ライフサイエンスコーパス: AVR

1 AVR (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0

2 AVR in the young achieves good results, with the Ross be

3 AVR is associated with an improvement in survival and re

4 AVR is associated with better survival than medical ther

5 AVR occurred in 24% of patients.

6 AVR procedures were compared after advanced matching, bo

7 AVR was associated with a pronounced reduction in mortal

8 AVR was associated with better survival (p < 0.0001).

9 AVR was associated with reduced mortality in patients wi

10 AVR was performed in 123 patients (47%).

11 AVR-Pii interaction with OsExo70-F3 appears to play a cr

12 039 patients underwent AVR (AVR+ARE, n=1854; AVR, n=5185) at a single institution.

13 9662 (86.2%) CABG episodes and 4242 (69.3%) AVR episodes, with respective mean (SD) 90-day spending

14 104 transapical (TA) TAVR patients, and 351 AVR patients; the PARTNER-B arm included 179 TF-TAVR pat

15 2,286 patients underwent AVR+CABG and 1,637 AVR alone.

16 We examined long-term survival among 145 911 AVR patients >/= 65 years of age undergoing AVR at 1026

17 We report here the isolation of Bgh AVR(a7), AVR(a9), AVR(a10), and AVR(a22), which encode small secr

18 here the isolation of Bgh AVR(a7), AVR(a9), AVR(a10), and AVR(a22), which encode small secreted prot

19 After AVR, NFLG had a smaller reduction in LV mass index (-3+/

20 R plus MVr, 10.5% after MVR, and 13.3% after AVR plus MVR (p < 0.001).

21 s 4.5% after MVr, 6.6% after AVR, 9.3% after AVR plus MVr, 10.5% after MVR, and 13.3% after AVR plus

22 antation rate was 4.5% after MVr, 6.6% after AVR, 9.3% after AVR plus MVr, 10.5% after MVR, and 13.3%

23 ival under conservative management and after AVR even in asymptomatic patients with severe AS.

24 , and follow-up of patients before and after AVR.

25 nicians counseling patients before and after AVR.

26 natural history of thoracic aortopathy after AVR in patients with bicuspid aortic valve disease is su

27 information to quantify disease burden after AVR, and are relevant for clinicians counseling patients

28 ong-term rates of aortic complications after AVR observed in patients with Marfan syndrome compared w

29 and estimated loss in life expectancy after AVR.

30 h increased mortality or heart failure after AVR in patients with LV dysfunction.

31 e of death or congestive heart failure after AVR.

32 tle is known about improvement in flow after AVR and its effects on survival.

33 ves, and patients who died within 48 h after AVR were excluded.

34 In-hospital mortality was higher after AVR+ARE (4.3% versus 3.0%, P=0.008), although when the c

35 LF/HG exhibited the highest mortality after AVR (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.01; 95% confidence interval [C

36 ve flow-gradient patterns on mortality after AVR and to examine whether there are sex differences.

37 Poor outcomes after AVR are associated with low-flow low-gradient aortic ste

38 sought to report and compare outcomes after AVR in the young using data from a national database.

39 a shorter life expectancy in patients after AVR compared with the general population.

40 normal flow had similar survival rates after AVR.

41 d of 35 ml/m(2) in risk stratification after AVR.

42 Clinical stroke after AVR was more common than reported previously, more than

43 Survival after AVR or AVR+coronary artery bypass grafting was most favo

44 natriuretic peptides before and 1 year after AVR.

45 At 5 years after AVR, overall survival was 72 +/- 4% in LEF group, 81 +/-

46 itivity of telaprevir (TVR) and alisporivir (AVR) in different genotypes, and showed differences in 5

47 s are sequence-unrelated, except for allelic AVR(a10) and AVR(a22) that are co-maintained in pathogen

48 formed AVR-Pia mutants showed that, although AVR-Pia associates with additional sites in RGA5, bindin

49 suggesting patients are best served when an AVR is performed before even minor reductions in myocard

50 e-unrelated, except for allelic AVR(a10) and AVR(a22) that are co-maintained in pathogen populations

51 ation of Bgh AVR(a7), AVR(a9), AVR(a10), and AVR(a22), which encode small secreted proteins recognize

52 r showed differences among different AVS and AVR grades with the highest VELR (120 W/m(3); interquart

53 ng a pandemic with co-circulation of AVS and AVR strains, our method can be used to inform optimal us

54 ostacute care spending hospitals in CABG and AVR episodes.

55 factors should undergo early diagnostics and AVR+CABG before ischemic myocardial damage occurs.

56 associated with the lowest risk for PPM and AVR plus MVR with the highest risk.

57 r null findings with respect to RS3, RS1 and AVR, polymorphisms associated with musical ability by ot

58 variable number tandem repeats RS1, RS3 and AVR in the AVPR1A (arginine vasopressin receptor 1a) gen

59 eaked after randomization in the TA-TAVR and AVR groups, falling to low levels commensurate with the

60 th costs and QALYs were similar for TAVR and AVR in the overall population, there were important diff

61 eased, such that within 2 years, TF-TAVR and AVR patients had similar survival rates.

62 In high-risk patients, TA-TAVR and AVR were associated with elevated peri-procedural risk m

63 dian age, 13.0 versus 20.9 years; P=0.02) at AVR.

64 Among valve failure patients, median age at AVR was 12 years (range, 10-21 years).

65 to August 2014, 7039 patients underwent AVR (AVR+ARE, n=1854; AVR, n=5185) at a single institution.

66 Before AVR, they were characterized by similar symptom burden b

67 We report here the isolation of Bgh AVR(a7), AVR(a9), AVR(a10), and AVR(a22), which encode s

68 7.8% a mechanical AVR, 10.9% a bioprosthesis AVR, and 3.5% a homograft AVR, with Ross patients being

69 the short term, early AC after bioprosthetic AVR did not result in adverse clinical events, did not s

70 Whether early AC after bioprosthetic AVR has impact on long-term outcomes remains to be deter

71 assess the impact of AC after bioprosthetic AVR on valve hemodynamics and clinical outcomes.

72 reatment within 6 months after bioprosthetic AVR surgery was associated with increased cardiovascular

73 vere AS who are candidates for bioprosthetic AVR.

74 tients were identified who had bioprosthetic AVR surgery performed between January 1, 1997, and Decem

75 l of 4,832 patients undergoing bioprosthetic AVR (transcatheter aortic valve replacement [TAVR], n =

76 h that TA-TAVR was economically dominated by AVR in the base case and economically attractive in only

77 The glutamate-gated chloride channel AVR-14 is expressed in HOA.

78 ter adjustment for baseline characteristics, AVR+ARE was not associated with an increased risk of in-

79 P-2 promotes UNC-7 electrical communication, AVR-14-mediated inhibitory signals pass from HOA to PCB.

80 Clinical stroke complicating AVR is associated with increased length of stay and mort

81 A novel oligosaccharide compound AVR-25 selectively binds to the TLR4 protein (IC(50) = 0

82 proteins in the soluble fraction comprising AVR-Pii and OsExo70-F2 and OsExo70-F3, two rice Exo70 pr

83 The Haemonchus contortus AVR-14B GluCl was inhibited by propofol with an IC50 val

84 endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, AVR, and HF hospitalization.

85 in mortality risk per quartile of decreasing AVR (P = .02).

86 was significantly associated with decreasing AVR (P = .008) and CRAE (P = .016).

87 went early (within 3 months after diagnosis) AVR (adjusted HR, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.03-2.52]).

88 , mortality was not statistically different (AVR+ARE: 1.7% versus AVR: 1.1%, P=0.29).

89 r studies are needed to determine if earlier AVR in these patients might improve clinical outcome.

90 Early AVR was associated with similar survival benefit in TAPS

91 sis from reported studies comparing an early AVR strategy to active surveillance, with an emphasis on

92 tomatic severe AS who may benefit from early AVR, the optimal management of these patients remains un

93 5 recognizes the Magnaporthe oryzae effector AVR-Pia through direct interaction.

94 ognition of the unrelated M. oryzae effector AVR-Pia, indicating that the corresponding R proteins po

95 nteract with the Magnaporthe oryzae effector AVR-Pii.

96 tching isolate-specific avirulence effector (AVR(A)) of the fungal pathogen Blumeria graminis f. sp.

97 as to develop a simple method for estimating AVR fitness from surveillance data.

98 s associated with higher mortality following AVR, suggesting that a reduced flow is a marker of disea

99 ith PPM had less regression of SMR following AVR compared with those with no PPM (change in mitral re

100 ated with lesser regression of SMR following AVR.

101 280 to $8186 for CABG and $2246 to $7710 for AVR.

102 The optimal choice for AVR in each age group is not clear.

103 AVR and 33%, 43%, and 24%, respectively, for AVR.

104 ssociated with the various access routes for AVR have not been well characterized.

105 y symptoms, are the most common triggers for AVR.

106 FRAILTY-AVR was a multinational, prospective, observational coho

107 Results A preplanned analysis of the FRAILTY-AVR study (Frailty Aortic Valve Replacement) was perform

108 Furthermore, AVR+ARE was not associated with an increased risk of pos

109 %) were medically treated, and 361 (48%) had AVR.

110 Of 361 patients having AVR, 334 (93%) met guideline criteria: Class I indicatio

111 obtained at aortic valve replacement (HFpEF(AVR), n=5; and HFrEF(AVR), n=4), coronary artery bypass

112 alve replacement (HFpEF(AVR), n=5; and HFrEF(AVR), n=4), coronary artery bypass grafting (HFpEF(CABG)

113 9% a bioprosthesis AVR, and 3.5% a homograft AVR, with Ross patients being significantly younger when

114 er simulations of a sick SN, ectopic foci in AVR were unmasked, causing transient suppression of SN p

115 to be required for resistance as an inactive AVR-Pia allele did not bind RGA5-A.

116 Structure-informed AVR-Pia mutants showed that, although AVR-Pia associates

117 al use of antivirals by monitoring intrinsic AVR fitness and drug pressure on the AVS strain.

118 ortality across EF strata among the isolated AVR cohort.

119 419 patients with AS who underwent isolated AVR at 2 institutions and presenting moderate SMR (mitra

120 t a Ross procedure and 1444 had a mechanical AVR at a single institution.

121 .8% had a Ross procedure, 37.8% a mechanical AVR, 10.9% a bioprosthesis AVR, and 3.5% a homograft AVR

122 le between the Ross procedure and mechanical AVR.

123 followed by comparable results in mechanical AVR and Ross, with 86.3% and 89.6%, respectively.

124 with aortic reintervention in the mechanical AVR.

125 ion) at 10 years when compared to mechanical AVR (p = 0.05).

126 ormal angiopoietin-Tie2 signaling, medullary AVR exhibited an unusual hybrid endothelial phenotype, e

127 co-expression experiments with matching Mla-AVR(a) pairs indicate direct detection of the sequence-u

128 PVE remains rare, but often fatal, in modern AVR experience and that there is no difference in incide

129 dings demonstrate the therapeutic ability of AVR-25 to mitigate the storm of inflammation and minimiz

130 The absence of AVR associated with rapid accumulation of fluid and cyst

131 s into the molecular and structural bases of AVR-Pia-RGA5 interaction and the role of the RATX1 decoy

132 aging experiments revealed direct binding of AVR-Pia and AVR1-CO39 to RGA5-A, providing evidence for

133 AF was a common complication of AVR with a cumulative incidence of >40% in elderly patie

134 cture (CLP) procedure, intravenous dosing of AVR-25 (10 mg/kg, 6-12 h post-CLP) alone and in combinat

135 x model to explore the independent effect of AVR on outcome.

136 The protective effect of AVR was similar in 125 patients with normal flow (stroke

137 nce systems to provide reliable estimates of AVR fitness in real time.

138 nce systems to provide reliable estimates of AVR fitness in real time.

139 a simple method for real-time estimation of AVR fitness from surveillance data.

140 experimental conditions, over-expression of AVR-Pii or knockdown of OsExo70-F2 and -F3 genes in rice

141 We defined the fitness of AVR strains as their reproductive number relative to the

142 studies of mortality and survival impact of AVR in patients with low-gradient (LG) AS and preserved

143 ide genetic evidence of the critical role of AVR in the countercurrent exchange mechanism and the str

144 ata are insufficient to assess the safety of AVR with other pericardial bioprostheses in children and

145 Surveillance of AVR fitness is therefore essential.

146 dvantage plans undergoing CABG (n=11 208) or AVR (n=6122) in 33 nonfederal acute care Michigan hospit

147 Survival after AVR or AVR+coronary artery bypass grafting was most favorable a

148 ations who were randomized to either TAVR or AVR in the PARTNER Trial.

149 een baseline and 1 year after either TAVR or AVR.

150 e mean and median wait times for the overall AVR cohort were 87 and 59 days, respectively.

151 In symptomatic patients, AVR improves symptoms, improves survival, and, in patien

152 role for OsExo70 as a decoy or helper in Pii/AVR-Pii interactions.

153 ms were performed at 30 days and 1 year post-AVR.

154 ng that they were likely to be the potential AVR genes.

155 h angiopoietin-1 and angiopoietin-2 prevents AVR formation in mice.

156 aortic valve disease) who underwent primary AVR without replacement of the ascending aorta in New Yo

157 so underwent concomitant cardiac procedures (AVR+ARE: 68% versus AVR: 67%, P=0.31).

158 , and summarized as the arteriovenous ratio (AVR).

159 alent (CRVE), and arteriole-to-venule ratio (AVR) at baseline.

160 alent (CRVE), and arteriole-to-venule ratio (AVR) at baseline.

161 Only 39% had an isolated redo AVR, the rest were combination surgeries (coronary bypas

162 ith severe bioprosthetic PAS undergoing redo AVR, and (2) assess the outcomes of these patients, alon

163 ith severe bioprosthetic PAS undergoing redo AVR, baseline LV-GLS provides incremental prognostic use

164 ith severe bioprosthetic PAS undergoing redo AVR, the majority undergo combination surgeries but have

165 tic patients with severe PAS undergoing redo AVR, we sought to determine whether LV-GLS provides incr

166 (63+/-16 years, 58% men) who underwent redo AVR between 2000 and 2012 (excluding mechanical PAS, sev

167 (64+/-16 years, 58% men) who underwent redo-AVR between 2000 and 2012 (excluding mechanical PAS, sev

168 the severity of aortic valve regurgitation (AVR) and aortic valve stenosis (AVS).

169 efits of aortic valve repair or replacement (AVR) and the prognostic value of left ventricular (LV) d

170 eart failure after aortic valve replacement (AVR) according to preoperative left ventricular (LV) fun

171 ement (ARE) during aortic valve replacement (AVR) allows for larger prosthesis implantation and may b

172 The benefit of aortic valve replacement (AVR) among NFLG patients is controversial.

173 CAD) who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) and coronary artery bypass grafting (AS+CABG) with

174 rafting (CABG) and aortic valve replacement (AVR) and the relationship between postacute care spendin

175 ting open surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) are poorly characterized.

176 e expectancy after aortic valve replacement (AVR) are scarce, particularly in younger patients.

177 ndergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) are unknown.

178 tcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) as the population ages and transcatheter options em

179 Aortic valve replacement (AVR) does not usually restore physiological flow profile

180 ared with surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high s

181 tients who undergo aortic valve replacement (AVR) for severe aortic stenosis with reduced preoperativ

182 ltimately requires aortic valve replacement (AVR) for severe valve obstruction.

183 vasive approach to aortic valve replacement (AVR) improves clinical outcomes in diabetic patients wit

184 e for conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) in the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter V

185 rta at the time of aortic valve replacement (AVR) in these patients is controversial and has been ext

186 Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is only formally indicated for symptomatic severe A

187 fter bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR) on valve hemodynamics and clinical outcomes.

188 idelines recommend aortic valve replacement (AVR) when the aortic valve is severely stenotic and the

189 ion after surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) with biological prostheses is not well examined.

190 Experience with aortic valve replacement (AVR) with current-generation pericardial bioprostheses i

191 49,706) underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR), 18.9% (n = 14,686) underwent mitral valve replacem

192 ced after isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR), but there is important interindividual variability

193 mary bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR), reoperation to relieve severe prosthetic aortic st

194 mary bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR), reoperation to relieve severe prosthetic aortic st

195 ions available for aortic valve replacement (AVR), with few comparative reports in the literature.

196 ethods of isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR)-transfemoral (TF), transapical (TA), and transaorti

197 atients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR).

198 iving a mechanical aortic valve replacement (AVR).

199 al flow (NF) after aortic valve replacement (AVR).

200 urvival benefit of aortic valve replacement (AVR).

201 vere AS undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR).

202 y be similar after aortic valve replacement (AVR).

203 (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR).

204 her adjustment for aortic valve replacement (AVR; adjusted HR, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.15-1.87]).

205 d was slightly smaller in patients requiring AVR+ARE versus AVR (23.4+/-2.1 versus 24.1+/-2.3, P<0.00

206 This event showed that antiviral-resistant (AVR) strains can be intrinsically more transmissible tha

207 Smaller AVR was associated with reduced visual field by Goldmann

208 There was a weak association between smaller AVR and worse CS (P = .07).

209 ed) resulted in TAVR (333 [81.6%]), surgical AVR (10 [2.5%]), or medical management (65 [15.9%]).

210 eased morbidity and mortality after surgical AVR for AS.

211 Long-term survival after surgical AVR in the elderly is excellent, although patients with

212 n-Meier estimates of survival after surgical AVR.

213 ictors of all-cause mortality after surgical AVR.

214 e replacement [TAVR], n = 3,889 and surgical AVR [SAVR], n = 943) in the pooled cohort of PARTNER2 (P

215 Early surgical AVR (i.e., before gradient attains 40 mm Hg) might be pr

216 Procedure rates for surgical AVR alone and with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) s

217 In surgical AVR, the presence of LGE predicted higher post-operative

218 Four cases of surgical AVR (two with biological and two with mechanical valve p

219 Between 1999 and 2011, the rate of surgical AVR for elderly patients in the United States increased

220 ER) 1 Trial with successful TAVR or surgical AVR (SAVR) obtained preimplantation and at 7 days, 1 and

221 ssigned to receive transcatheter or surgical AVR.

222 ,528 patients who underwent primary surgical AVR with or without concomitant coronary artery bypass g

223 ate an ability to optimize the real surgical AVR procedure toward flow profile associated with health

224 ciaries who were managed with TAVR, surgical AVR (SAVR), or conservative management for aortic stenos

225 now a well-accepted alternative to surgical AVR (SAVR) for patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis

226 and is a reasonable alternative to surgical AVR in high-risk patients.

227 and may be an important adjunct to surgical AVR in the transcatheter valve-in-valve era.

228 f 2.9 years, 21 patients undergoing surgical AVR and 20 undergoing TAVR died.

229 of myocardial infarction undergoing surgical AVR and in 40 AS patients undergoing transcatheter aorti

230 esent in 29% of patients undergoing surgical AVR and in 50% undergoing TAVR.

231 ed in 60% of patients who underwent surgical AVR (SAVR), in 53% after TA-TAVR, in 33% after TAo-TAVR

232 w deaths occurred after TAVR versus surgical AVR or standard therapy.

233 useful benchmark for outcomes with surgical AVR for older patients eligible for surgery considering

234 ith transcatheter AVR compared with surgical AVR.

235 ever, in most patients with severe symptoms, AVR is lifesaving.

236 with 2-fold greater all-cause mortality than AVR.

237 rtality independent of TAPSE suggesting that AVR should be discussed before right ventricular dysfunc

238 The AVR procedure rate increased by 19 (95% CI, 19-20) proce

239 conferred 30-day survival benefit among the AVR+coronary artery bypass grafting population (EF>/=50%

240 ic energy were evaluated to characterize the AVR hemodynamic outcome.

241 -protein interaction analyses identified the AVR-Pia interaction surface that binds to the RATX1 doma

242 up, 105 patients died (40%): 32 (30%) in the AVR group and 73 (70%) in the medical treatment group.

243 Surgical ARE is a safe adjunct to AVR in the modern era.

244 incremental operative risk of adding ARE to AVR has not been established.

245 del that reflected likelihood of referral to AVR.

246 ith LF-LG were less likely to be referred to AVR (odds ratio: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.49).

247 n improve its cost-effectiveness relative to AVR.

248 Transcatheter AVR is now available for patients with severe comorbidit

249 evere other valve disease, and transcatheter AVR).

250 AS, severe other valve disease transcatheter AVR, and LV ejection fraction <50%).

251 al failure from treatment with transcatheter AVR compared with surgical AVR.

252 for young and middle-aged adults undergoing AVR.

253 AVR patients >/= 65 years of age undergoing AVR at 1026 centers with participation in the Society of

254 of mortality in patients with AS undergoing AVR and could provide additional information in the pre-

255 are fee-for-service beneficiaries undergoing AVR in the United States between 1999 and 2011.

256 ea and normal stroke volume index undergoing AVR underwent echocardiography, magnetic resonance imagi

257 Patients undergoing AVR for severe aortic stenosis were analyzed using the N

258 Young patients undergoing AVR with Mitroflow LXA pericardial valves are at high ri

259 te the early outcomes of patients undergoing AVR with or without ARE.

260 Patients undergoing AVR+ARE were more likely to be female (46% versus 34%, P

261 in more than half of the patients undergoing AVR.

262 jects >/=65 years of age who were undergoing AVR for calcific aortic stenosis.

263 wed records of 27 patients who had undergone AVR (median follow-up, 13.7 months) with a bovine perica

264 AVR plus MVR, and 1.4% (n = 1,069) underwent AVR plus MVr.

265 lve repair (MVr), 5.4% (n = 4,202) underwent AVR plus MVR, and 1.4% (n = 1,069) underwent AVR plus MV

266 1990 to August 2014, 7039 patients underwent AVR (AVR+ARE, n=1854; AVR, n=5185) at a single instituti

267 A total of 5277 patients underwent AVR for severe aortic stenosis between 1992 and 2008.

268 1991 to July 2010, 2,286 patients underwent AVR+CABG and 1,637 AVR alone.

269 e of patients with isolated AS who underwent AVR alone.

270 al of 231 consecutive patients who underwent AVR for degenerative aortic stenosis (AS) between March

271 A total of 1,501 patients who underwent AVR in the United Kingdom between 2000 and 2012 were inc

272 th severe aortic stenosis (AS) who underwent AVR with or without coronary artery bypass grafting.

273 ventricular ejection fraction who underwent AVR.

274 nds a predictably high mortality rate unless AVR is performed.

275 - and v3-ARV (each pairwise comparison to v1-AVR yields P < 0.01); in contrast, the DCGS rates were s

276 Most patients received bioprosthetic valves (AVR+ARE: 73.4% versus AVR: 73.3%, P=0.98) and also under

277 bioprosthetic valves (AVR+ARE: 73.4% versus AVR: 73.3%, P=0.98) and also underwent concomitant cardi

278 tant cardiac procedures (AVR+ARE: 68% versus AVR: 67%, P=0.31).

279 tatistically different (AVR+ARE: 1.7% versus AVR: 1.1%, P=0.29).

280 smaller in patients requiring AVR+ARE versus AVR (23.4+/-2.1 versus 24.1+/-2.3, P<0.001).

281 perior after the Ross procedure (Ross versus AVR: hazard ratio, 0.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0

282 was improved in the Ross group (Ross versus AVR: hazard ratio, 0.22; 95% confidence interval, 0.034-

283 Overall survival was equivalent (Ross versus AVR: hazard ratio, 0.91, 95% confidence interval, 0.38-2

284 quivalent after both procedures (Ross versus AVR: hazard ratio, 1.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-4

285 cant health status benefits with TAVR versus AVR at 1 month (difference, 9.9 points; 95% confidence i

286 heter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus AVR (PARTNER-A arm) or standard therapy (PARTNER-B arm).

287 .003 vs. 0.117 +/- 0.015 muM for G3, whereas AVR IC50 for G1 was 0.139 +/- 0.013 vs. 0.044 +/- 0.007

288 stment, there was no survival advantage with AVR in asymptomatic, severe AS with LV dysfunction (p =

289 ome was the survival benefit associated with AVR.

290 of in-hospital mortality when compared with AVR (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-1.4

291 nstrated no benefits with TAVR compared with AVR at any time point.

292 onomically attractive strategy compared with AVR for patients suitable for TF access.

293 TAVR was economically dominant compared with AVR in the base case and economically attractive (increm

294 Compared with AVR patients, medically treated patients had a higher pr

295 l but differing adverse events compared with AVR.

296 Similar benefit occurred with AVR in patients with NF-LG (HR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.

297 ejection fraction, and improved outcome with AVR.

298 A total of 3112 patients with AVR were assessed in a follow-up clinic with echocardiog

299 of low-gradient severe aortic stenosis with AVR or medical therapy.

300 <50% have a poor prognosis, with or without AVR.