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

1 lure, mortality, and treatment futility with aortic valve replacement.

2 he use of CT-FFR for coronary evaluation pre-aortic valve replacement.

3 progression aortic stenosis and the need for aortic valve replacement.

4 older women and men undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

5 d with the need for PPMI after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

6 e patients should be promptly considered for aortic valve replacement.

7 cohort of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

8 ctor of adverse outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

9 nd longer-term follow-up after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

10 stenosis treated medically or with surgical aortic valve replacement.

11 ally studied in the context of transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

12 oint was PPMI at 1 month after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

13 bridged to lung transplant via transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

14 ic AS patients who may benefit from elective aortic valve replacement.

15 f AMCC and need for PPMI after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

16 ause mortality at 1 year after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

17 s (CVEs) are devastating complications after aortic valve replacement.

18 ited to traditional surgical or percutaneous aortic valve replacement.

19 tcome in patients eligible for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

20 jection fraction recovery post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

21 Appropriate valve sizing is critical in aortic valve replacement.

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

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

24 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

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

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

27 rger if patients had undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

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

29 o identify patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

30 million patients eligible for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

31 d cell (RBC) transfusion after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

32 lung transplant 56 days after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

33 Valve Evolut bioprostheses for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

34 er risk of death who may derive benefit from aortic valve replacement.

35 hly 50% of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

36 lung transplant 103 days after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

37 t CS can be safely applied for transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

38 2 mm) aortic annuli undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

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

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

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

42 5 years after TAVR as compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement.

43 Of 614 patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (11.8% PPMI rate), we included

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

45 CI, 0.4%-1.6%) including 1 case of surgical aortic valve replacement and 4 redo-transcatheter aortic

46 n low-risk patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement and assessed 1-year clinical an

47 m/s/year] p = 0.019), and increased risk for aortic valve replacement and death (n = 145; hazard rati

48 ces in older adults undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement and draws attention to the impa

49 cute kidney injury early after transcatheter aortic valve replacement and is an independent predictor

50 esenting a better alternative to concomitant aortic valve replacement and lung transplant in elderly

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

52 AD), the completely percutaneous approach to aortic valve replacement and revascularization has not b

53 view of reported outcome after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement and to translate this to age-sp

54 VI had an early safety benefit over surgical aortic valve replacement and was associated with faster

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

56 ave compared bioprostheses for transcatheter aortic valve replacement, and no trials have compared bi

57 After transcatheter aortic valve replacement, aortic flow was nonsignificant

58 Transcatheter aortic valve replacements are minimally invasive procedu

59 lar ventricular mass, aortic valve area, and aortic valve replacement as a time-dependent covariate,

60 ality in multivariable analysis adjusted for aortic valve replacement as a time-dependent variable (h

61 an indication for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement as agreed by the heart team wer

62 adjustment for outcome predictors including aortic valve replacement as time-dependent covariate, lo

63 ent for age, sex, and surgical/transcatheter aortic valve replacement (as time-dependent covariates);

64 ontrol groups after successful transcatheter aortic valve replacement at 14 centers in Spain.

65 ll, 34 893 patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement at 445 hospitals were analyzed.

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

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

68 g coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and aortic valve replacement (AVR) and the relationship betw

69 porary data on loss in life expectancy after aortic valve replacement (AVR) are scarce, particularly

70 h severe aortic stenosis undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) are unknown.

71 Aortic valve replacement (AVR) does not usually restore

72 Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is only formally indicate

73 of anticoagulation (AC) after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR) on valve hemodynamics and

74 7,882 patients, 63.8% (n = 49,706) underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR), 18.9% (n = 14,686) under

75 1.21-1.97]) and after further adjustment for aortic valve replacement (AVR; adjusted HR, 1.47 [95% CI

76 RTNER 2 patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement, baseline LVEF was an independe

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

78 er self-expanding transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement, but these findings did not cor

79 that may slow progression to the point where aortic valve replacement can be avoided.

80 mbosis has been reported after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement, characterized using 4-dimensio

81 ions were commonly reported in transcatheter aortic valve replacement clinical trials.

82 enosis undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement comparing CS versus GA.

83 ysiological mechanisms of post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement complications and provide updat

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

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

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

87 Furthermore, aortic valve replacement event rates were significantly

88 SAVR) warranting further analysis in modern aortic valve replacement experience.

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

90 hed patients who had undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis, patients w

91 States undergoing transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis.

92 ess the efficacy and safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bicuspid aortic stenosis.

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

94 episode payments for patients who underwent aortic valve replacement from 90 days before aortic valv

95 evaluated patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement from November 1, 2011 to June 3

96 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement has become the procedure of cho

97 on individual end points after transcatheter aortic valve replacement has been conducted to date.

98 More recently, transcatheter aortic valve replacement has emerged as a valid alternat

99 The performance of transcatheter aortic valve replacement has expanded considerably durin

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

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

102 lar biopsies (10x1x1 mm(3)) were obtained at aortic valve replacement (HFpEF(AVR), n=5; and HFrEF(AVR

103 italization at 1 year compared with surgical aortic valve replacement; however, the effect of treatme

104 ave increased every year, exceeding surgical aortic valve replacement in 2019 (72,991 vs. 57,626), an

105 ate of 30-day stroke following transcatheter aortic valve replacement in a US registry population rem

106 nd SURTAVI trials (Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients)

107 (Medtronic Evolut Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Risk Patients; NCT027012

108 Background To support decision-making in aortic valve replacement in nonelderly adults, we aim to

109 e with aortic valve hemodynamic status after aortic valve replacement in patients at low risk for sur

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

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

112 Surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with small annular

113 nvalvular atrial fibrillation; transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with symptomatic se

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

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

116 Patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the PARTNER 2 trials (Placem

117 In patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the US, vascular complicatio

118 tres experienced in performing transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the USA and Australia.

119 ter aortic valve replacement versus surgical aortic valve replacement in the whole cohort and within

120 r almost 50% of patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement in the younger patients.

121 nd SURTAVI trials (Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients)

122 lar bioprosthesis was compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement in patients who had severe aort

123 replacement (TAVR) as compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement in patients with severe aortic

124 Although aortic valve replacement is associated with a major bene

125 ith end-stage renal disease (ESRD), surgical aortic valve replacement is associated with higher early

126 After aortic valve replacement, left ventricular afterload is

127 ts with AS and concomitant CA, transcatheter aortic valve replacement may be preferred to surgery in

128 This report suggests that transcatheter aortic valve replacement may favorably impact lung trans

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 isk aortic stenosis to undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement (n = 221) or surgery (n = 214).

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

133 eter Valves) and registry the outcomes after aortic valve replacement of the 4 flow-gradient groups.

134 The benefit of transcatheter aortic valve replacement on 12-month KCCQ scores was gre

135 isk, the estimated benefits of transcatheter aortic valve replacement on survival and health status c

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

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

138 created by current generation transcatheter aortic valve replacement, percutaneous endovascular abdo

139 igation in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, percutaneous endovascular abdo

140 have limitations when used for transcatheter aortic valve replacement, percutaneous endovascular abdo

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

142 ed patients after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement; propensity score-matching iden

143 Current guidelines consider aortic valve replacement reasonable in asymptomatic pati

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

145 Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Registry; NCT03836521).

146 botic regimen after successful transcatheter aortic valve replacement remains unclear, in the absence

147 e replacement (TAVR) is supplanting surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and medical therapy (MT)

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

149 Patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are considered at high r

150 noninferior and may be superior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for mortality, stroke, a

151 rged as a reasonable alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with severe

152 aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for real-world propensit

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

154 aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients 70 years or

155 acement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe

156 aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in the PARTNER (Placemen

157 aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is preferred for patient

158 s with severe aortic stenosis after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic

159 c valve replacement (TAVR) and redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) represent the 2 treatmen

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

161 aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) results in similar rates

162 AVR) is generally better than after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), especially in patients

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

164 being adopted as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

165 ive, high, or intermediate risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

166 aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

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

168 tic valve replacement [TAVR] versus surgical aortic valve replacement [SAVR]) using trial-adjudicated

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

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

171 Echocardiography post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement showed a low mean residual grad

172 s from 68 male/46 female patients undergoing aortic valve replacement surgery were obtained at baseli

173 Aortic valve replacement (surgical or catheter based) wa

174 fective endocarditis (IE) post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) according to transcathet

175 supports the widespread use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) among patients who are a

176 Valve-in-valve (VIV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and redo surgical aortic

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

178 ular assist device (LVAD), and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are expensive cardiovasc

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

180 Conduction disturbances after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are often transient.

181 ta on the risk of IE following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) are sparse and limited b

182 on 276,316 patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) at sites in all U.S. sta

183 About one-half of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) candidates have coronary

184 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for degenerated surgical

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

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

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

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

189 conduction disturbances after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been elusive.

190 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a reasona

191 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a safe an

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

193 een 2008 and 2017, when use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in older adults was beco

194 e demonstrated the benefits of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with aortic

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

196 The role of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in this high-risk popula

197 pecific computer simulation of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in tricuspid aortic valv

198 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) indications are expandin

199 Transfemoral aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a guideline-recommend

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

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

202 Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an option when a surg

203 erformance of prostheses after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is generally better than

204 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly being ad

205 ical trial results showed that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is noninferior and may b

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

207 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is supplanting surgical

208 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is the preferred treatme

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

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

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

212 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) offers another alternati

213 dy was to assess the effect of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) on hospitalizations in s

214 The effect of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) on kidney function stage

215 aging 30 days and 1 year after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgery.

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

217 is similar after transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve

218 n randomized to treatment with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve

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

220 h severe aortic stenosis given transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve

221 ogists often determine whether transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve

222 Despite major improvements in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) periprocedural complicat

223 antithrombotic treatment after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains a matter of deba

224 surgical risk, treatment with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) results in lower rates o

225 Two competing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) technologies are current

226 Restricting transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to centers based on volu

227 d expanding the indication for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to low-risk patients wit

228 OTION) was designed to compare transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to surgical aortic valve

229 Expanding the indication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) toward lower-risk and yo

230 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) use is increasing in pat

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

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

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

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

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

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

237 t on coronary events following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), and no study has determ

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

239 ause coronary occlusion during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)-in-TAVR and present chal

240 ith aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

241 ng-term valve durability after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

242 d hs-Tn in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

243 itis may affect patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

244 hospitalizations 1 year after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

245 ed in-hospital complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

246 outcomes following successful transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

247 outcomes relationship (VOR) in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

248 mbolic protection (CEP) during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

249 rtant to improve the safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

250 ccess is the gold standard for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

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

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

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

254 HF) readmission is common post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

255 ic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

256 on surgical explantation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

257 ly used as secondary access in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

258 omes or results in futility of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

259 erformance (EP) >=1 year after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

260 e and death after transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR, SAVR) warranting further

261 ajor outcomes are similar with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic-valv

262 rosthetic-valve function after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) as compared with surgica

263 During the introduction of transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) in the United States, re

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

265 n reduce these phenomena after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is not known.

266 nt thromboembolic events after transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) is unclear.

267 red across treatment arms (eg, transcatheter aortic valve replacement [TAVR] versus surgical aortic v

268 undergoing bioprosthetic AVR (transcatheter aortic valve replacement [TAVR], n = 3,889 and surgical

269 ters is well established after transcatheter aortic valve replacement, the role of Tei has not been e

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

271 patients with severe symptomatic AS awaiting aortic valve replacement, there has been a trend of incr

272 aortic valve replacement from 90 days before aortic valve replacement through 90 days after hospital

273 enosis undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement, use of CS compared with GA res

274 and extra-large aortic annuli, transcatheter aortic valve replacement using 29-mm Sapien-3 and 34-mm

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

276 Implanted surgical aortic valve replacement valves were smaller relative to

277 ortic Transcatheter Valves) of transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus standard care.

278 tes of clinical events between transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical aortic valve re

279 onths, the survival benefit of transcatheter aortic valve replacement was also greater in the joint m

280 r the primary analysis cohort, transcatheter aortic valve replacement was performed in 210 (79.8%), a

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

282 d analysis of the FRAILTY-AVR study (Frailty Aortic Valve Replacement) was performed to analyze the d

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

284 echocardiography pre- and post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement were considered eligible for th

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

286 large aortic annuli underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement with 29-mm Sapien-3 (n=640) or

287 Conclusions Aortic valve replacement with bioprostheses in young adu

288 for papers reporting clinical outcome after aortic valve replacement with currently available biopro

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

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

291 l risk undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the 25-mm Meridian valve.

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

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

294 and vascular access method, to transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the first generation Porti

295 minary safety, and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the HLT Meridian valve (HL

296 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the Meridian valve was fea

297 Transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the SAPIEN 3 valve.

298 Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement with the self-expanding ACURATE

299 consisted of a total of 22 876 referrals for aortic valve replacement, with (N=8098) TAVR and (N=14 7

300 rtion of patients treated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement, yet there remain conflicting r