ライフサイエンスコーパス: TAVR

1 TAVR also resulted in a shorter index hospitalization th

2 TAVR improved survival versus medical management; AS-CA

3 TAVR index admission costs decreased over time to become

4 TAVR now extends from extreme- to low-risk patients.

5 TAVR patients had more comorbidities and higher frailty

6 TAVR was noninferior to SAVR when compared using both tr

7 TAVR with the self-expanding ACURATE neo did not meet no

8 k (EVAR, 15.8% versus 22.1% female; P<0.001; TAVR, 45.9% versus 51.8%; P<0.001), but for LVAD the per

9 (age, 57.4 versus 57.7 years; P=0.80): 1708 TAVR recipients from Ontario and 4838 from New York (age

10 The study population consists of 250 TAVR patients in whom baseline Zva and follow-up QOL was

11 5% vs. 0.32 +/- 0.11%; p = 0.32) in SAPIEN 3 TAVR were not significantly different to a propensity sc

12 Wait-time mortality was 2.5% (TAVR 5.2% and SAVR 1.05%), while the cumulative probabil

13 Of these, 5412 TAVR procedures (3.2%) were performed in patients with b

14 y of heart failure hospitalization was 3.6% (TAVR 7.7% and SAVR 1.3%).

15 Of 728 TAVR patients, 112 (53.5% men; median age, 81 years) und

16 for aortic valve replacement, with (N=8098) TAVR and (N=14 778) SAVR referrals.

17 Among 63,876 TAVR procedures, 212 consecutive redo-TAVR procedures we

18 failure, and pacemaker implantation after a TAVR procedure.

19 , and outcomes of surgical explantation of a TAVR prosthesis.

20 for all consecutive patients treated with a TAVR device commercialized in France between 2014 and 20

21 R utilization rates, and (3) higher adjusted TAVR mortality.

22 After TAVR, the proportion of patients with elevated Zva fell

23 g pacemaker implantation up to 30 days after TAVR between May 2014 and September 2019 were included.

24 puted tomography was performed 30 days after TAVR, which we used to simulate TAVR-in-TAVR with a seco

25 e of heart failure admissions declined after TAVR (incidence rate ratio, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.48-0.62], P<

26 tive of long-term pacemaker dependency after TAVR, thus influencing device selection and programming.

27 s predisposing to pacemaker dependency after TAVR.

28 ble predictors of pacemaker dependency after TAVR.

29 management of conduction disturbances after TAVR and proposes an evidence-based expert consensus dec

30 management of conduction disturbances after TAVR based on the best available data and group expertis

31 lected patients with valve dysfunction after TAVR.

32 Infective endocarditis after TAVR most frequently occurs during the early period, is

33 , delayed-early, and late endocarditis after TAVR was 2.59, 0.71, and 0.40 events per 100 person-year

34 and outcomes of infective endocarditis after TAVR.

35 ndependent predictor of adverse events after TAVR.

36 and outcomes of surgical explantation after TAVR using a population-based, nationally representative

37 at hospitalizations were more frequent after TAVR than after surgery (33.3% vs. 25.2%), as were aorti

38 Mild AR was more frequent after TAVR than SAVR at 30 days (28.8% versus 4.2%; P<0.001).

39 f death or disabling stroke was higher after TAVR than after surgery in the transthoracic-access coho

40 ents undergoing pacemaker implantation after TAVR are pacemaker-dependent at midterm follow-up.

41 ears) underwent pacemaker implantation after TAVR.

42 ed rates of stroke after SAVR (but not after TAVR).

43 ronary access in up to 78% of patients after TAVR-in-TAVR.

44 ze was an independent predictor of PPM after TAVR and SAVR.

45 ependently predicts long-term survival after TAVR and SAVR.

46 n those with MELD score >=12, survival after TAVR, SAVR, and medical therapy was similar (1.3 vs. 2.1

47 the role of adjunctive medical therapy after TAVR.

48 in 192 patients who survived >=1 year after TAVR using questionnaires related to daily activities.

49 At 1 year after TAVR, the prevalence of elevated Zva was 21% but remaine

50 f death or disabling stroke at 5 years after TAVR as compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement.

51 Mean post-TAVR costs were reduced among all TAVR patients and among 1-year survivors (rate ratio: 0.

52 ational resource to improve care and analyze TAVR's evolution.

53 ntario versus 1.3 in New York; P<0.001); and TAVR (6.6 in Ontario, 14.3 in New York; P<0.001).

54 Higher utilization of EVAR and TAVR in New York relative to Ontario increased substanti

55 significantly smaller percentage of EVAR and TAVR recipients in Ontario were female compared to New Y

56 cantly higher utilization of EVAR, LVAD, and TAVR in New York compared to Ontario.

57 and utilization patterns of EVAR, LVAD, and TAVR in Ontario, Canada, and New York State, United Stat

58 mpared socio-demographics of EVAR, LVAD, and TAVR recipients in Ontario and New York.

59 d of increasing wait times for both SAVR and TAVR.

60 Therefore, as TAVR is increasingly used in patients with better baseli

61 luded from the international multicenter BAV TAVR registry.

62 BE TAVR was also associated with lower rates of pacemaker i

63 interquartile range], 232 [10-599] days), BE TAVR was associated with a lower yearly incidence of all

64 ference in life expectancy was <0.10 between TAVR and SAVR until transcatheter valve prosthesis failu

65 here were no significant differences between TAVR versus SAVR for major vascular complications, endoc

66 there was no difference in mortality between TAVR and SAVR (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.91

67 match at 30 days was low and similar between TAVR and SAVR (4.6 versus 6.3%; P=0.30).

68 In select patients with cirrhosis, both TAVR and SAVR have acceptable and comparable short-term

69 Transcatheter Aortic Implantation) compared TAVR using a self-expandable valve with SAVR in intermed

70 We compared TAVR and SAVR for PPM, hemodynamics, and clinical, and f

71 In this meta-analysis of RCTs comparing TAVR versus SAVR in low-risk patients, TAVR was associat

72 ce the initial treatment decision concerning TAVR versus SAVR in older low-risk patients on the basis

73 At 30 days, TAVR resulted in a lower rate of stroke than surgery (P

74 With newer-generation devices, TAVR is a viable treatment option for patients with bicu

75 Travel time and distance, TAVR rates, and mortality were compared across categorie

76 ive procedure with unknown valve durability (TAVR) and that of a more invasive procedure with known d

77 nsradial approach as secondary access during TAVR procedures.

78 gate the risk of coronary obstruction during TAVR-in-TAVR with self-expanding THVs and to facilitate

79 calculate travel time and distance for each TAVR patient by comparing their home address to their TA

80 nts were randomly assigned to receive either TAVR with the SAPIEN XT or SAVR, whereas in the SAPIEN 3

81 and were randomly assigned to undergo either TAVR or surgical replacement.

82 um of evidence is insufficient for endorsing TAVR as the preferred intervention for these patients.

83 Self-expanding TAVR in patients with failed surgical bioprostheses at e

84 pandable (BE) versus Evolut R self-expanding TAVR technology at a nationwide level in France.

85 ither Sapien 3 BE or Evolut R self-expanding TAVR were found in the database.

86 nd 1-year outcomes were comparable following TAVR for bicuspid AV versus tricuspid AV disease.

87 day and 1567 (68.4%) within 3 days following TAVR.

88 ute coronary syndrome (ACS) events following TAVR.

89 ohort study is to compare outcomes following TAVR and SAVR in patients with cirrhosis to inform the p

90 chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage following TAVR, identify variables associated with pre- and post-T

91 e either improved or was unchanged following TAVR in the majority of patients (77% stage 1, 90% stage

92 ion inpatient days was 2.0 for SAVR, 3.0 for TAVR, and 4.3 for MT; the average number of total admiss

93 e frequency of RLM was 45 of 145 (31.0%) for TAVR and 30 of 111 (27.0%) for surgery.

94 [95% CI, 0.79-1.48]; P=0.90), and 11.3% for TAVR and 12.5% for SAVR patients using claims data (haza

95 frequency of HALT was 31 of 179 (17.3%) for TAVR and 23 of 139 (16.5%) for surgery; the frequency of

96 ent costs were $59 743 for SAVR, $64 395 for TAVR, and $23 460 for MT.

97 f total admissions was 1.3 for SAVR, 1.5 for TAVR, and 1.7 for MT (P<0.01 for all).

98 e frequency of RLM was 23 of 157 (14.6%) for TAVR and 19 of 133 (14.3%) for surgery.

99 the trial's primary end point was 12.9% for TAVR and 13.1% for SAVR using trial data (hazard ratio,

100 frequency of HALT was 47 of 152 (30.9%) for TAVR and 33 of 116 (28.4%) for surgery; the frequency of

101 Aggregate costs were higher for TAVR than SAVR and were significantly more expensive tha

102 Patients who were referred for TAVR at 3 international sites underwent blinded research

103 institutional and operator requirements for TAVR across the country.

104 in health status at 5 years was similar for TAVR and surgery.

105 ion was longer for SAVR (10.0 days) than for TAVR (7.0 day) or MT (5.3 days), but the average number

106 ver, in younger patients, this threshold for TAVR valve durability was substantially higher.

107 cantly longer travel distances and times for TAVR, (2) lower TAVR utilization rates, and (3) higher a

108 resultant coronary obstruction during future TAVR-in-TAVR in up to 23% of patients.

109 For these 2 groups, TAVR-to-redo-TAVR time was 68 (38 to 154) days and 5 (3

110 However, TAVR costs decreased over time while SAVR and MT costs r

111 transradial approach as secondary access in TAVR procedures was associated with a significant reduct

112 table land, there was a 7-fold difference in TAVR utilization rates in the lowest versus highest popu

113 ACS events in TAVR recipients exhibited specific characteristics (ACS

114 pairwise-comparisons <0.001) and increase in TAVR in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR, 6.13 [95% CI, 1

115 n interest in establishing best practices in TAVR, valvular heart disease, and cardiovascular implant

116 by the heart team (DPD-blinded) resulted in TAVR (333 [81.6%]), surgical AVR (10 [2.5%]), or medical

117 ventricular mass regression were similar in TAVR and SAVR.

118 s 1.76+/-0.42 cm(2); P=0.12) were similar in TAVR and SAVR.

119 s the rationale of antithrombotic therapy in TAVR illustrating the present scenario and future perspe

120 to 1 year in SAVR but remained unchanged in TAVR.

121 scatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)-in-TAVR and present challenges for future coronary access.

122 t coronary obstruction during future TAVR-in-TAVR in up to 23% of patients.

123 fter TAVR, which we used to simulate TAVR-in-TAVR with a second Evolut PRO or Evolut PRO+ THV and eva

124 We sought to evaluate the risk of TAVR-in-TAVR with Evolut PRO or Evolut PRO+ THVs and the feasibi

125 risk of coronary obstruction during TAVR-in-TAVR with self-expanding THVs and to facilitate future c

126 ccess in up to 78% of patients after TAVR-in-TAVR.

127 rgical explant was calculated from the index TAVR discharge to surgical explantation.

128 ented within or beyond 1 year of their index TAVR, respectively.

129 avel distances and times for TAVR, (2) lower TAVR utilization rates, and (3) higher adjusted TAVR mor

130 d was 0.28% and 0.14% in the early and newer TAVR era, respectively.

131 The widespread adoption of TAVR and application to lower-risk patients makes unders

132 ne health status, the economic advantages of TAVR relative to SAVR may diminish.

133 e results are important for applicability of TAVR in patients with long life expectancy in whom THV d

134 to our simulation models, the durability of TAVR valves must be 70% shorter than that of surgical va

135 times were varied to determine the impact of TAVR valve durability on life expectancy in a cohort of

136 sis was conducted to determine the impact of TAVR valve durability on life expectancy in younger age

137 or noninferiority (Evolut Low Risk [LR]) of TAVR as compared with SAVR at 1- and 2-year follow-up, r

138 Noninferiority of TAVR relative to SAVR was seen by using both trial- and

139 of this study was to analyze the outcomes of TAVR according to Sapien 3 balloon-expandable (BE) versu

140 Outcomes of TAVR in bicuspid aortic stenosis depend on valve morphol

141 We sought to evaluate the outcomes of TAVR in patients with bicuspid AV stenosis in comparison

142 this study was to determine the outcomes of TAVR in patients with ESRD.

143 ssociation of BAV morphology and outcomes of TAVR with the new-generation devices.

144 We sought to evaluate the risk of TAVR-in-TAVR with Evolut PRO or Evolut PRO+ THVs and the

145 was used to model hypothetical scenarios of TAVR versus SAVR durability in which TAVR failure times

146 er populations will lead to increased use of TAVR for patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) steno

147 HF readmission is common within 1-year of TAVR.

148 d 5707 patients on SAVR and 1911 patients on TAVR.

149 importance of future mechanistic studies on TAVR explantation and may have implications on lifetime

150 t vary by either time to surgical explant or TAVR era, or between patients with versus without endoca

151 ntify all adults who received EVAR, LVAD, or TAVR in Ontario and New York between 2012 and 2015.

152 it-time from referral date to either SAVR or TAVR procedure.

153 Patients not undergoing SAVR or TAVR were classified as receiving MT.

154 wait-times for the treatment (either SAVR or TAVR) of AS in Ontario, Canada, and to understand the dr

155 ymptomatic severe AS awaiting either SAVR or TAVR.

156 aring TAVR versus SAVR in low-risk patients, TAVR was associated with significantly lower risk of all

157 We hypothesized that in some patients, TAVR results in improved kidney function by alleviating

158 th the prevention and management of ACS post-TAVR.

159 tify variables associated with pre- and post-TAVR estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and as

160 ement in DD grade/grade 1 DD at 30 days post-TAVR was seen in 70.8% patients.

161 experienced late readmissions (>30 days post-TAVR), and 17 (2.3%) had multiple readmissions.

162 R eGFR, change in CKD stage at <=7 days post-TAVR, and association of post-TAVR eGFR on intermediate-

163 0.035%) of 2,892 patients within 7 days post-TAVR.

164 ch were strongly associated with higher post-TAVR eGFR.

165 y event monitoring (AEM) in identifying post-TAVR DH-AVB and associated risk factors.

166 A total of 245 patients with IE post-TAVR were included (SEV, 47%; BEV, 53%).

167 The characteristics of IE post-TAVR, including microorganism type, vegetation location,

168 Lower baseline and longitudinal post-TAVR eGFR were associated with lower intermediate-term s

169 Mean post-TAVR costs were reduced among all TAVR patients and amon

170 f 12 (interquartile range, 5-17) months post-TAVR.

171 <=7 days post-TAVR, and association of post-TAVR eGFR on intermediate-term mortality were assessed.

172 rate (eGFR), and assess association of post-TAVR eGFR with mortality.

173 ng was used to determine rate ratios of post-TAVR versus pre-TAVR hospitalizations and costs.

174 ne device success, procedural outcomes, post-TAVR valve performance, and in-hospital clinical outcome

175 of Cardiology guidelines address pacing post-TAVR, they do not provide in-depth discussion of this to

176 rsus medical management; AS-CA survival post-TAVR did not differ from lone AS (p = 0.36).

177 between LVMi regression and longer-term post-TAVR outcomes is unclear.

178 ata were available, 70 (2.0%) underwent post-TAVR dialysis.

179 nts with increased resource utilization post-TAVR as compared with pre-TAVR.

180 nd procedural variables associated with post-TAVR eGFR, change in CKD stage at <=7 days post-TAVR, an

181 ation between LVMi regression at 1-year post-TAVR and clinical outcomes between 1 and 5 years.

182 impact of HF readmission within 1-year post-TAVR, and assessed the effects of the prescription of HF

183 %) were readmitted for HF within 1-year post-TAVR.

184 Pre-TAVR and procedural variables associated with post-TAVR

185 regurgitation was reduced from 45.1% at pre-TAVR baseline to 2.5% at 3 years.

186 Higher pre-TAVR eGFR and transfemoral approach were strongly associ

187 Retrospective review of pre-TAVR CT scans obtained during 2012-2017 was conducted.

188 etermine rate ratios of post-TAVR versus pre-TAVR hospitalizations and costs.

189 e utilization post-TAVR as compared with pre-TAVR.

190 Patients were classified as probable TAVR failure or probable THV failure if they presented w

191 mediate- and high-risk patients who received TAVR in the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter V

192 Patients (n = 5,190) receiving TAVR in the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter V

193 lity occurred in 13.7% of patients receiving TAVR and 16.4% of patients receiving SAVR at 1 year by u

194 Redo-TAVR is a relatively safe and effective option for selec

195 Redo-TAVR may play a key strategy in treating patients in who

196 63,876 TAVR procedures, 212 consecutive redo-TAVR procedures were identified (0.33%): 74 within and 1

197 rs sought to examine outcomes following redo-TAVR.

198 The indication for redo-TAVR was THV stenosis in 12 (16.2%) and 51 (37.0%) (p =

199 The Redo-TAVR registry collected data on consecutive patients who

200 For these 2 groups, TAVR-to-redo-TAVR time was 68 (38 to 154) days and 5 (3 to 6) years.

201 a on consecutive patients who underwent redo-TAVR at 37 centers.

202 evaluations of transcatheter AV replacement (TAVR) devices.

203 VIV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR)

204 and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are expensive cardiovascular technologies with pot

205 fter transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are often transient.

206 fter transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) as compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement

207 oing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) at sites in all U.S. states.

208 fter transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been elusive.

209 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a reasonable alternative to surgica

210 e of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in this high-risk population is debated.

211 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly being adopted as an alternative to

212 that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is noninferior and may be superior to surgical aor

213 fter transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is not known.

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

215 fter transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is unclear.

216 t of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) on kidney function stage in patients with aortic s

217 fter transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgery.

218 iven transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in the

219 ther transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is pre

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

221 with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) results in lower rates of death, stroke, and rehos

222 ting transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) technologies are currently available.

223 ting transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to centers based on volume thresholds alone can po

224 for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to low-risk patients with symptomatic severe aorti

225 n of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) toward lower-risk and younger populations will lea

226 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) use is increasing in patients with longer life exp

227 wing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), and no study has determined the factors associate

228 ring transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)-in-TAVR and present challenges for future coronary

229 oing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

230 post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

231 fter transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

232 s in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

233 fter transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

234 fter transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

235 fter transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

236 fter transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

237 ) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

238 y of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

239 (eg, transcatheter aortic valve replacement [TAVR] versus surgical aortic valve replacement [SAVR]) u

240 rtic stenosis who were at low surgical risk, TAVR with a self-expanding supraannular bioprosthesis wa

241 evere aortic stenosis and low surgical risk, TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve was associated with similar

242 alve disease admitted 2012 to 2016 for SAVR, TAVR, and disease symptoms (congestive heart failure, un

243 ith treating aortic valve disease with SAVR, TAVR, or MT.

244 Similarly, TAVR was associated with an increased risk of major adve

245 0 days after TAVR, which we used to simulate TAVR-in-TAVR with a second Evolut PRO or Evolut PRO+ THV

246 on for oral anticoagulation after successful TAVR to receive rivaroxaban at a dose of 10 mg daily (wi

247 on for oral anticoagulation after successful TAVR, a treatment strategy including rivaroxaban at a do

248 signed patients who had undergone successful TAVR and who did not have an indication for long-term an

249 anticoagulation who had undergone successful TAVR, a rivaroxaban-based antithrombotic strategy was mo

250 on the basis of current evidence supporting TAVR valve durability.

251 tate of Florida in regard to access to TAVR, TAVR utilization rates, and in-hospital mortality.

252 The TAVR group had similar in-hospital (1.8% vs. 2.0%) and 3

253 The TAVR subcohort had longer wait-times (median 84 days) co

254 ubgroup of patients with MELD score <12, the TAVR group had reduced survival compared with the SAVR g

255 and not statistically different between the TAVR and SAVR groups at 30 days (0.8% versus 0.2%; P=0.3

256 om any cause or disabling stroke between the TAVR group and the surgery group (47.9% and 43.4%, respe

257 to 75th percentile: 133 to 778 days) in the TAVR group and 625 days (25th to 75th percentile: 209 to

258 At 5 years, more patients in the TAVR group than in the surgery group had at least mild p

259 Patients included in the TAVR registry of a single expert center from 2009 to 201

260 the overall AS cohort as well as each of the TAVR (P<0.0001) and SAVR (P<0.0001) subgroups.

261 djusted driving distances and times to their TAVR center (mean extra distance [miles]=43.5 [95% CI, 3

262 ent by comparing their home address to their TAVR facility ZIP code.

263 Therefore, TAVR should not be withheld in AS-CA.

264 that there are trade-offs between access to TAVR, its rate of utilization, and procedural mortality,

265 y in state of Florida in regard to access to TAVR, TAVR utilization rates, and in-hospital mortality.

266 SAPIEN 3 registry, patients were assigned to TAVR with the SAPIEN 3.

267 surgical risk to undergo either transfemoral TAVR with the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 valve or SAVR.

268 versus 4.9+/-5.1%, SAVR versus transfemoral TAVR; P=0.485).

269 ymptomatic severe aortic stenosis to undergo TAVR using a commercially available latest generation se

270 2,680 patients without cirrhosis undergoing TAVR and SAVR and 17 patients with cirrhosis who receive

271 file to include all U.S. patients undergoing TAVR from 2012 to 2017.

272 l versus transradial) in patients undergoing TAVR.

273 ients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR, even with baseline impaired eGFR, CKD stage is mor

274 stenosis were included, 4130 (50%) underwent TAVR, 2565 (31.6%) underwent SAVR, and 1412 (17.4%) were

275 of Thoracic Surgeons score of 3.7% underwent TAVR with contemporary devices (n = 740 with Sapien 3; n

276 servational period, 7,203 patients underwent TAVR at 15 hospitals in Switzerland.

277 study including 4949 patients who underwent TAVR (mean age, 81+/-8 years, mean Society of Thoracic S

278 cirrhosis and aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR (n = 55) or SAVR (n = 50) between 2008 and 2016 wer

279 pital outcome data on patients who underwent TAVR from 2007 to 2011 were obtained from the U.K.

280 clinical outcomes in patients who underwent TAVR.

281 ion were assumed to undergo a valve-in-valve TAVR procedure.

282 VIV TAVR was observed to be associated with better short-ter

283 At 30 days, VIV TAVR was associated with lower rates of the composite of

284 e and cardiovascular mortality following VIV TAVR was reported (p-interaction <0.05).

285 rtic bioprosthesis failure with isolated VIV TAVR or redo SAVR between 2010 and 2019.

286 his study was to analyze the outcomes of VIV TAVR versus redo SAVR at a nationwide level in France.

287 ion were more frequently reported in the VIV TAVR group.

288 r patients, life expectancy was reduced when TAVR durability was 30%, 40%, and 50% shorter than that

289 rios of TAVR versus SAVR durability in which TAVR failure times were varied to determine the impact o

290 cant decline from baseline) was greater with TAVR than surgery at 6 months (90.3% vs. 85.3%; p = 0.03

291 e to cardiorenal syndrome that improves with TAVR.

292 -1.15], P=0.7), and mortality was lower with TAVR compared with conservative management (adjusted haz

293 Thirty-day mortality was lower with TAVR compared with SAVR (4.6% versus 12.8%, P<0.01).

294 ntricular hemodynamic burden, was lower with TAVR than SAVR at 1 year (3.7+/-0.8 versus 3.9+/-0.9 mm

295 Medicare beneficiaries who were managed with TAVR, surgical AVR (SAVR), or conservative management fo

296 Standardized mortality ratios with TAVR, SAVR, and conservative management compared with ag

297 , mortality was lower in the short-term with TAVR compared with SAVR but comparable in the mid-term.

298 nts with moderate or severe LVH treated with TAVR who are alive at 1 year, greater LVMi regression at

299 ificantly lower in SAPIEN 3 versus SAPIEN XT TAVR matched cohorts.

300 Compared with SAVR, the SAPIEN-XT TAVR cohort had a significantly higher 5-year exposure a