ライフサイエンスコーパス: aortic valve replacement

1 ith TAVR and from 3.8% to 2.2% with surgical aortic-valve replacement).

2 rtality in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

3 rdiography to determine the optimum time for aortic valve replacement.

4 re aortic stenosis considering transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

5 ively affect the outcome after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

6 r computed tomography within 3 months before aortic valve replacement.

7 rliest time after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

8 thy patients with aortic stenosis undergoing aortic valve replacement.

9 ed with 30-day mortality after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

10 oint of death, unplanned hospitalization, or aortic valve replacement.

11 marked early improvement after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

12 failure, stroke, myocardial infarction, and aortic valve replacement.

13 utcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

14 of intermediate-risk patients given surgical aortic valve replacement.

15 tcomes, in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

16 jection fraction (LVEF) before transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

17 tcome in patients eligible for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

18 f female sex on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

19 oor, and current guidelines recommend prompt aortic valve replacement.

20 edictor of late survival after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

21 ated with faster AS progression and need for aortic valve replacement.

22 F) of <50% as the threshold for referral for aortic valve replacement.

23 r computed tomography within 3 months before aortic valve replacement.

24 sment of aortic annulus before transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

25 nd broaden the applications of transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

26 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

27 potential for guiding the optimal timing of aortic valve replacement.

28 low-risk patients eligible for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

29 rger if patients had undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

30 lion (95% CI, 1.3-2.6) eligible for surgical aortic valve replacement.

31 o identify patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

32 jection fraction recovery post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

33 million patients eligible for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

34 Appropriate valve sizing is critical in aortic valve replacement.

35 hocardiographic outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

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

37 ocedural risk than those undergoing surgical aortic-valve replacement.

38 her rate of survival at 1 year than surgical aortic-valve replacement.

39 t 24 months in patients undergoing attempted aortic-valve replacement.

40 until 55 years of age among those undergoing aortic-valve replacement.

41 f a self-expanding prosthesis) with surgical aortic-valve replacement.

42 ) 0.94 (0.84-0.99) compared to dysfunctional aortic valve replacement, 0.78 (0.73-0.87), P < .001, as

43 2 (82-112) seconds compared to dysfunctional aortic valve replacement, 139 (122-177) seconds, P < .00

44 rmally functioning surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement, 24 patients with dysfunctional

45 replacement, 24 patients with dysfunctional aortic valve replacement, 36 patients with normally func

46 both (2%), pulmonic (0.4%), or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (5%).

47 e </=35 mL/m(2)) was found in 26%, and after aortic valve replacement, 54% of patients had PPM, defin

48 group, including symptom development (69%), aortic valve replacement (67%), and cardiac death (4%).

49 Normal aortic valve replacement also had a higher VWF activity

50 y 1.9 million patients eligible for surgical aortic valve replacement and 1.0 million patients eligib

51 In small subgroups, such as aortic valve replacement and aortic valve replacement+co

52 ography; the secondary endpoint was need for aortic valve replacement and cardiac death during 3.5 +/

53 of Lp(a) or OxPL-apoB had increased risk of aortic valve replacement and cardiac death.

54 ies are a common finding after transcatheter aortic valve replacement and often result in permanent p

55 nt of anticipated benefit from transcatheter aortic valve replacement and support the need for future

56 s with AS aged >65 years undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement and was associated with a poor

57 urgery, under anticoagulation after a recent aortic valve replacement and without a medical history o

58 but were abnormal in 20 of 24 dysfunctional aortic valve replacements and in 14 of 19 dysfunctional

59 or multimers were abnormal in 1 of 26 normal aortic valve replacements and in 2 of 36 normal mitral v

60 l-valve replacement, from 11.5% to 51.6% for aortic-valve replacement and from 16.8% to 53.7% for mit

61 evolution, support the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement as the preferred therapy in HR

62 mortality and congestive heart failure after aortic valve replacement (AVR) according to preoperative

63 urgical aortic root enlargement (ARE) during aortic valve replacement (AVR) allows for larger prosthe

64 The benefit of aortic valve replacement (AVR) among NFLG patients is co

65 etermine whether a less-invasive approach to aortic valve replacement (AVR) improves clinical outcome

66 too high risk or inoperable for conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) in the PARTNER (Placement

67 gement of the ascending aorta at the time of aortic valve replacement (AVR) in these patients is cont

68 Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is only formally indicate

69 Current guidelines recommend aortic valve replacement (AVR) when the aortic valve is

70 of patients undergoing primary bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR), reoperation to relieve s

71 of patients undergoing primary bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR), reoperation to relieve s

72 There are several options available for aortic valve replacement (AVR), with few comparative rep

73 redictor of mortality in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR).

74 s procedure and those receiving a mechanical aortic valve replacement (AVR).

75 l low flow (PLF), and normal flow (NF) after aortic valve replacement (AVR).

76 rity of the stenosis and survival benefit of aortic valve replacement (AVR).

77 42 189 patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement between the years 2011 and 2014

78 decline after transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement but had large selection and out

79 opriate option for most patients who require aortic valve replacement, but the transcatheter approach

80 The Vancouver transcatheter aortic valve replacement clinical pathway requires a rig

81 The implementation of a transcatheter aortic valve replacement clinical pathway shifted the pr

82 groups, such as aortic valve replacement and aortic valve replacement+coronary artery bypass grafting

83 The 54,782 patients with transcatheter aortic valve replacement demonstrated decreases in expec

84 eatment distribution including transcatheter aortic valve replacement eligibility in low-risk patient

85 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement emerged approximately 20 years

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

87 tic aneurysm repair, carotid endarterectomy, aortic valve replacement, esophagectomy, pancreatectomy,

88 sion, and consideration of optimum timing of aortic valve replacement, even in elderly patients.

89 Furthermore, aortic valve replacement event rates were significantly

90 th renal impairment undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, FE MR angiography is technical

91 ified all adult patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis at Mayo Cli

92 rt failure, acute myocardial infarction, and aortic valve replacement for AS between 1989 and 2009 we

93 pair, the twin with a BAV underwent surgical aortic valve replacement for clinical indications.

94 ortic Transcatheter Valves) of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for high-risk (HR) and inoperab

95 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for incidence of infective endo

96 ely analyzed 78 patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis betw

97 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for treatment of aortic stenosi

98 area<0.6 cm(2)/m(2)) who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement from January 1995 to June 2009.

99 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement has become the procedure of cho

100 The rapid growth of transcatheter aortic valve replacement has been fuelled by improved te

101 In recent years, use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement has expanded to include patient

102 h aortic stenosis treated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement has not been well characterized

103 LVEF recovery after CoreValve transcatheter aortic valve replacement have not been described.

104 derly and reduced perioperative mortality in aortic valve replacement, have translated into favorable

105 er 25% patients presenting for transcatheter aortic valve replacement having chronic kidney disease (

106 only treatment shown to improve survival is aortic valve replacement; however, before symptoms occur

107 e requirements of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement in contemporary practice.

108 which could postpone or prevent the need for aortic valve replacement in patients with asymptomatic A

109 hy for vascular mapping before transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with renal impairme

110 Surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with small annular

111 (Transcaval Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in People With No Good Options

112 onsecutive patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement in Switzerland between February

113 mportance of LVEF on long-term outcome after aortic valve replacement in symptomatic and asymptomatic

114 The benefit of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in terms of quality of life is

115 ular therapy, combined with increased use of aortic valve replacement in the elderly and reduced peri

116 d discharge ECGs who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the Placement of AoRTic TraN

117 required for reimbursement for transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the United States.

118 choice between bioprosthetic and mechanical aortic valve replacement in younger patients is controve

119 er aortic-valve bioprosthesis, with surgical aortic-valve replacement in patients with severe aortic

120 ients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing aortic valve replacement, independent of the presence of

121 ore, prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after aortic valve replacement is a predictor of reduced survi

122 persistence of severe PH after transcatheter aortic valve replacement is a stronger predictor of 1-ye

123 The experience with transcatheter aortic valve replacement is increasing worldwide; howeve

124 After aortic valve replacement, left ventricular afterload is

125 al evaluation for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement, many centers worldwide use inv

126 rventions for aortic stenosis (transcatheter aortic valve replacement) may alter the risk-benefit rat

127 VR were older than those undergoing surgical aortic-valve replacement (mean [+/-SD] age, 81.0+/-6.1 y

128 nalyzer closure times were lower with normal aortic valve replacement, mean (range) 92 (82-112) secon

129 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement might be a good alternative; ho

130 eurysm repair, coronary artery bypass graft, aortic valve replacement, mitral valve repair) using an

131 operable patients treated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement, moderate or severe TR and righ

132 recorded as having undergone a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (n = 3223), an endovascular ane

133 gh Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement; NCT01240902).

134 gh Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement; NCT01240902).

135 of 8039 patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (November 2011-June 2014) and w

136 The outcome measure was the occurrence of aortic valve replacement or all-cause death or during fo

137 , ECG strain was an independent predictor of aortic valve replacement or cardiovascular death (hazard

138 Surgical aortic valve replacement or transcatheter aortic valve i

139 ed cohorts of patients who underwent primary aortic-valve replacement or mitral-valve replacement wit

140 ssociation functional class III/IV symptoms, aortic valve replacement, or cardiac death, and to compa

141 However, the transcatheter aortic valve replacement patient presents a unique chall

142 Of the 588 transcatheter aortic valve replacement patients, we reviewed 496 conse

143 Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement performed via the PC route is a

144 THV technology, variability in transcatheter aortic valve replacement practice, end points included a

145 9147 in 2013, whereas the number of surgical aortic-valve replacement procedures decreased slightly,

146 outcomes for all isolated TAVR and surgical aortic-valve replacement procedures performed in Germany

147 In total, 32,581 TAVR and 55,992 surgical aortic-valve replacement procedures were performed.

148 tality [PROM]) of 7% to 6% and transcatheter aortic valve replacement PROM (TVT PROM) of 4% to 3% (bo

149 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement provides results comparable to

150 atients (63 +/- 8 years, 67% male) underwent aortic valve replacement +/- proximal aortic surgery for

151 l events rates associated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement raised concerns that ultimately

152 Current guidelines consider aortic valve replacement reasonable in asymptomatic pati

153 Among patients who underwent aortic-valve replacement, receipt of a biologic prosthes

154 ied 682 unique hospitals performing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and MV replacement and r

155 aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for high-risk patients w

156 ortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with aortic

157 -expanding prosthesis compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with severe

158 acement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with sympto

159 theter valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has been found with CT i

160 tic valve replacement (TAVR) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in a real-world setting.

161 d clinical trial compared TAVR with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in an all-comers patient

162 aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) procedure; however, its

163 he incidence of PPM in the TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) randomized control trial

164 aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) results in similar 2-yea

165 ortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), but no studies have com

166 lve self-expanding bioprosthesis or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), including a lower-risk

167 ty and effectiveness of TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), particularly in interme

168 ingful evidence of its benefit over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

169 of the risks of TAVR compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

170 sociated with poorer outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

171 h a self-expanding bioprosthesis or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

172 (HRQoL) outcomes when compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

173 e implantation (TAVI) compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

174 Stroke is a major complication of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

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

176 demic Research Consortium) for transcatheter aortic valve replacement set the standard for selecting

177 Aortic valve replacement (surgical or catheter based) wa

178 with the low-profile SAPIEN 3 transcatheter aortic valve replacement system demonstrated very low ra

179 first exposure to transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TA-TAVR) for many clinical sit

180 A percutaneous approach with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and percutaneous coronar

181 e aortic stenosis undergoing a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and the effect of TAVR o

182 arrhythmias in candidates for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and to determine the imp

183 sex-specific differences after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are conflicting.

184 nt ischemic attack (TIA) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are limited by reporting

185 a on 30-day readmissions after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are limited.

186 PAD in a population undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are unknown.

187 e bleeding complications after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are unknown.

188 s in patients with AS by using transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) as a clinical model of i

189 y who underwent self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) compared with an objecti

190 (TA) versus transfemoral (TF) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) could be attributable to

191 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) enables treatment of hig

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

193 Use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for severe aortic stenos

194 ized trials support the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for the treatment of aor

195 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a safe and ef

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

197 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been introduced into

198 In clinical trials, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been shown to improv

199 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has evolved into a routi

200 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized manag

201 s of the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have been based primaril

202 s with severe aortic stenosis, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) improves survival when c

203 ata evaluating the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in diabetic patients are

204 t about safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with pure na

205 a demonstrating the outcome of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in the very elderly pati

206 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a transformational an

207 theter Valves (PARTNER) trial, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an accepted treatment

208 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to sur

209 Although transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an effective treatmen

210 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an effective treatmen

211 The risk for stroke after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an important concern.

212 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an option in certain

213 c regurgitation (AR) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is associated with great

214 sk for surgery, self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is associated with impro

215 nifying myocardial injury post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is common, yet its clini

216 Importance: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is now a well-accepted a

217 Direct transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is regarded as having po

218 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is standard therapy for

219 The introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) led to renewed interest

220 Valve-in-valve (VIV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may be less effective in

221 urological complications after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may be reduced with tran

222 3 years is much the same with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve

223 surgical risk, treatment with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve

224 or functional recovery after a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve

225 ct of sex has been observed in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) outcomes from small obse

226 Identifying transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) patients at high risk fo

227 nd outcomes of patients having transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) performed at 348 U.S. ce

228 of patients who underwent redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures >2 weeks post

229 coagulation is required during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures.

230 maker implantation (PPI) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains controversial.

231 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) revolutionized the treat

232 Patient selection for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) should include assessmen

233 h risk for poor outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to help guide treatment

234 The use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to treat aortic stenosis

235 lves) trial were randomized to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus AVR (PARTNER-A ar

236 e comparative effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus surgical aortic v

237 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was approved by the Food

238 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was approved by the US F

239 device performance outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a next-generation,

240 re aortic valve stenosis after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding bi

241 increased mortality following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with first and second ge

242 scious sedation is used during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with limited evidence as

243 ortic valve stenosis to either transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the CoreValve self-

244 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the SAPIEN 3 valve

245 Early experience with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) within failed bioprosthe

246 may enable fully percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) without the hazards and

247 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), because of its less-inv

248 ith aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), studies have suggested

249 outcome in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

250 endocarditis after undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

251 lve (THV) thrombosis following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

252 a frequent complication after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

253 amic deterioration (VHD) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

254 d disability on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

255 dictors of cardiac death after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

256 d in 10% to 20% of cases after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

257 the well-known deficiencies of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

258 agement in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

259 ions in exercise capacity post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

260 dverse clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

261 urvival rates are similar with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic-valv

262 patient who had a stroke after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) during an ongoing clinic

263 to 20% of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) for aortic stenosis.

264 Although transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is an accepted alternati

265 Since the adoption of transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR), questions have been rai

266 We compared transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR), using a self-expanding

267 expanding transcatheter valve (transcatheter aortic valve replacement [TAVR] group) or to aortic valv

268 After transcatheter aortic valve replacement, the presence of AF at discharg

269 non-US cohort of patients with transcatheter aortic valve replacement, the validation of the TVT regi

270 Although transcatheter aortic valve replacement thrombosis is a multifactorial

271 The median time from aortic valve replacement to CT for the entire cohort was

272 patients who are not surgical candidates for aortic valve replacement to improve their survival and f

273 ression, and the only available treatment is aortic valve replacement, to which not all patients are

274 ly six patients at 5 years, of whom five had aortic valve replacement treatment outside of the study.

275 ty and safety end points after transcatheter aortic valve replacement using a collaborative meta-anal

276 ive implanted to a theoretical transcatheter aortic valve replacement valve size resulted in GOAs 25%

277 size and (2) to a theoretical transcatheter aortic valve replacement valve size.

278 Implanted surgical aortic valve replacement valves were smaller relative to

279 ater predictive value for post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement vascular complications than ang

280 at a normal flow rate and type of treatment (aortic valve replacement versus conservative), rest GLS

281 atients underwent transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement via open surgical (OS) or fully

282 The benefit associated with aortic valve replacement was confined to the HG aortic s

283 entricular function in an era where surgical aortic valve replacement was the sole therapy.

284 concomitant reduction in the use of surgical aortic-valve replacement was moderate.

285 atients who may have undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement, we conducted a subgroup analys

286 valuate natural history, patients undergoing aortic valve replacement were censored at the time of su

287 New generation devices for transfemoral aortic valve replacement were optimized on valve positio

288 ce in comparison with the effect of surgical aortic-valve replacement, which is considered the curren

289 e patients (aged 76.1+/-6.3 years) underwent aortic valve replacement with a Mitroflow prosthesis (mo

290 studies comparing transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement with a subset undergoing survei

291 aortic valve replacement [TAVR] group) or to aortic valve replacement with a surgical bioprosthesis (

292 al outcomes after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement with both balloon- and self-exp

293 lus area <400 mm(2) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement with either a self-expanding tr

294 r heart valves to transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement with either device.

295 s restricted to patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement with or without root enlargemen

296 with low clinical event rates, transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the ACURATE neo valve resu

297 Transfemoral aortic valve replacement with the ES3 and the Lotus were

298 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the SAPIEN 3 valve.

299 mly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the self-expanding transca

300 -risk patients, TAVR was similar to surgical aortic-valve replacement with respect to the primary end