1 North, B. J. & Sinclair, D. A. The intersection between aging and cardiovascular disease. Circ Res110, 1097-1108, doi:10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.111.246876 (2012).
2 Paneni, F., Diaz Canestro, C., Libby, P., Luscher, T. F. & Camici, G. G. The Aging Cardiovascular System: Understanding It at the Cellular and Clinical Levels. J Am Coll Cardiol69, 1952-1967, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2017.01.064 (2017).
3 Kodali, S. K., Velagapudi, P., Hahn, R. T., Abbott, D. & Leon, M. B. Valvular Heart Disease in Patients >/=80 Years of Age. J Am Coll Cardiol71, 2058-2072, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2018.03.459 (2018).
4 Cribier, A. et al. Percutaneous transcatheter implantation of an aortic valve prosthesis for calcific aortic stenosis: first human case description. Circulation106, 3006-3008, doi:10.1161/01.cir.0000047200.36165.b8 (2002).
5 Fanning, J. P., Platts, D. G., Walters, D. L. & Fraser, J. F. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): valve design and evolution. Int J Cardiol168, 1822-1831, doi:10.1016/j.ijcard.2013.07.117 (2013).
6 Adams, D. H. et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis. N Engl J Med370, 1790-1798, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1400590 (2014).
7 Deeb, G. M. et al. 3-Year Outcomes in High-Risk Patients Who Underwent Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol67, 2565-2574, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2016.03.506 (2016).
8 Thyregod, H. G. et al. Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis: 1-Year Results From the All-Comers NOTION Randomized Clinical Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol65, 2184-2194, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2015.03.014 (2015).
9 Sondergaard, L. et al. Two-Year Outcomes in Patients With Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis Randomized to Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: The All-Comers Nordic Aortic Valve Intervention Randomized Clinical Trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv9, doi:10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.115.003665 (2016).
10 Mack, M. J. et al. 5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement for high surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet385, 2477-2484, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60308-7 (2015).
11 Kodali, S. K. et al. Two-year outcomes after transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement. N Engl J Med366, 1686-1695, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1200384 (2012).
12 Leon, M. B. et al. Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients. N Engl J Med374, 1609-1620, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1514616 (2016).
13 Reardon, M. J. et al. Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients. N Engl J Med376, 1321-1331, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1700456 (2017).
14 Mack, M. J. et al. Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement with a Balloon-Expandable Valve in Low-Risk Patients. N Engl J Med380, 1695-1705, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1814052 (2019).
15 Popma, J. J. et al. Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement with a Self-Expanding Valve in Low-Risk Patients. N Engl J Med380, 1706-1715, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1816885 (2019).
16 Siontis, G. C. et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs. surgical aortic valve replacement for treatment of severe aortic stenosis: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Eur Heart J37, 3503-3512, doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehw225 (2016).
17 Siontis, G. C. M. et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs. surgical aortic valve replacement for treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis: an updated meta-analysis. Eur Heart J40, 3143-3153, doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz275 (2019).
18 Zoghbi, W. A. et al. Recommendations for evaluation of prosthetic valves with echocardiography and doppler ultrasound: a report From the American Society of Echocardiography's Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Task Force on Prosthetic Valves, developed in conjunction with the American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Imaging Committee, Cardiac Imaging Committee of the American Heart Association, the European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, the Japanese Society of Echocardiography and the Canadian Society of Echocardiography, endorsed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation, American Heart Association, European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, the Japanese Society of Echocardiography, and Canadian Society of Echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr22, 975-1014; quiz 1082-1014, doi:10.1016/j.echo.2009.07.013 (2009).
19 Pibarot, P. & Dumesnil, J. G. Prosthesis-patient mismatch: definition, clinical impact, and prevention. Heart92, 1022-1029, doi:10.1136/hrt.2005.067363 (2006).
20 Head, S. J. et al. The impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 34 observational studies comprising 27 186 patients with 133 141 patient-years. Eur Heart J33, 1518-1529, doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehs003 (2012).
21 Flameng, W. et al. Prosthesis-patient mismatch predicts structural valve degeneration in bioprosthetic heart valves. Circulation121, 2123-2129, doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.901272 (2010).
22 Abdelghani, M., Soliman, O. I., Schultz, C., Vahanian, A. & Serruys, P. W. Adjudicating paravalvular leaks of transcatheter aortic valves: a critical appraisal. Eur Heart J37, 2627-2644, doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehw115 (2016).
23 Sinning, J. M. et al. Evaluation and management of paravalvular aortic regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol62, 11-20, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2013.02.088 (2013).
24 Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G. & Group, P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ339, b2535, doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 (2009).
25 Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E. & Higgins, J. P. T. Tools for assessing risk of reporting biases in studies and syntheses of studies: a systematic review. BMJ Open8, e019703, doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019703 (2018).
26 Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. (Wiley-Blackwell, 2016).
27 Higgins, J. P. & Thompson, S. G. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in medicine21, 1539-1558, doi:10.1002/sim.1186 (2002).
28 Borenstein, M. Introduction to meta-analysis. (John Wiley & Sons, 2009).
29 Reardon, M. J. et al. 2-Year Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Surgical or Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol66, 113-121, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2015.05.017 (2015).
30 Bleiziffer, S. et al. Incidence, predictors and clinical outcomes of residual stenosis after aortic valve-in-valve. Heart104, 828-834, doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2017-312422 (2018).
31 Abdel-Wahab, M. et al. Comparison of balloon-expandable vs self-expandable valves in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the CHOICE randomized clinical trial. JAMA311, 1503-1514, doi:10.1001/jama.2014.3316 (2014).
32 Liao, Y. B. et al. Incidence, Predictors and Outcome of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Sci Rep7, 15014, doi:10.1038/s41598-017-15396-4 (2017).
33 Vollema, E. M. et al. Transcatheter aortic valve thrombosis: the relation between hypo-attenuated leaflet thickening, abnormal valve haemodynamics, and stroke. Eur Heart J38, 1207-1217, doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehx031 (2017).
34 Capelli, C. et al. Pledget-Armed Sutures Affect the Haemodynamic Performance of Biologic Aortic Valve Substitutes: A Preliminary Experimental and Computational Study. Cardiovasc Eng Technol8, 17-29, doi:10.1007/s13239-016-0284-8 (2017).
35 Hellmeier, F. et al. Hemodynamic Evaluation of a Biological and Mechanical Aortic Valve Prosthesis Using Patient-Specific MRI-Based CFD. Artif Organs42, 49-57, doi:10.1111/aor.12955 (2018).
36 Barili, F. et al. The flaws in the detail of an observational study on transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in intermediate-risks patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg51, 1031-1035, doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezx058 (2017).