ライフサイエンスコーパス: valve replacement

1 propriate valve sizing is critical in aortic valve replacement.

2 or patients with aortic stenosis who require valve replacement.

3 ify patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

4 n patients eligible for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

5 f-expanding prosthesis) with surgical aortic-valve replacement.

6 ographic outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

7 in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

8 phy to determine the optimum time for aortic valve replacement.

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

10 ic stenosis considering transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

11 ffect the outcome after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

12 ted with SAPIEN 3 TAVR and 747 with surgical valve replacement.

13 ted tomography within 3 months before aortic valve replacement.

14 time after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

15 ients with aortic stenosis undergoing aortic valve replacement.

16 30-day mortality after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

17 death, unplanned hospitalization, or aortic valve replacement.

18 TR, as is often seen with surgical pulmonary valve replacement.

19 in 5% to 17% of patients following surgical valve replacement.

20 f these findings in the era of transcatheter valve replacement.

21 n patients eligible for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

22 early improvement after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

23 e, stroke, myocardial infarction, and aortic valve replacement.

24 in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

25 rmediate-risk patients given surgical aortic valve replacement.

26 95% CI -13.0 to -5.4; p<0.0001) to surgical valve replacement.

27 f of 0.8 in a small number of patients after valve replacement.

28 in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

29 fraction (LVEF) before transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

30 tigate whether FFR values might change after valve replacement.

31 tion, venous thromboembolism, and mechanical valve replacement.

32 d current guidelines recommend prompt aortic valve replacement.

33 the forthcoming era of transcatheter mitral valve replacement.

34 e sex on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

35 l risk than those undergoing surgical aortic-valve replacement.

36 echanical prosthetic vs bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement.

37 ted tomography within 3 months before aortic valve replacement.

38 nferiority of TAVR as compared with surgical valve replacement.

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

40 high or extreme risk for conventional mitral valve replacement.

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

42 Mortality is greatest in patients undergoing valve replacement.

43 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

44 ial for guiding the optimal timing of aortic valve replacement.

45 nths in patients undergoing attempted aortic-valve replacement.

46 k patients eligible for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

47 patients had undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

48 5% CI, 1.3-2.6) eligible for surgical aortic valve replacement.

49 fraction recovery post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

50 5 years of age among those undergoing aortic-valve replacement.

51 .8% (2.1-9.0) and 6.8% (2.9-10.1) for mitral valve replacement.

52 (0.84-0.99) compared to dysfunctional aortic valve replacement, 0.78 (0.73-0.87), P < .001, as did no

53 horax (18% of patients) and events requiring valve replacement (12%) or removal (15%).

54 12) seconds compared to dysfunctional aortic valve replacement, 139 (122-177) seconds, P < .001, and

55 ng (QRS fragmentation and previous pulmonary valve replacement) (+2.7%; 95% confidence interval, +0.1

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

57 ement, 24 patients with dysfunctional aortic valve replacement, 36 patients with normally functioning

58 %), pulmonic (0.4%), or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (5%).

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

60 ts (22% versus 15%; P=0.0003) and mechanical valve replacements (9.6% versus 2.4%; P<0.0001); however

61 Normal aortic valve replacement also had a higher VWF activity to anti

62 might become functionally significant after valve replacement, although FFR-guided interventions wer

63 illion patients eligible for surgical aortic valve replacement and 1.0 million patients eligible for

64 In small subgroups, such as aortic valve replacement and aortic valve replacement+coronary

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

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

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

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

69 ears of age among patients undergoing mitral-valve replacement and until 55 years of age among those

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

71 under anticoagulation after a recent aortic valve replacement and without a medical history of hepat

72 re abnormal in 20 of 24 dysfunctional aortic valve replacements and in 14 of 19 dysfunctional mitral

73 imers were abnormal in 1 of 26 normal aortic valve replacements and in 2 of 36 normal mitral valve re

74 emergency coronary artery bypass grafting or valve replacement, and higher baseline Palliative Perfor

75 ion, support the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement as the preferred therapy in HR and ino

76 consecutive patients with CaHD who underwent valve replacement at our institution between 1985 and 20

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

78 The benefit of aortic valve replacement (AVR) among NFLG patients is controver

79 Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is only formally indicated for s

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

81 ents undergoing primary bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR), reoperation to relieve severe p

82 ere are several options available for aortic valve replacement (AVR), with few comparative reports in

83 r of mortality in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR).

84 dure and those receiving a mechanical aortic valve replacement (AVR).

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

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

87 e after transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement but had large selection and outcome me

88 option for most patients who require aortic valve replacement, but the transcatheter approach is est

89 The Vancouver transcatheter aortic valve replacement clinical pathway requires a rigorous a

90 The implementation of a transcatheter aortic valve replacement clinical pathway shifted the program's

91 such as aortic valve replacement and aortic valve replacement+coronary artery bypass grafting, exten

92 derly patients with mitral disease requiring valve replacement, deciding between bioprosthetic and me

93 he 54,782 patients with transcatheter aortic valve replacement demonstrated decreases in expected ris

94 n patients undergoing aortic-valve or mitral-valve replacement, either a mechanical or biologic prost

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

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

97 nd consideration of optimum timing of aortic valve replacement, even in elderly patients.

98 Furthermore, aortic valve replacement event rates were significantly higher

99 l impairment undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, FE MR angiography is technically feas

100 ll adult patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis at Mayo Clinic Hos

101 he twin with a BAV underwent surgical aortic valve replacement for clinical indications.

102 ranscatheter Valves) of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for high-risk (HR) and inoperable pati

103 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for incidence of infective endocarditi

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

105 w become an accepted alternative to surgical valve replacement for some patients.

106 safe, less invasive alternative to surgical valve replacement for the congenital heart disease patie

107 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for treatment of aortic stenosis has n

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

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

110 The rapid growth of transcatheter aortic valve replacement has been fuelled by improved technolog

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

112 c stenosis treated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement has not been well characterized.

113 ecovery after CoreValve transcatheter aortic valve replacement have not been described.

114 patients presenting for transcatheter aortic valve replacement having chronic kidney disease (CKD).

115 reatment shown to improve survival is aortic valve replacement; however, before symptoms occur, aorti

116 Patients had undergone valve replacement in 11 hospitals between 2007 and 2015,

117 rements of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement in contemporary practice.

118 alternative for standard surgical pulmonary valve replacement in dilated right ventricular outflow t

119 ears) who underwent primary, isolated mitral valve replacement in New York State hospitals from 1997-

120 tients aged 50 to 69 years undergoing mitral valve replacement in New York State, there was no signif

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

122 vascular mapping before transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with renal impairment.

123 al comparing mitral-valve repair with mitral-valve replacement in patients with severe ischemic mitra

124 Surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with small annular dimensi

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

126 permitting lower risk, nonsurgical pulmonary valve replacement in previously prohibitive anatomies.

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

128 ce of LVEF on long-term outcome after aortic valve replacement in symptomatic and asymptomatic patien

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

130 rmediate-risk patients treated with surgical valve replacement in the PARTNER 2A trial between Dec 23

131 arge ECGs who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the Placement of AoRTic TraNscathet

132 ence of severe PH after transcatheter aortic valve replacement is a stronger predictor of 1-year mort

133 The experience with transcatheter aortic valve replacement is increasing worldwide; however, the

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

135 ns for aortic stenosis (transcatheter aortic valve replacement) may alter the risk-benefit ratio for

136 60.6+/-39.0 ml per square meter with mitral-valve replacement (mean changes from baseline, -9.0 ml p

137 closure times were lower with normal aortic valve replacement, mean (range) 92 (82-112) seconds comp

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

139 repair, coronary artery bypass graft, aortic valve replacement, mitral valve repair) using an interru

140 d as having undergone a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (n = 3223), an endovascular aneurysm r

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

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

143 patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (November 2011-June 2014) and were inc

144 were high risk, with an STS PROM for mitral valve replacement of 11%.

145 outcome measure was the occurrence of aortic valve replacement or all-cause death or during follow-up

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

147 (0.86-0.93) compared to dysfunctional mitral valve replacement or repair, 0.78 (0.70-0.90), P = .005.

148 (0.73-0.87), P < .001, as did normal mitral valve replacement or repair, 0.90 (0.86-0.93) compared t

149 96) seconds compared to dysfunctional mitral valve replacement or repair, 143 (128-192) seconds, P <

150 36 patients with normally functioning mitral valve replacement or repair, 19 patients with dysfunctio

151 001, and also in normally functioning mitral valve replacement or repair, 85 (74-96) seconds compared

152 epair, 19 patients with dysfunctional mitral valve replacement or repair, and 31 patients with native

153 Surgical aortic valve replacement or transcatheter aortic valve implanta

154 cardiographic imaging used for transcatheter valve replacement or valve repair.

155 cements and in 14 of 19 dysfunctional mitral valve replacements or repairs (P < .001 for both).

156 ve replacements and in 2 of 36 normal mitral valve replacements or repairs but were abnormal in 20 of

157 ion functional class III/IV symptoms, aortic valve replacement, or cardiac death, and to compare AE r

158 mptoms, restrictive RV, RV EF<40%, pulmonary valve replacement, or QRS fragmentation.

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

160 Of the 588 transcatheter aortic valve replacement patients, we reviewed 496 consecutive

161 hnology, variability in transcatheter aortic valve replacement practice, end points included as OPC,

162 2013, whereas the number of surgical aortic-valve replacement procedures decreased slightly, from 86

163 [PROM]) of 7% to 6% and transcatheter aortic valve replacement PROM (TVT PROM) of 4% to 3% (both p <

164 (63 +/- 8 years, 67% male) underwent aortic valve replacement +/- proximal aortic surgery for BAV st

165 Pulmonary valve replacement (PVR) in patients with repaired tetral

166 s rates associated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement raised concerns that ultimately led to

167 Current guidelines consider aortic valve replacement reasonable in asymptomatic patients wi

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

169 Among patients who underwent mitral-valve replacement, receipt of a biologic prosthesis was

170 unique hospitals performing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and MV replacement and repair w

171 alve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with aortic stenos

172 ing prosthesis compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with severe aortic

173 (TAVR) is an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with symptomatic s

174 valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has been found with CT imaging.

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

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

177 valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) results in similar 2-year survi

178 alve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), but no studies have compared s

179 f-expanding bioprosthesis or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), including a lower-risk patient

180 effectiveness of TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), particularly in intermediate-

181 e is a major complication of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

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

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

184 d with poorer outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

185 f-expanding bioprosthesis or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

186 were randomized 1:1 to TAVR or open surgical valve replacement (SAVR).

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

188 esearch Consortium) for transcatheter aortic valve replacement set the standard for selecting appropr

189 atic heart disease (RHD) who were undergoing valve replacement surgery (VRS) were not identified enti

190 Aortic valve replacement (surgical or catheter based) was perfo

191 he low-profile SAPIEN 3 transcatheter aortic valve replacement system demonstrated very low rates of

192 of the Twelve Intrepid Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement System in High Risk Patients with Seve

193 cutaneous approach with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and percutaneous coronary inter

194 prosthetic aortic valves after transcatheter valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve repla

195 rates are similar with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic-valve repla

196 c stenosis undergoing a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and the effect of TAVR on subse

197 hmias in candidates for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and to determine the impact on

198 cific differences after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are conflicting.

199 emic attack (TIA) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are limited by reporting and fo

200 -day readmissions after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are limited.

201 a population undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are unknown.

202 tients with AS by using transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) as a clinical model of isolated

203 ersus transfemoral (TF) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) could be attributable to TA-TAV

204 of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) for aortic stenosis.

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

206 Use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for severe aortic stenosis is g

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

208 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a safe and effective

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

210 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been introduced into U.S. c

211 In clinical trials, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been shown to improve sympt

212 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized management o

213 e cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have been based primarily on a

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

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

216 strating the outcome of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in the very elderly patients ar

217 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a transformational and rapid

218 Although transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is an accepted alternative to s

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

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

221 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an option in certain high-ri

222 gitation (AR) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is associated with greater mort

223 surgery, self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is associated with improved 2-y

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

225 Direct transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is regarded as having potential

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

227 The introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) led to renewed interest in ball

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

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

230 tional recovery after a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replac

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

232 ex has been observed in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) outcomes from small observation

233 Identifying transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) patients at high risk for cereb

234 ents who underwent redo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures >2 weeks post proced

235 mplantation (PPI) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains controversial.

236 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) revolutionized the treatment of

237 Patient selection for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) should include assessment of th

238 for poor outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to help guide treatment choices

239 The use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to treat aortic stenosis in the

240 rative effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus surgical aortic valve re

241 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was approved by the Food and Dr

242 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was approved by the US Food and

243 performance outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a next-generation, self-ex

244 ic valve stenosis after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding bioprosth

245 sed mortality following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with first and second generatio

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

247 alve stenosis to either transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the CoreValve self-expandi

248 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the SAPIEN 3 valve demonst

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

250 able fully percutaneous transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) without the hazards and discomf

251 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), because of its less-invasive n

252 Since the adoption of transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR), questions have been raised abo

253 tic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), studies have suggested that re

254 clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

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

256 rditis after undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

257 V) thrombosis following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

258 uent complication after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

259 terioration (VHD) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

260 ility on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

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

262 exercise capacity post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

263 After transcatheter aortic valve replacement, the presence of AF at discharge, and

264 cohort of patients with transcatheter aortic valve replacement, the validation of the TVT registry mo

265 Although transcatheter aortic valve replacement thrombosis is a multifactorial process

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

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

268 Transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) is a potential therapy for pati

269 Transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) may be an option for selected p

270 The median time from aortic valve replacement to CT for the entire cohort was 83 day

271 Mean time from mitral valve replacement to percutaneous PVL repair was 1.25 (0

272 , and the only available treatment is aortic valve replacement, to which not all patients are suited.

273 Transcatheter pulmonary valve replacement (TPVR) has become a useful tool in the

274 Transcatheter pulmonary valve replacement (TPVR) is an established therapy for d

275 Follow-up of transcatheter pulmonary valve replacement (TPVR) with the Melody valve has demon

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

277 6 patients with severe AS requiring surgical valve replacement underwent cardiovascular magnetic reso

278 safety end points after transcatheter aortic valve replacement using a collaborative meta-analysis of

279 lanted to a theoretical transcatheter aortic valve replacement valve size resulted in GOAs 25% larger

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

281 Implanted surgical aortic valve replacement valves were smaller relative to MDCT-b

282 rmal flow rate and type of treatment (aortic valve replacement versus conservative), rest GLS <|9|% (

283 The benefit associated with aortic valve replacement was confined to the HG aortic stenosis

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

285 lar function in an era where surgical aortic valve replacement was the sole therapy.

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

287 ctive isolated or combined aortic and mitral valve replacement were included.

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

289 omparison with the effect of surgical aortic-valve replacement, which is considered the current stand

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

291 comparing transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement with a subset undergoing surveillance

292 omes after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement with both balloon- and self-expandable

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

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

295 icted to patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement with or without root enlargement, mort

296 atients, TAVR was similar to surgical aortic-valve replacement with respect to the primary end point

297 w clinical event rates, transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the ACURATE neo valve resulted in

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

299 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the SAPIEN 3 valve.

300 rgitation after self-expanding transcatheter valve replacement without an increase in complications.