Outcomes 2 Years After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients at Low Surgical Risk

Five-year outcomes in trials comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement: a pooled meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data

OBJECTIVES

The incidence of outcomes in trials comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is expected to be different in the short and long term. We planned a meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data from trials comparing TAVI and SAVR to evaluate their time-varying effects on outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the literature from January 2007 through September 2021 on Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and specialistic websites, including randomized trials with allocation to TAVI or SAVR that reported at least 1-year follow-up and that graphed Kaplan-Meier curves of end points. The comparisons were done with grouped frailty Cox models in a landmark framework and fully parametric models.

RESULTS

Seven trials were included (7770 participants). TAVI showed a lower incidence of the composite of death or stroke in the first 6 months [risk-stratified hazard ratio (HR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56-0.77, P-value <0.001], with an HR reversal after 24 months favouring SAVR (risk-stratified HR 1.25; 95% CI 1.08-1.46; P-value 0.003). These outcomes were confirmed for all-cause death (risk-stratified HR after 24 months 1.18; 95% CI 1.03-1.35; P-value 0.01). TAVI was also associated with an increased incidence of rehospitalization after 6 months (risk-stratified HR 1.42; 95% CI 1.06-1.91; P-value 0.018) that got worse after 24 months (risk-stratified HR 1.67; 95% CI 1.24-2.24; P-value <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although it could appear that there is no difference between TAVI and SAVR in the 5-year cumulative results, TAVI shows a strong protective effect in the short term that runs out after 1 year. TAVI becomes a risk factor for all-cause mortality and the composite end point after 24 months and for rehospitalization after 6 months.

Life Expectancy After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Surgical risk, age, perceived life expectancy, and valve durability influence the choice between surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation. The contemporaneous life expectancy after SAVR, in relation to surgical risk and age, is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to determine median survival time in relation to surgical risk and chronological age in SAVR patients.

METHODS

Patients ≥60 years with aortic stenosis who underwent isolated SAVR with a bioprosthesis (n = 8,353) were risk-stratified before surgery into low, intermediate, or high surgical risk using the logistic EuroSCORE (2001-2011) or EuroSCORE II (2012-2017) and divided into age groups. Median survival time and cumulative 5-year mortality were estimated with Kaplan-Meier curves. Cox regression analysis was used to further determine the importance of age.

RESULTS

There were 7,123 (85.1%) low-risk patients, 942 (11.3%) intermediate-risk patients, and 288 (3.5%) high-risk patients. Median survival time was 10.9 years (95% confidence interval: 10.6-11.2 years) in low-risk, 7.3 years (7.0-7.9 years) in intermediate-risk, and 5.8 years (5.4-6.5 years) in high-risk patients. The 5-year cumulative mortality was 16.5% (15.5%-17.4%), 30.7% (27.5%-33.7%), and 43.0% (36.8%-48.7%), respectively. In low-risk patients, median survival time ranged from 16.2 years in patients aged 60 to 64 years to 6.1 years in patients aged ≥85 years. Age was associated with 5-year mortality only in low-risk patients (interaction P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Eighty-five percent of SAVR patients receiving bioprostheses have low surgical risk. Estimated survival is substantial following SAVR, especially in younger, low-risk patients, which should be considered in Heart Team discussions.

Annular size and interaction with trans-catheter aortic valves for treatment of severe bicuspid aortic valve stenosis: Insights from the BEAT registry

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is safe and feasible in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV), but whether annular size may influence TAVR results in BAV patients remains unclear. We aimed at evaluating the impact of aortic annular size on procedural and clinical outcomes of BAV patients undergoing TAVR, as well as potential interactions between annular dimension and trans-catheter heart valve (THV) type (balloon-expandable (BEV) vs. self-expanding (SEV).

METHODS

BEAT is a multicenter registry of consecutive BAV stenosis undergoing TAVR. For this sub-study patients were classified according to annular dimension in small-annulus (area < 400 mm² or perimeter <72 mm), medium-annulus (area ≥ 400 and < 575 mm², perimeter ≥72 mm and< 85 mm), large-annulus (area ≥ 575 mm² or perimeter ≥85 mm). Primary endpoint was Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2) device success.

RESULTS

45(15.5%) patients had small, 132(45.3%) medium, and 114(39.2%) large annuli. Compared with other groups, patients with large annuli were more frequently male, younger, with higher body mass index, larger aortic valve area, higher rate of moderate-severe calcification, lower mean trans-aortic valve gradient and lower left ventricular ejection fraction. In large-annuli SEVs were associated with a lower VARC-2 device success (75.9% vs. 90.6%, p = 0.049) driven by a higher rate of paravalvular valvular leak (PVL) compared to BEVs (20.7% vs. 1.2%, p < 0.001). However, no differences in clinical outcomes were observed according to annular size nor THV type.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVR in BAV patients is feasible irrespective of annular size. However in patients with large aortic annulus SEVs were associated with a significantly higher rate of PVLs compared to BEVs.

Innate and adaptive immunity: the understudied driving force of heart valve disease

Calcific aortic valve disease (CAVD), and its clinical manifestation that is calcific aortic valve stenosis, is the leading cause for valve disease within the developed world, with no current pharmacological treatment available to delay or halt its progression. Characterized by progressive fibrotic remodelling and subsequent pathogenic mineralization of the valve leaflets, valve disease affects 2.5% of the western population, thus highlighting the need for urgent intervention. Whilst the pathobiology of valve disease is complex, involving genetic factors, lipid infiltration, and oxidative damage, the immune system is now being accepted to play a crucial role in pathogenesis and disease continuation. No longer considered a passive degenerative disease, CAVD is understood to be an active inflammatory process, involving a multitude of pro-inflammatory mechanisms, with both the adaptive and the innate immune system underpinning these complex mechanisms. Within the valve, 15% of cells evolve from haemopoietic origin, and this number greatly expands following inflammation, as macrophages, T lymphocytes, B lymphocytes, and innate immune cells infiltrate the valve, promoting further inflammation. Whether chronic immune infiltration or pathogenic clonal expansion of immune cells within the valve or a combination of the two is responsible for disease progression, it is clear that greater understanding of the immune systems role in valve disease is required to inform future treatment strategies for control of CAVD development.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR): Recent updates

Within the last two decades, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized the management of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS). Newer generations of transcatheter valve design, optimized imaging planning, growing operator experience, and technical refinements have driven enhancements in safety and reduction of procedural complications over time. These improvements have allowed expansion to lower risk patients, in which TAVR confirmed favorable outcomes compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Based on current evidence, the 2020 AHA/ACC guidelines provided updated recommendations on indications for TAVR, with several clinical indications remain with SAVR. As TAVR expands to younger, low-risk patients with longer life expectancies, different issues of utmost importance have emerged, such as long-term durability, bioprosthetic valve performance, coronary reaccess, prognostic impact of conduction disturbances and paravalvular leak, reintervention after TAVR, and optimal pharmacological management after the procedure. In this review, we provide an update of recent clinical guidelines and available data from clinical trials and registries, and highlight novel strategies to further reduce procedural complications.

Safety and efficacy of cerebral embolic protection devices in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis of in-hospital outcomes

The evidence regarding the impact of cerebral embolic protection devices (EPDs) on outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is limited. The objective of this study was to evaluate in-hospital outcomes with the use of cerebral EPDs in TAVR. We performed a comprehensive EMBASE and PUBMED search to investigate randomized control studies or propensity score-matched retrospective studies which assessed patients undergoing TAVR with or without EPD up to April 2021. Endpoints of interest were in-hospital mortality, stroke, acute kidney injury, pacemaker implantation, major bleeding, vascular complication, length of stay. Ten studies involving 173,002 patients with EPD (n = 16,898, 9.8%) and those without (n = 156,104, 90.2%) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The use of EPD was associated with significantly lower risk of in-hospital stroke (odds ratio [95% confidential interval]: 0.64 [0.46; 0.89]), but similar rate of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [95% confidential interval]: 0.75 [0.54; 1.05]). No differences were observed in acute kidney injury, pacemaker implantation, major bleeding, vascular complication, length of stay. EPD during TAVR was associated with lower in-hospital stroke but did not affect procedural complications and length of stay.

Cardiovascular CT and MRI in 2020: Review of Key Articles

Despite the global coronavirus pandemic, cardiovascular imaging continued to evolve throughout 2020. It was an important year for cardiac CT and MRI, with increasing prominence in cardiovascular research, use in clinical decision making, and in guidelines. This review summarizes key publications in 2020 relevant to current and future clinical practice. In cardiac CT, these have again predominated in assessment of patients with chest pain and structural heart diseases, although more refined CT techniques, such as quantitative plaque analysis and CT perfusion, are also maturing. In cardiac MRI, the major developments have been in patients with cardiomyopathy and myocarditis, although coronary artery disease applications remain well represented. Deep learning applications in cardiovascular imaging have continued to advance in both CT and MRI, and these are now closer than ever to routine clinical adoption. Perhaps most important has been the rapid deployment of MRI in enhancing understanding of the impact of COVID-19 infection on the heart. Although this review focuses primarily on articles published in Radiology, attention is paid to other leading journals where published CT and MRI studies will have the most clinical and scientific value to the practicing cardiovascular imaging specialist.

The trade-offs in the making of the interventional heart surgeon

The current generation of heart surgeons is experiencing growing consternation with the introduction of the so-called disruptive transcatheter procedures, seemingly threatening the stability and even existence of contemporary cardiovascular surgery. We provide a commentary reporting the comparative outcomes of transcatheter therapies and conventional surgery throughout different scenarios and the evolving superiority of the surgical techniques. The upfront conclusion is that surgeons should strive to keep their surgical skills; the downfall of surgery is not anticipated and as revealed, will hold its ground for the foreseeable future.

Midterm Outcomes Following Sutureless and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Sutureless-surgical aortic valve replacement (SU-SAVR) has been proposed as a surgical alternative for treating aortic stenosis, which facilitates a minimally invasive approach. While some studies have compared the early outcomes of SU-SAVR versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), most data were obtained in high-risk patients and/or limited to in-hospital outcomes. This study aimed to compare in-hospital and midterm clinical outcomes following SU-SAVR and TAVR in low-risk patients with aortic stenosis.

METHODS

A total of 806 consecutive low-risk (EuroSCORE II <4%) patients underwent TAVR or SU-SAVR between 2011 and 2020 in 2 centers. A 1:1 propensity score matching was performed and identified 171 pairs with similar characteristics that were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics, in-hospital and follow-up events (defined according to Valve Academic Research Consortium-2) were collected.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups, with a median EuroSCORE II of 1.9% (1.3%-2.5%) in both SU-SAVR and TAVR groups (P=0.85). There were no statistically significant differences regarding in-hospital mortality (SU-SAVR: 4.1%, TAVR: 1.8%, P=0.199) and stroke (SU-SAVR: 2.3%, TAVR: 2.9%, P=0.736), but SU-SAVR recipients exhibited higher rates of bleeding and new-onset atrial fibrillation, higher residual transvalvular gradients (P<0.001), and a lower rate of pacemaker implantation (P=0.011). After a median follow-up of 2 (1-3) years, there were no differences between groups in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.52-1.82], P=0.936) and stroke (hazard ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.32-2.15], P=0.708), but SU-SAVR was associated with a higher risk of heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio, 5.38 [95% CI, 1.88-15.38], P=0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

In low-risk patients with aortic stenosis, TAVR was associated with improved in-hospital outcomes (except for conduction disturbances) and valve hemodynamics, compared with SU-SAVR. Although similar mortality and stroke rates were observed at 2-year follow-up, the risk of heart failure hospitalization was higher among SU-SAVR patients. These results may contribute to reinforce TAVR over SU-SAVR for the majority of such patients. Graphic Abstract: A graphic abstract is available for this article.

[ESC/EACTS guidelines 2021 on the management of valvular heart diseases : What are the most important innovations?]

In August 2021 the European Society for Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) updated their guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease. Since the publication of the previous version in 2017 new evidence regarding epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment of valvular heart diseases has been accumulating, which led to reassessment of several recommendations. Most importantly, the critical role of the heart team in treatment decision-making was reemphasized, the criteria for choosing the mode of aortic valve interventions were clarified, the definition of severe secondary mitral regurgitation was revised and the recommendation for transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair in patients with this condition was upgraded. Additionally, antithrombotic therapeutic regimens in patients with native valvular heart diseases and bioprostheses were reappraised, the indications for early surgery in selected asymptomatic patient groups were expanded and the potential of transcatheter tricuspid valve interventions in inoperable and high-risk patients was acknowledged, although the latter needs to be further evaluated. This review article summarizes the most important recommendations of the new guidelines.

Surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients: A long-term propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent studies suggest the use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in lower risk populations, but real-world data are scarce.

METHODS

Single-center retrospective study of patients undergoing SAVR (between June 2009 and July 2016, n = 682 patients) or TAVI (between June 2009 and July 2017, n = 400 patients). Low surgical risk was defined as EuroSCORE II (ES II) < 4% for single noncoronary artery bypass graft procedure. TAVI patients were propensity score-matched in a 1:1 ratio with SAVR patients, paired by age, New York Heart Association class, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, atrial fibrillation, creatinine clearance, and left ventricular ejection fraction < 50%.

RESULTS

A total of 158 patients (79 SAVR and 79 TAVI) were matched (mean age 79 ± 6 years, 79 men). TAVI patients had a higher incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation (0% vs. 19%, p < 0.001) and more than mild paravalvular leak (4% vs. 18%, p = 0.009), but comparable rates of stroke, major or life-threatening bleeding, emergent cardiac surgery, new-onset atrial fibrillation, and need for renal replacement therapy. Hospital length-of-stay and 30-day mortality were similar. At a median follow-up of 4.5 years (IQR 3.0-6.9), treatment strategy did not influence all-cause mortality (HR 1.19, 95% CI 0.77-1.83, log rank p = 0.43) nor rehospitalization (crude subdistribution HR 1.56, 95% CI 0.71-3.41, p = 0.26). ES II remained the only independent predictor of long-term all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.04-1.90, p = 0.029).

CONCLUSION

In this low surgical risk severe aortic stenosis population, we observed similar rates of 30-day and long-term all-cause mortality, despite higher rates of permanent pacemaker implantation and more than mild paravalvular leak in TAVI patients. The results of this small study suggest that both procedures are safe and effective in the short-term, while the Heart Team remains essential to assess both options on the long-term.

Incidence, predictors, and clinical outcomes of permanent pacemaker insertion following transcatheter aortic valve implantation in an Arab population

PURPOSE

Conduction defects requiring permanent pacemaker insertion (PPI) are one of the most common complications after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The purpose of this study was to identify the incidence and predictors of this complication as well as to assess clinical outcomes of patients requiring PPI after TAVI in an Arab population.

METHODS

In this single-center, retrospective cohort analysis, all patients who underwent TAVI from 2010 to 2018 were reviewed; seventy-four independent variables were collected per patient, and multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors. In-hospital outcomes were examined as well as 30-day and 1-year endpoints as defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2.

RESULTS

There were 48 of 170 patients (28.2%) who required PPI within 30 days of TAVI. The median time from TAVI to PPI was 2 days (interquartile range: 0 to 5 days). Positive predictors of 30-day PPI were prior right bundle branch block (odds ratio [OR]: 4.10; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.37 to 0.79; p < 0.001), post-procedural development of new right bundle branch block (OR: 3.59; 95% CI: 1.07 to 12.03; p = 0.038), post-procedural development of new left bundle branch block (LBBB) (OR: 1.85; 95% CI: 1.21 to 2.84; p = 0.005), post-procedural prolongation of PR interval (OR: 1.02; 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.02; p < 0.001), and post-procedural QRS duration (OR: 1.01; 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.03; p = 0.02). However, post-procedural development of new LBBB no longer remained a significant predictor of PPI after excluding six patients with LBBB who underwent prophylactic PPI (p = 0.093). Negative predictors of 30-day PPI were the presence of diabetes (OR: 0.54; 95% CI: 037 to 0.79; p = 0.001), the use of prosthesis size 29 compared to 23 (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.87; p = 0.010), and the use of prosthesis size 26 compared to 23 (OR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.50; p < 0.001). PPI was associated with longer median hospital stay, but the result was borderline significant after multivariate adjustment (19 vs. 14 days; p = 0.052). There was no statistically significant difference in 30-day and 1-year clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

One-third of patients required PPI after TAVI. Several risk factors can identify patients at risk for PPI particularly pre-existing right bundle branch block. Further studies are needed to assess the association between PPI and negative clinical outcomes.

One-Year Outcomes after Surgical versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with Newer Generation Devices

The superiority of transcatheter (TAVR) over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe aortic stenosis (AS) has not been fully demonstrated in a real-world setting. This prospective study included 5706 AS patients who underwent SAVR from 2010 to 2012 and 2989 AS patients who underwent TAVR from 2017 to 2018 from the prospective multicenter observational studies OBSERVANT I and II. Early adverse events as well as all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), and hospital readmission due to heart failure at 1-year were investigated. Among 1008 propensity score matched pairs, TAVR was associated with significantly lower 30-day mortality (1.8 vs. 3.5%, p = 0.020), stroke (0.8 vs. 2.3%, p = 0.005), and acute kidney injury (0.6 vs. 8.2%, p < 0.001) compared to SAVR. Moderate-to-severe paravalvular regurgitation (5.9 vs. 2.0%, p < 0.001) and permanent pacemaker implantation (13.8 vs. 3.3%, p < 0.001) were more frequent after TAVR. At 1-year, TAVR was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (7.9 vs. 11.5%, p = 0.006), MACCE (12.0 vs. 15.8%, p = 0.011), readmission due to heart failure (10.8 vs. 15.9%, p < 0.001), and stroke (3.2 vs. 5.1%, p = 0.033) compared to SAVR. TAVR reduced 1-year mortality in the subgroups of patients aged 80 years or older (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.33–0.71), in females (HR 0.57, 0.38–0.85), and among patients with EuroSCORE II ≥ 4.0% (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.32–0.71). In a real-world setting, TAVR using new-generation devices was associated with lower rates of adverse events up to 1-year follow-up compared to SAVR.

Device profile of the SAPIEN 3 transcatheter heart valve in low-risk patients with aortic stenosis: overview of its safety and efficacy

INTRODUCTION

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a treatment of reference for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, and the balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 and SAPIEN 3 Ultra transcatheter heart valve systems are two of the most broadly used worldwide. Lately, TAVR has progressively expanded toward the treatment of low-risk patients.

AREAS COVERED

In this review we aimed to describe the main characteristics of the SAPIEN 3 valve, and to delineate the main clinical findings regarding the safety and efficacy associated with this THV system in low-risk patients undergoing TAVR.

EXPERT OPINION

The approval of THV systems for use in low-risk patients has been a significant step forward in expanding current TAVR indications. Along with procedural refinement and growing operator experience, device iterations implemented in new-generation THV systems have played a vital role in the successful spread of TAVR. The availability of SAPIEN 3 represented an inflection point, as it allows for a predictable positioning and safer navigability while dramatically decreasing the rate of residual paravalvular leakage compared to previous balloon-expandable systems. However, some unresolved issues remain like the relatively high rates of conduction disturbances and the uncertainty about valve performance in the long-term. Future studies are warranted.

Transcatheter Heart Valves: A Biomaterials Perspective

Heart valve disease is prevalent throughout the world, and the number of heart valve replacements is expected to increase rapidly in the coming years. Transcatheter heart valve replacement (THVR) provides a safe and minimally invasive means for heart valve replacement in high-risk patients. The latest clinical data demonstrates that THVR is a practical solution for low-risk patients. Despite these promising results, there is no long-term (>20 years) durability data on transcatheter heart valves (THVs), raising concerns about material degeneration and long-term performance. This review presents a detailed account of the materials development for THVRs. It provides a brief overview of THVR, the native valve properties, the criteria for an ideal THV, and how these devices are tested. A comprehensive review of materials and their applications in THVR, including how these materials are fabricated, prepared, and assembled into THVs is presented, followed by a discussion of current and future THVR biomaterial trends. The field of THVR is proliferating, and this review serves as a guide for understanding the development of THVs from a materials science and engineering perspective.

Variablity of Mechanical or Tissue Valve Implantation in Patients Undergoing Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Spain: National Retrospective Analysis from 2007 to 2018

Background: There is no robust evidence regarding the types of valves implanted among patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in Spain. Methods: All cases of patients undergoing SAVR ± coronary artery bypass grafting from January 2007 to December 2018 in the public Spanish National Health System were included. We analyzed the trends of SAVR volume, risk profile and type of implanted valve across time and place. Using multivariable logistic regression, we identified factors associated with biological SAVR. Results: In total, 62,870 episodes of SAVR in 15 Spanish territories were included. In 35,693 (56.8%), a tissue valve was implanted. The annual volume of procedures increased from 107.3/million (2007) to 128.6 (2017). In 2018, it fell to 108.5. Age increased and Charlson’s comorbity index worsened throughout the study period. Tissue valve implantation increased in most regions. After adjusting for other covariates, we observed a high variability in aortic valve implantation across different regions, with differences of as much as 20-fold in the use of tissue valves. Conclusions: Between 2007 and 2018, we detected a significant increase in the use of bioprostheses in patients undergoing SAVR in Spain, and a great variability in the types of valve between the Spanish territories, which was not explained by the different risk profiles of patients.

Neurocognitive Status after Aortic Valve Replacement: Differences between TAVI and Surgery

Over the past decade, indications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) have progressed rapidly—procedural numbers now exceed those of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in many countries, and TAVI is now a realistic and attractive alternative to SAVR in low-risk patients. Neurocognitive outcomes after TAVI and SAVR remain an issue and sit firmly under the spotlight as TAVI moves into low-risk cohorts. Cognitive decline and stroke carry a significant burden and predict future functional decline, reduced mobility, poor quality of life and increased mortality. Early TAVI trials used varying neurocognitive definitions, and outcomes differed significantly as a result. Recent international consensus statements defining endpoints following TAVI and SAVR have standardised neurological outcomes and facilitate interpretation and comparison between trials. The latest TAVI and SAVR trials have demonstrated more consistent and favourable neurocognitive outcomes for TAVI patients, and cerebral embolic protection devices offer the prospect of further refinement and improvement.