Normal-Flow Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis: Comparing the U.S. and European Guidelines.

Patients with normal-flow low-gradient (NFLG) severe aortic stenosis present both diagnostic and management challenges, with debate about the whether this represents true severe stenosis and the need for valve replacement. Studies exploring the natural history without intervention have shown similar outcomes of patients with NFLG severe aortic stenosis to those with moderate aortic stenosis and better outcomes after valve replacement than those with low-flow low-gradient severe aortic stenosis. Most studies (all observational) have shown that aortic valve replacement was associated with a survival benefit vs surveillance. Based on available data, the European Society of Cardiology/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery guidelines and European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging/American Society of Echocardiography suggest that these patients are more likely to have moderate aortic stenosis. This clinical entity is not mentioned in the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines. Here we review the definition of NFLG severe aortic stenosis, potential diagnostic algorithms and points of error, the data supporting different management strategies, and the differing guidelines and outline the unanswered questions in the diagnosis and management of these challenging patients.

Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Repair in COAPT-Ineligible Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation.

BACKGROUND: Mitral valve transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (MTEER) was approved in the United States for treatment of functional mitral regurgitation (FMR) based on results from the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation) trial. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to analyze outcomes of MTEER in FMR patients who would have been excluded from COAPT. METHODS: MTEER procedures performed for FMR in the TVT (Transcatheter Valve Therapy) Registry between January 1, 2013, and April 30, 2020, were categorized as "trial-ineligible" if any of the following were present: cardiogenic shock, inotropic support, left ventricular ejection fraction <20%, left ventricular end-systolic dimension >7 cm, home oxygen use, or severe tricuspid regurgitation. Trial-ineligible and trial-eligible groups were compared through 1 year using multivariable models. The primary endpoint was 1-year death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH). RESULTS: Of 6,675 patients who underwent MTEER for FMR, 3,721 (55.7%) were trial-eligible and 2,954 (44.3%) were trial-ineligible. Trial-ineligible patients had lower rates of technical procedural success (86.9% vs 92.6%; P < 0.001) and more frequent in-hospital complications (11.8% vs 5.7%; P < 0.001) compared with trial-eligible patients. A clinically meaningful improvement in health status at 30 days was observed in 78.9% and 77.0% of patients in the trial-ineligible and trial-eligible groups, respectively. There was a higher risk of 1-year death or HFH (HR: 1.73; 95% CI: 1.57-1.91; P < 0.001) in trial-ineligible patients. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who underwent MTEER for FMR in the TVT Registry, nearly one-half would have been ineligible for the COAPT trial. Health status improvement at 30 days was similar in COAPT-ineligible and COAPT-eligible patients, but trial-ineligible patients had higher 1-year rates of death or HFH.

Implementing a comprehensive STEMI protocol to improve care metrics and outcomes in patients with in-hospital STEMI: an observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients who experience in-hospital ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (iSTEMI) represent a uniquely high-risk cohort owing to delays in diagnosis, prolonged time to reperfusion and increased mortality. Quality initiatives aimed at improving the care of this vulnerable, yet understudied population are needed. METHODS: This study included consecutive patients with iSTEMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between 1 January 2011 and 15 July 2019 at a single, tertiary referral centre. A comprehensive iSTEMI protocol (CSP) was implemented on 15 July 2014, incorporating: (1) cardiology fellow activation of the catheterisation lab using standardised criteria, (2) nursing chest pain protocol, (3) improved electronic access to electrocardiographic studies, (4) checklist for initial triage and management, (5) 24/7/365 catheterisation lab readiness and (6) radial-first PCI approach. Key metrics and clinical outcomes were compared before and after CSP implementation. RESULTS: Among 125 total subjects, the post-CSP cohort (n=81) was younger, had more males and were more likely to be hospitalised for cardiac-related reasons relative to the pre-CSP cohort (n=44) who were more likely hospitalised for operative-related aetiologies. After CSP adoption, median ECG-to-first-device-activation time decreased from 113 min to 64 min (p<0.001), goal ECG-to-first-device-activation time increased from 36% to 76% of patients (p<0.001), administration of guideline-directed medical therapy prior to PCI increased from 27.3% to 65.4% (p<0.001), trans-radial access increased from 16% to 70% (p<0.001) and rates of discharge home increased from 56.8% to 76.5% (p=0.04). Statistically insignificant numerical reductions were observed post-CSP in in-hospital mortality (18.2% vs 9.9%, p=0.30), 30-day mortality (15.9% vs 12.3%, p=0.78) and 1-year mortality (27.3% vs 21.0%, p=0.57). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a CSP was associated with marked enhancements in key care metrics among patients with iSTEMI. Among a larger cohort, the use of a CSP yielded a significant reduction in ECG-to-first-device-activation time in a particularly vulnerable population at high risk of death.

Site Variability in Cerebral Embolic Protection for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation and Association With Outcomes.

Background: The effectiveness of cerebral embolic protection devices (CEPD) in mitigating stroke after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains uncertain, and therefore CEPD may be utilized differently across US hospitals. This study aims to characterize the hospital-level pattern of CEPD use during TAVI in the US and its association with outcomes. Methods: Patients treated with nontransapical TAVI in the 2019 Nationwide Readmissions Database were included. Hospitals were categorized as CEPD non-users and CEPD users. The following outcomes were compared: the composite of in-hospital stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), in-hospital ischemic stroke, death, and cost of hospitalization. Logistic regression models were used for risk adjustment of clinical outcomes. Results: Of 41,822 TAVI encounters, CEPD was used in 10.6% (n = 4422). Out of 392 hospitals, 65.8% were CEPD non-user hospitals and 34.2% were CEPD users. No difference was observed between CEPD non-users and CEPD users in the risk of in-hospital stroke or TIA (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 0.99 [0.86-1.15]), ischemic stroke (adjusted OR = 1.00 [0.85-1.18]), or in-hospital death (adjusted OR = 0.86 [0.71-1.03]). The cost of hospitalization was lower in CEPD non-users. Conclusions: Two-thirds of hospitals in the US do not use CEPD for TAVI, and no significant difference was observed in neurologic outcomes among patients treated at CEPD non-user and CEPD user hospitals.

Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Asymptomatic or Minimally Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in minimally symptomatic patients. OBJECTIVES: The authors aimed to evaluate the outcomes of patients with minimally symptomatic severe aortic stenosis treated with TAVR in the STS/ACC TVT registry. METHODS: Minimally symptomatic status was defined as a baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score (KCCQ-OS) ≥75. Clinical and health status outcomes of TAVR in patients with severe aortic stenosis and normal left ventricular ejection fraction were compared between minimally symptomatic patients and those with moderate or severe symptoms. RESULTS: Among 231,285 patients who underwent TAVR between 2015 and 2021 (median age 80.0 years [IQR: 74.0-86.0 years], 47.5% female), 20.0% were minimally symptomatic before TAVR. Survival at 1 year was higher in minimally symptomatic patients vs those with moderate or severe symptoms (adjusted HR for death: 0.70 [95% CI: 0.66-0.75]). Mean KCCQ-OS increased by 2.7 points (95% CI: 2.6-2.9 points) at 30 days and 3.8 points (95% CI: 3.6-4.0 points) at 1 year in minimally symptomatic patients compared with increases of 32.2 points (95% CI: 32.0-32.3 points) at 30 days and 34.9 points (95% CI: 34.7-35.0 points) at 1 year in more symptomatic patients. Minimally symptomatic patients had higher odds of being alive and well at 1 year (OR: 1.19 [95% CI: 1.16-1.23]). CONCLUSIONS: Although minimally symptomatic patients treated with TAVR experience only small improvements in health status, their overall outcomes are favorable with a higher likelihood of survival with good health status at 1 year compared with more symptomatic patients.

Heart Failure after Aortic Valve Replacement: Incidence, Risk Factors, and Implications.

Severe aortic stenosis (AS) carries a poor prognosis with the onset of heart failure (HF) symptoms, and surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (AVR) is its only definitive treatment. The management of AS has seen a paradigm shift with the adoption of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), allowing for the treatment of AS in patients who would not otherwise be candidates for surgical AVR. Despite improving long-term survival after TAVR in recent years, residual HF symptoms and HF hospitalization are common and are associated with an increased mortality and a poor health status. This review article summarizes the incidence and risk factors for HF after AVR. Strategies for preventing and better managing HF after AVR are necessary to improve outcomes in this patient population. Extensive research is underway to assess whether earlier timing for AVR, prior to the development of severe symptomatic AS and associated extra-valvular cardiac damage, can improve post-AVR patient outcomes.

Rehospitalization Events After Aortic Valve Replacement: Insights From the PARTNER Trial.

BACKGROUND: Rehospitalization is a common end point in clinical trials of structural heart interventions, but whether rehospitalization is clinically and prognostically relevant in these patients is uncertain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of rehospitalization events after aortic valve replacement (AVR) and their association with mortality and health status. METHODS: The study population included patients who underwent transcatheter or surgical AVR in the PARTNER I' II' and III trials (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves). Health status was assessed with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-overall summary score. The primary analysis focused on heart failure hospitalization within 1 year after AVR and its association with mortality, poor outcome (death, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-overall summary score <60 or decrease by ≥10), and health status at 1 year using adjusted models. Secondary analyses examined the prognostic associations of rehospitalization due to a composite of heart failure, valve-related, or procedure-related causes. RESULTS: Among 3403 patients treated with AVR (2008 transcatheter AVR, 1395 surgical AVR), the 1-year incidence was 6.7% for heart failure hospitalization and 9.7% for rehospitalization due to a composite of heart failure, valve-related, or procedure-related causes. Heart failure hospitalization after AVR was associated with increased risk of 1-year mortality (hazard ratio, 3.97 [2.48 to 6.36]; P<0.001), poor outcome (OR, 2.76 [1.73 to 4.40]; P<0.001), and worse health status (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-overall summary mean difference -9.8 points [-13.8 to -5.8]; P<0.001). Rehospitalization due to a composite of heart failure, valve-related, or procedure-related causes was similarly associated with increased 1-year mortality (hazard ratio, 4.64 [3.11 to 6.92]; P<0.001), poor outcome (OR, 2.06 [1.38 to 3.07]; P=0.0004), and worse health status (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-overall summary mean difference -8.8 points [-11.8 to -5.7]; P<0.001). There was no effect modification by treatment type (transcatheter AVR versus surgical AVR) for these associations. CONCLUSIONS: Heart failure hospitalization and rehospitalization after AVR are associated with increased risk of mortality and worse 1-year health status. These findings confirm the clinical and prognostic relevance of rehospitalization end points for trials of AVR. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT00530894.

Trends in invasive treatment of patients hospitalized with aortic stenosis complicated by cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND: Before the development of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) was the only potential nonsurgical intervention for patients with aortic stenosis complicated by cardiogenic shock. Emergent TAVR is now an option and has shown acceptable outcomes compared with elective TAVR. We explored how treatment patterns for aortic stenosis and cardiogenic shock among patients received invasive intervention have shifted since TAVR was introduced. METHODS: We used the Nationwide In patients Sample to identify nonelective hospitalizations for patient with aortic stenosis complicated by cardiogenic shock who received invasive treatment (TAVR, BAV, or surgical aortic valve replacement [SAVR]). We explored the proportion treated with each treatment modality over time, the patient characteristics and in-hospital mortality associated with each treatment, and used multivariable logistic regression to examine whether changes in in-hospital mortality over time differed by treatment. RESULTS: Between 2010 and 2019, we identified 9899 hospitalizations for decompensated aortic stenosis with cardiogenic shock during which patients received invasive treatment (TAVR 17.7%, BAV 20.2%, SAVR 62.1%). Use of both TAVR and BAV has increased over time compared with SAVR (TAVR 6.6% ≥ 33.8%, BAV 8.4% ≥ 23.2%, SAVR 91.6% ≥ 43.0%; p < 0.001 for trend). The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 21.0%, which decreased over time for all treatments (TAVR 20.0% ≥ 18.8%, BAV 66.0% ≥ 25.5%, SAVR 17.7% ≥ 11.8%; linear trend p < 0.001 for each), with lower mortality for TAVR versus BAV at all time points. Patients treated with TAVR (vs. BAV) were less likely to require mechanical ventilation (36.8% vs. 46.3%, p < 0.001) or mechanical circulatory support (22.5% vs. 29.9%, p < 0.001). In the multivariable analysis, the interaction between treatment and time was not significant (p = 0.245), indicating the reduction in in-hospital mortality over time did not differ among the treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Since the introduction of TAVR, there has been a shift toward increased use of nonsurgical invasive treatments (both BAV and TAVR) for aortic stenosis and cardiogenic shock. Although in-hospital mortality has declined, it remains high in all groups, but particularly among patients treated with BAV, where the severity of cardiogenic shock appears to be higher than in those treated with other modalities.

Bioprosthetic valve fracture: a practical guide.

Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (VIV TAVR) is currently indicated for the treatment of failed surgical tissue valves in patients determined to be at high surgical risk for re-operative surgical valve replacement. VIV TAVR, however, often results in suboptimal expansion of the transcatheter heart valve (THV) and can result in patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM), particularly in small surgical valves. Bioprosthetic valve fracture (BVF) and bioprosthetic valve remodeling (BVR) can facilitate VIV TAVR by optimally expanding the THV and reducing the residual transvalvular gradient by utilizing a high-pressure inflation with a non-compliant balloon to either fracture or stretch the surgical valve ring, respectively. This article, along with the supplemental video, will provide patient selection, procedural planning and technical insights for performing BVF and BVR.

Relationship of Neighborhood Deprivation and Outcomes of a Comprehensive ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Protocol.

Background We evaluated whether a comprehensive ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction protocol (CSP) focusing on guideline-directed medical therapy, transradial percutaneous coronary intervention, and rapid door-to-balloon time improves process and outcome metrics in patients with moderate or high socioeconomic deprivation. Methods and Results A total of 1761 patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous coronary intervention at a single hospital before (January 1, 2011-July 14, 2014) and after (July 15, 2014- July 15, 2019) CSP implementation were included in an observational cohort study. Neighborhood deprivation was assessed by the Area Deprivation Index and was categorized as low (≤50th percentile; 29.0%), moderate (51st -90th percentile; 40.8%), and high (>90th percentile; 30.2%). The primary process outcome was door-to-balloon time. Achievement of guideline-recommend door-to-balloon time goals improved in all deprivation groups after CSP implementation (low, 67.8% before CSP versus 88.5% after CSP; moderate, 50.7% before CSP versus 77.6% after CSP; high, 65.5% before CSP versus 85.6% after CSP; all P<0.001). Median door-to-balloon time among emergency department/in-hospital patients was significantly noninferior in higher versus lower deprivation groups after CSP (noninferiority limit=5 minutes; Pnoninferiority high versus moderate = 0.002, high versus low <0.001, moderate versus low = 0.02). In-hospital mortality, the primary clinical outcome, was significantly lower after CSP in patients with moderate/high deprivation in unadjusted (before CSP 7.0% versus after CSP 3.1%; odds ratio [OR], 0.42 [95% CI, 0.25-0.72]; P=0.002) and risk-adjusted (OR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.23-0.77]; P=0.005) models. Conclusions A CSP was associated with improved ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction care across all deprivation groups and reduced mortality in those from moderate or high deprivation neighborhoods. Standardized initiatives to reduce care variability may mitigate social determinants of health in time-sensitive conditions such as ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction.

Prognostic implications and outcomes of cardiac arrest among contemporary patients with STEMI treated with PCI.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac arrest (CA) complicating ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is associated with a disproportionately higher risk of mortality. We described the contemporary presentation, management, and outcomes of CA patients in the era of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: We reviewed 1,272 consecutive STEMI patients who underwent PCI between 1/1/2011-12/31/2016 and compared characteristics and outcomes between non-CA (N = 1,124) and CA patients (N = 148), defined per NCDR definitions as pulseless arrest requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation and/or defibrillation within 24-hr of PCI. RESULTS: Male gender, cerebrovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, in-hospital STEMI, left main or left anterior descending culprit vessel, and initial TIMI 0 or 1 flow were independent predictors for CA. CA patients had longer door-to-balloon-time (106 [83,139] vs. 97 [74,121] minutes, p = 0.003) and greater incidence of cardiogenic shock (48.0% vs. 5.9%, p < 0.001), major bleeding (25.0% vs. 9.4%, p < 0.001), and 30-day mortality (16.2% vs. 4.1%, p < 0.001). Risk score for 30-day mortality based on presenting characteristics provided excellent prognostic accuracy (area under the curve = 0.902). However, over long-term follow-up of 4.5 ± 2.4 years among hospital survivors, CA did not portend any additional mortality risk (HR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.56-1.82, p = 0.97). CONCLUSIONS: In a contemporary cohort of STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI, CA occurs in >10% of patients and is an important mechanism of mortality in patients with in-hospital STEMI. While CA is associated with adverse outcomes, it carries no additional risk of long-term mortality among survivors highlighting the need for strategies to improve the in-hospital care of STEMI patients with CA.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Early Recurrent Myocardial Infarction After Acute Myocardial Infarction.

Background We aimed to understand the characteristics and outcomes of patients readmitted with a recurrent myocardial infarction (RMI) within 90 days of discharge after an acute myocardial infarction (early RMI). Methods and Results We analyzed the timing of reinfarction, etiology, and outcome for all patients admitted with an early RMI within 90 days of discharge after an acute myocardial infarction between January 1, 2010 and January 1, 2017. We identified 6626 admissions for acute myocardial infarction (index myocardial infarction) which led to 168 cases of RMI within 90 days of discharge. The mean patient age was 65.1±13.1 years, and 37% were women. The 90-day probability of readmission with an early RMI was 2.5%. Black race, medical management, higher troponin T, and shorter length of stay were independent predictors of early RMI. Medically managed group had a higher risk for early RMI compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (P=0.04) or coronary artery bypass grafting (P=0.2). Predominant mechanisms for reinfarction were stent thrombosis (17%), disease progression (12%), and unchanged coronary artery disease (11%). At 5 years, the all-cause mortality rate for patients with an early RMI was 49% (95% CI, 40%-57%) compared with 22% (95% CI, 21%-23%) for patients without an early RMI (P<0.0001). Conclusions Early RMI is a life-threatening condition with nearly 50% mortality within 5 years. Stent-related events and progression in coronary artery disease account for most early RMI. Medication compliance, aggressive risk factor management, and care transitions should be the cornerstone in preventing early RMI.

Impact of an electronic medical record-based appointment order on outpatient cardiology follow-up after hospital discharge.

Outpatient follow-up after hospital discharge improves continuity of care and reduces readmissions, but rates of follow-up remain low. It is not known whether electronic medical record (EMR)-based tools improve follow-up. The aim of this study was to determine if an EMR-based order to secure cardiology follow-up appointments at hospital discharge would improve follow-up rates and hospital readmission rates. A pre-post interventional study was conducted and evaluated 39,209 cardiovascular medicine discharges within an academic center between 2012 and 2017. Follow-up rates and readmission rates were compared during 2 years prior to EMR-order implementation (pre-order era 2012-2013, n = 12,852) and 4 years after implementation (EMR-order era 2014-2017, n = 26,357). The primary endpoint was 90-day cardiovascular follow-up rates within our health system. In the overall cohort, the mean age of patients was 69.3 years [SD 14.7] and 60.7% (n = 23,827) were male. In the pre-order era, 90-day follow-up was 56.7 ± 0.4% (7286 of 12,852) and increased to 67.9 ± 0.3% (17,888 of 26,357, P < 0.001) in the EMR-order era. The use of the EMR follow-up order was independently associated with increased outpatient follow-up within 90 days after adjusting for patient demographics and payor status (OR 3.28, 95% CI 3.10-3.47, P < 0.001). The 30-day readmission rate in the pre-order era was 12.8% (1642 of 12,852) compared with 13.7% (3601 of 26,357, P = 0.016) in the EMR-order era. An EMR-based appointment order for follow-up appointment scheduling was associated with increased cardiovascular medicine follow-up, but was not associated with an observed reduction in 30-day readmission rates.

Successful modeling of long term outcomes in end-stage renal disease patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to identify and model risk factors for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and all-cause mortality among patients with ESRD treated with PCI using DES. BACKGROUND: Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) have poor long-term outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with non-ESRD patients. However, there is a paucity of literature regarding risk factors associated with outcomes of ESRD patients after PCI with drug-eluding stents (DES). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study includes all patients with ESRD who underwent first-time PCI with DES at a single, high-volume hospital between 1/1/2005 and 12/31/2015, with follow-up through 9/1/2019. Primary outcomes were MACE (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization) and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Five-year MACE was 83.0% and five-year morality was 77.9% in patients with ESRD (n = 285). Among ESRD patients, factors independently associated with MACE were C-reactive peptide level, SYNTAX score, peripheral vascular occlusive disease, hemoglobin, and treatment of a restenotic lesion (c-index = 0.66). Factors independently associated with mortality in ESRD patients were age, SYNTAX score, non-use of statins at baseline, insulin-dependent diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), peripheral vascular occlusive disease, and platelet count (c-index = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: Despite relatively poor 1-and 5-year outcomes among ESRD patients after PCI, risk of MACE and mortality among this cohort can be successfully modelled, which meaningfully informs clinicians regarding management of ESRD patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Further investigations are necessary to determine whether or not outcomes might be improved through risk profile modification.

Counterpoint: challenges and limitations of transcatheter aortic valve implantation for aortic regurgitation.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for isolated aortic regurgitation (AR) comprises <1.0% of all TAVI procedures performed in the USA. In this manuscript, we review the challenges, evidence and future directions of TAVI for isolated AR. There are no randomised clinical trials or mid-term data evaluating TAVI for isolated AR, and no commercially available devices are approved for this indication. Challenges in performing TAVI for isolated AR as opposed to aortic stenosis (AS) include: lack of a calcified anchoring zone for valve deployment, large and dynamic size of the aortic annulus and high stroke volume (during systole) and regurgitant volume (during diastole) across the aortic annulus during each cardiac cycle. Observational studies have shown that outcomes of TAVI for AR are worse than outcomes of TAVI for AS. However, newer generation TAVI devices may perform better than older generation devices in patients with AR. Two emerging valves (the JenaValve and the J-Valve) are designed with mechanisms to anchor in a non-calcified annulus, and these valves have shown promise for AR. Data on these devices are limited, and clinical investigation is ongoing. Randomised clinical trials are needed to establish TAVI as a safe and effective treatment for isolated AR.