TAVR for an off-label indication.

179 se patients to that in patients who received TAVR for an on-label indication.

180 with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of th

181 alves after transcatheter valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has b

182 with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic-valve replacement.

183 ng a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and the effect of TAVR on subsequent renal functio

184 fter transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are limited.

185 oing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are unknown.

186 l of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenos

187 e of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for severe aortic stenosis is growing rapidly.

188 e of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for the treatment of aortic stenosis in high- and

189 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a safe and effective therapy for patien

190 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a well-accepted option for treating pat

191 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been introduced into U.S. clinical practice wi

192 als, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been shown to improve symptoms and quality of

193 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized management of high-risk patient

194 s of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in diabetic patients are limited by small sample s

195 y of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with pure native aortic regurgitation

196 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a transformational and rapidly evolving treatme

197 ough transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is an accepted alternative to surgery in patients

198 fter transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an important concern.

199 nce: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is now a well-accepted alternative to surgical AVR

200 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is standard therapy for patients with severe aorti

201 n of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) led to renewed interest in balloon aortic valvulop

202 VIV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may be less effective in small surgical valves bec

203 fter transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may be reduced with transcatheter cerebral embolic

204 er a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) proced

205 with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) result

206 redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures >2 weeks post procedure were collected

207 for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) should include assessment of the risks of TAVR com

208 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administratio

209 s of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a next-generation, self-expanding transcathet

210 wing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with first and second generations of transcatheter

211 ring transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with limited evidence as to the safety and efficac

212 with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) within failed bioprosthetic surgical aortic valves

213 eous transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) without the hazards and discomfort of transthoraci

214 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), because of its less-invasive nature, avoidance of

215 oing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

216 post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

217 fter transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

218 oing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

219 oing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

220 wing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

221 fter transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

222 rtic stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, TAVR volume is projected to increase exponentially in th

223 aortic stenosis at increased surgical risk, TAVR was associated with better systolic valve performan

224 Relative to SAVR, TAVR reduced initial length of stay an average of 4.4 da

225 ter Valves (PARTNER) 1 Trial with successful TAVR or surgical AVR (SAVR) obtained preimplantation and

226 Risk factors for early stroke after TA-TAVR included more postdilatations, pure aortic stenosis

227 was a risk factor for stroke early after TF-TAVR.

228 n the same session had similar outcomes than TAVR in which PCI was not performed.

229 tic stenosis patients have demonstrated that TAVR has a significant mortality benefit compared with m

230 Nonetheless, given that TAVR indications are likely to expand to patients at low

231 It is likely that TAVR will play an increasingly important role in the man

232 TAVR compared with surgery, suggesting that TAVR might be the preferred treatment alternative in int

233 The TAVR group included 59% male, with an average age of 84

234 vs. 10.2%, p = 0.83) was similar between the TAVR plus LM PCI cohort and matched controls.

235 mean (SD) ages were 81.5 (7.6) years for the TAVR group and 81.2 years (6.6) for the SAVR group.

236 ce of the primary end point was 12.6% in the TAVR group and 14.0% in the surgery group (95% credible

237 Although discrimination of the TAVR Poor Outcome risk models was generally moderate, ca

238 l based on the degree of invasiveness of the TAVR procedure will decrease, making it more difficult t

239 The primary objective of the TAVR-LM registry is to evaluate clinical outcomes in pat

240 gible patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to TAVR with a self-expanding bioprosthesis or SAVR (N=747)

241 ccessful implantation after randomization to TAVR vs SAVR (PARTNER 1A; TAVR, n = 321; SAVR, n = 313),

242 k patients with severe AS were randomized to TAVR with the Sapien XT valve or SAVR in the Placement o

243 morbidity and mortality that are similar to TAVR.

244 s (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.03-1.46), transapical TAVR (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.05-1.39), chronic kidney disea

245 ndergoing elective percutaneous transfemoral TAVR between April 1, 2014, and June 30, 2015.

246 Of 19 660 patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR, 4810 (24.5%) had PAD; 3730 (47.9%) of 7780 patient

247 Among patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR, PAD is associated with a higher incidence of 1-yea

248 tients in FRANCE TAVI underwent transfemoral TAVR.

249 risk mortality score, 6.7+/-4.2%) undergoing TAVR completed both baseline and follow-up exercise capa

250 rospective cohort of older adults undergoing TAVR or SAVR was assembled at 14 centers in 3 countries

251 30-day measures of renal function undergoing TAVR in the PARTNER 1 trial and continued access registr

252 entified patients >/=65 years old undergoing TAVR from 2011 to 2015.

253 Patients with PAD undergoing TAVR via nontransfemoral access did not have significant

254 year follow-up, patients with PAD undergoing TAVR via transfemoral access had a higher incidence of d

255 METHODS AND Patients undergoing TAVR (International Classification of Diseases-Ninth Rev

256 Patients undergoing TAVR and PCI in the same session had similar rate of the

257 ce, approximately 16% of patients undergoing TAVR are >/=90 years of age.

258 proximately one-third of patients undergoing TAVR did not improve their exercise capacity postprocedu

259 Female patients undergoing TAVR had a different risk profile compared with male pat

260 nonagenarians to younger patients undergoing TAVR in current practice.

261 ate clinical outcomes in patients undergoing TAVR plus LM PCI.

262 ctively collected in 204 patients undergoing TAVR plus LM PCI.

263 n centers randomized 363 patients undergoing TAVR to a safety arm (n = 123), device imaging (n = 121)

264 general anesthesia with patients undergoing TAVR with conscious sedation on an intention-to-treat ba

265 ere performed to compare patients undergoing TAVR with general anesthesia with patients undergoing TA

266 In this series of patients undergoing TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve, at least moderate PVR was

267 his series of real-world patients undergoing TAVR, low AVG, but not LV dysfunction, was associated wi

268 In patients undergoing TAVR, screening of CAD with invasive coronary angiograph

269 er compared with younger patients undergoing TAVR, the absolute and relative differences were clinica

270 predictions in high-risk patients undergoing TAVR.

271 VHD in a large cohort of patients undergoing TAVR.

272 ntermediate or high surgical risk undergoing TAVR with the SAPIEN 3.

273 THODS AND A total of 112 subjects undergoing TAVR were included in the prospective registry.

274 th a mean STS score of 6.7 +/- 6.7 underwent TAVR.

275 9.9%) women and 11,844 (51.1%) men underwent TAVR.

276 ts with severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American Colleg

277 nt was frequent among patients who underwent TAVR.

278 and patients with severe CAD left untreated (TAVR+PCI: 10.4%; severe CAD left untreated: 15.4%; no-CA

279 s successfully performed before or after VIV TAVR by inflation of a high-pressure balloon positioned

280 performed at baseline, immediately after VIV TAVR, and after BVF.

281 y in small surgical valves to facilitate VIV TAVR with either balloon-expandable or self-expanding tr

282 e balloon can be performed to facilitate VIV TAVR.

283 ully performed in 20 patients undergoing VIV TAVR with balloon-expandable (n=8) or self-expanding (n=

284 cohort of high-risk patients undergoing VIV TAVR.

285 c valves has shown that valve-in-valve (VIV) TAVR is a feasible therapeutic option with acceptable ac

286 ount importance, particularly in an era when TAVR expansion toward treating lower-risk patients is co

287 ation, and transfusion requirements, whereas TAVR had higher rates of residual aortic regurgitation a

288 $17,849 per patient, respectively), whereas TAVR was projected to provide a lifetime gain of 0.32 qu

289 wed increased risk of postoperative AKI with TAVR, but it is unclear whether differences in patient r

290 s aortic valve hemodynamics were better with TAVR patients (mean aortic valve gradient 7.62 +/- 3.57

291 ital and 30-day mortality in comparison with TAVR with general anesthesia in both unadjusted and adju

292 y health status improvement was greater with TAVR, but only among patients treated via transfemoral a

293 nd projected lifetime costs were higher with TAVR than with SAVR (differences $11,260 and $17,849 per

294 rability of quality-of-life improvement with TAVR vs SAVR in this population.

295 Many initial obstacles with TAVR have largely been overcome, including frequent acce

296 t superiority for our composite outcome with TAVR compared with surgery, suggesting that TAVR might b

297 Among 47 643 patients treated with TAVR from November 2011 through September 2015 at 394 US

298 nts with severe aortic stenosis treated with TAVR in the PARTNER I trial (Placement of Aortic Transca

299 comes among unselected patients treated with TAVR is of critical importance.

300 ic discrimination to preclude treatment with TAVR.