Search

Competing Interests: RTH reports speaker fees from Abbott Structural, Baylis Medical, and Philips Healthcare. DM reports speaker fees from GE HealthCare, Philips Healthcare, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Janssen-Cilag. BRL is supported by the National Institutes of Health (grants R01AG073633 and R01HL164526) and has received speaker fees and investigator-initiated research grants from Edwards Lifesciences. VD received speaker fees from Edwards Lifesciences, Philips Healthcare, Novartis, and Medtronic, and consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Novo Nordisk. MRD is supported by the British Heart Foundation (FS/SCRF/21/32010) and is the recipient of the Sir Jules Thorn Award for Biomedical Research 2015 (15/JTA); he has received speaker fees from Pfizer, Radcliffe Cardiology, Edwards, and Novartis, and consulting fees from Novartis, Jupiter Bioventures, Beren Therapeutics, and Silence Therapeutics.

Background: For patients with asymptomatic, severe aortic stenosis (AS) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, current guidelines recommend clinical surveillance every 6 to 12 months. To date, no randomized trials have examined whether an early intervention with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) will improve outcomes among these patients., Study Design and Objectives: EARLY TAVR is a prospective, randomized, controlled, and multicenter trial, with an event-based design. Asymptomatic severe AS patients (n = 900) are randomized 1:1 to either clinical surveillance or TAVR with the Edwards SAPIEN 3/SAPIEN 3 Ultra transcatheter heart valve. Patients are stratified by whether they are able to perform a treadmill stress test. The primary end point is death, stroke, or unplanned cardiovascular hospitalization. Patients who are asymptomatic but have a positive stress test will be followed in a registry and undergo aortic valve replacement as per current guidelines., Conclusions: EARLY TAVR is the largest randomized trial to date assessing the role of early intervention among patients with asymptomatic severe AS compared to clinical surveillance and the first to study the role of TAVR., Trial Registration Number: NCT03042104., Competing Interests: Disclosure Philippe Généreux: Abbott Vascular: Consultant, advisor, speaker fees; Abiomed: Consultant, advisor, speaker fees; Boston Scientific: Consultant; CARANX Medical: Consultant; Cardiovascular System Inc: Consultant, PI eclipse trial; Edwards LifeSciences: Consultant, advisor, speaker fees, proctor, institutional research grant, PI EARLY-TAVR trial, PI PROGRESS trial; GE Healthcare: Consultant; iRhythm technologies: Consultant; Medtronic: Consultant, advisor, speaker fees; Opsens: Consultant; Pi-Cardia: Equity, consultant; puzzle medical: equity, consultant; Saranas: Equity, consultant; Shockwave: Consultant, speaker fees; Siemens: Consultant; Soundbite Medical Inc: Equity, consultant; Teleflex: Consultant; 4C medical: Consultant, PI feasibility study. Heather Prince and Yanglu Zhao are employees of Edwards Lifesciences. David J. Cohen: Research grant support from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Boston Scientific. Consulting income from Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic. Brian Lindman: consulting payments and investigator-initiated research grants from Edwards Lifesciences. Philippe Pibarot: Institutional funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Pi-Cardia, Cardiac Success, Roche Diagnostics for echocardiography core laboratory analyses, blood biomarker analyses, and research studies in the field of interventional and pharmacologic treatment of valvular heart diseases, for which he received no personal compensation. Martin B. Leon: Institutional clinical research grants from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards, and Medtronic. All other authors have no disclosures., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The impact of aortic valve replacement (AVR) on progression/regression of extravalvular cardiac damage and its association with subsequent prognosis is unknown., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to describe the evolution of cardiac damage post-AVR and its association with outcomes., Methods: Patients undergoing transcatheter or surgical AVR from the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) 2 and 3 trials were pooled and classified by cardiac damage stage at baseline and 1 year (stage 0, no damage; stage 1, left ventricular damage; stage 2, left atrial or mitral valve damage; stage 3, pulmonary vasculature or tricuspid valve damage; and stage 4, right ventricular damage). Proportional hazards models determined association between change in cardiac damage post-AVR and 2-year outcomes., Results: Among 1,974 patients, 121 (6.1%) were stage 0, 287 (14.5%) stage 1, 1,014 (51.4%) stage 2, 412 (20.9%) stage 3, and 140 (7.1%) stage 4 pre-AVR. Two-year mortality was associated with extent of cardiac damage at baseline and 1 year. Compared with baseline, cardiac damage improved in ∼15%, remained unchanged in ∼60%, and worsened in ∼25% of patients at 1 year. The 1-year change in cardiac damage stage was independently associated with mortality (adjusted HR for improvement: 0.49; no change: 1.00; worsening: 1.95; P = 0.023) and composite of death or heart failure hospitalization (adjusted HR for improvement: 0.60; no change: 1.00; worsening: 2.25; P < 0.001) at 2 years., Conclusions: In patients undergoing AVR, extent of extravalvular cardiac damage at baseline and its change at 1 year have important prognostic implications. These findings suggest that earlier detection of aortic stenosis and intervention before development of irreversible cardiac damage may improve global cardiac function and prognosis. (PARTNER II Trial: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valves II - XT Intermediate and High Risk [PII A], NCT01314313; The PARTNER II Trial: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valves - PII B [PARTNERII B], NCT02184442; and PARTNER 3 Trial: Safety and Effectiveness of the SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Heart Valve in Low Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis [P3], NCT02675114)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The PARTNER II and PARTNER 3 Trials were Sponsored by Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Généreux has served as a consultant for, advisor for, and received speaker fees from Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, BioTrace Medical, and Medtronic; has served as a consultant for Boston Scientific, CARANX Medical, GE Healthcare, iRhythm Technologies, Opsens, Teleflex, and Siemens; has served as a consultant and PI for the Eclipse Trial for Cardiovascular System Inc; has served as a consultant, advisor, and proctor, and received speaker fees and institutional research grants for PI EARLY-TAVR and PI PROGRESS trials from Edwards Lifesciences; has received equity from and served as a consultant for Pi-Cardia, Puzzle Medical, Saranas, and Soundbite Medical Inc; has served as a consultant for and received speaker fees from Shockwave; and has served as consultant for and PI of the Feasibility study for 4C Medical. Dr Pibarot has received funding from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Pi-Cardia, and Cardiac Phoenix for echocardiography core laboratory analyses and research studies in the field of transcatheter valve therapies, for which he received no personal compensation; and has received lecture fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. The Cardiovascular Research Foundation (Drs Redfors, Vincent, Alu, Hahn, Leon, and Cohen) receives research funding from Edwards Lifesciences (no direct compensation). Dr Bax’s department (Department of Cardiology, LUMC, the Netherlands) has received research grants from Medtronic, Biotronik, Edwards Lifesciences, and Boston Scientific; and he has received speaker fees from Abbott Vascular. Dr Zhao is an employee of Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Makkar has received grant support/research contracts from Edwards Lifesciences and St. Jude Medical; and has received consultant fees/honoraria from/served on the speaker's bureau for Abbott Vascular, Cordis Corporation, and Medtronic. Dr Thourani has served on the Advisory Board of Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott Vascular, Atricure, Cryolife, Jenavalve, Shockwave, and Boston Scientific. Dr Mack has served as coprimary investigator for the PARTNER Trial for Edwards Lifesciences and COAPT trial for Abbott; and has served as study chair for the APOLLO trial for Medtronic (all activities unpaid). Dr Nazif is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific. Dr Lindman has served on the Scientific Advisory Board for Roche Diagnostics; and has received research grants from Edwards Lifesciences and Roche Diagnostics. Dr Babaliaros has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences and Abbott. Dr Russo has received grants from Edwards Lifesciences; and has served as a consultant for Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr McCabe has served as a consultant for Edwards, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Cardiovascular System Inc; and has equity in ConKay Medical. Dr Gillam has served as a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences; and has received core laboratory contracts from Edwards Lifesciences and Medtronic. Dr Hahn has received speaker fees from Abbott Vascular, Baylis Medical, and Edwards Lifesciences; has institutional consulting agreements for which she receives no direct compensation with Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Novartis; has equity with Navigate; and is the Chief Scientific Officer for the Echocardiography Core Laboratory at the Cardiovascular Research Foundation. Dr Webb is a consultant for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Leon serves on the PARTNER Trial Executive Committee for Edwards Lifesciences (nonpaid); has received institutional research grants from and is a nonpaid advisor for Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic; has served as a nonpaid advisor for Sinomed; and has equity in Medinol. Dr Cohen has received research grant support and consulting income from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Abbott. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Predicting potential complications after aortic valve replacement (AVR) is a crucial task that would help pre-planning procedures. The goal of this work is to generate data-driven models based on logistic regression, where the probability of developing transvalvular pressure gradient (DP) that exceeds 20 mmHg under different physiological conditions can be estimated without running extensive experimental or computational methods. The hemodynamic assessment of a 26 mm SAPIEN 3 transcatheter aortic valve and a 25 mm Magna Ease surgical aortic valve was performed under pulsatile conditions of a large range of systolic blood pressures (SBP; 100-180 mmHg), diastolic blood pressures (DBP; 40-100 mmHg), and heart rates of 60, 90 and 120 bpm. Logistic regression modeling was used to generate a predictive model for the probability of having a DP > 20 mmHg for both valves under different conditions. Experiments on different pressure conditions were conducted to compare the probabilities of the generated model and those obtained experimentally. To test the accuracy of the predictive model, the receiver operation characteristics curves were generated, and the areas under the curve (AUC) were calculated. The probabilistic predictive model of DP > 20 mmHg was generated with parameters specific to each valve. The AUC obtained for the SAPIEN 3 DP model was 0.9465 and that for Magna Ease was 0.9054 indicating a high model accuracy. Agreement between the DP probabilities obtained between experiments and predictive model was found. This model is a first step towards developing a larger statistical and data-driven model that can inform on certain valves reliability during AVR pre-procedural planning., (© 2022. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Biomedical Engineering Society.)

Objective: Our objective was to evaluate the impact of various blood pressures (BPs) on coronary perfusion and valvular hemodynamics following aortic valve replacement (AVR)., Background: Lower systolic and diastolic (SBP/DBP) pressures from the recommended optimal target range of SBP < 120-130 mmHg and DBP < 80 mmHg after AVR have been independently associated with increased cardiovascular and all-cause mortality., Methods: The hemodynamic assessment of a 26 mm SAPIEN 3 transcatheter aortic valve (TAV), 29 mm Evolut R TAV, and 25 mm Magna Ease surgical aortic valve (SAV) was performed in a pulsed left heart simulator with varying SBP, DBP, and heart rate (HR) conditions (60 and 120 bpm) at 5 L/min cardiac output (CO). Average coronary flow (CF), effective orifice areas (EOAs), and valvulo-arterial impedance (Zva) were calculated., Results: At HR of 60 bpm, at SBP < 120 mmHg and DBP < 60 mmHg, CF decreased below the physiological lower limit with several different valves. Zva and EOA were found to increase and decrease respectively with increasing SBP and DBP. The same results were found with an HR of 120 bpm. The trends of CF variation with BP were similar in all valves however the drop below the lower physiological CF limit was valve dependent., Conclusion: In a controlled in vitro system, with different aortic valve prostheses in place, CF decreased below the physiologic minimum when SBP and DBP were in the range targeted by blood pressure guidelines. Combined with recent observations from patients treated with AVR, these findings underscore the need for additional studies to identify the optimal BP in patients treated with AVR for AS., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

[Figure: see text].

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the implications of concomitant tricuspid regurgitation (TR) in patients undergoing valve-in-valve (VIV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement., Background: Patients undergoing VIV transcatheter aortic valve replacement with concomitant TR may have worse outcomes, and optimal management remains undetermined., Methods: The multicenter PARTNER 2 (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) VIV trial enrolled patients with symptomatic degenerated surgical aortic bioprostheses who were at high risk for reoperation. Outcomes were assessed between patients with mild or no TR versus moderate or severe TR., Results: A total of 237 patients underwent VIV procedures (mean age 78.7 ± 10.8 years, mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 9.1 ± 4.8%). In this cohort, 162 patients (68.4%) had mild or no TR, and 75 patients (31.6%) had moderate or severe TR. Although there was no difference in New York Heart Association functional class III or IV symptomatic status (89.3% vs. 91.4%; p = 0.62) or moderate or severe right ventricular dysfunction (9.4% vs. 16.9%; p = 0.11), patients with moderate or severe TR were more likely to be at high surgical risk, with a Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of >8 (62.7% vs 46.9%; p = 0.02). There was no difference in a composite endpoint of death and rehospitalization between moderate or severe TR and mild or no TR, either at 30 days (10.7% vs. 9.9%; p = 0.85) or at 1-year follow-up (24.1% vs. 23.2%; p = 0.80). There was a significant reduction in overall moderate or severe TR from baseline at 30 days (31.1% vs. 21.1%; p = 0.002), which was sustained at 1-year follow-up (38.0% vs. 22.8%; p = 0.004)., Conclusions: Despite higher predicted surgical risk, the presence of TR was not a predictor of long-term outcomes. Importantly, there was significant reduction in TR severity at both short- and long-term follow-up. In selected patients undergoing VIV transcatheter aortic valve replacement, it may be appropriate to conservatively manage concomitant TR., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Frailty is a geriatric syndrome that diminishes the potential for functional recovery after a transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) procedure; however, its integration in clinical practice has been limited by a lack of consensus on how to measure it., Objectives: This study sought to compare the incremental predictive value of 7 different frailty scales to predict poor outcomes following TAVR or SAVR., Methods: A prospective cohort of older adults undergoing TAVR or SAVR was assembled at 14 centers in 3 countries from 2012 to 2016. The following frailty scales were compared: Fried, Fried+, Rockwood, Short Physical Performance Battery, Bern, Columbia, and the Essential Frailty Toolset (EFT). Outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality and disability 1 year after the procedure., Results: The cohort was composed of 1,020 patients with a median age of 82 years. Depending on the scale used, the prevalence of frailty ranged from 26% to 68%. Frailty as measured by the EFT was the strongest predictor of death at 1 year (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 3.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.54 to 5.45) with a C-statistic improvement of 0.071 (p < 0.001) and integrated discrimination improvement of 0.067 (p < 0.001). Moreover, the EFT was the strongest predictor of worsening disability at 1 year (adjusted OR: 2.13; 95% CI: 1.57 to 2.87) and death at 30 days (adjusted OR: 3.29; 95% CI: 1.73 to 6.26)., Conclusions: Frailty is a risk factor for death and disability following TAVR and SAVR. A brief 4-item scale encompassing lower-extremity weakness, cognitive impairment, anemia, and hypoalbuminemia outperformed other frailty scales and is recommended for use in this setting. (Frailty Assessment Before Cardiac Surgery & Transcatheter Interventions; NCT01845207)., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is associated with increased mortality after surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for aortic stenosis (AS), and when the pulmonary artery pressure is particularly elevated, there may be questions about the clinical benefit of TAVR. We aimed to identify clinical and haemodynamic factors associated with increased mortality after TAVR among those with moderate/severe PH., Methods: Among patients with symptomatic AS at high or prohibitive surgical risk receiving TAVR in the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) I randomised trial or registry, 2180 patients with an invasive measurement of mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) recorded were included, and moderate/severe PH was defined as an mPAP ≥35 mm Hg., Results: Increasing severity of PH was associated with progressively worse 1-year all-cause mortality: none (n=785, 18.6%), mild (n=838, 22.7%) and moderate/severe (n=557, 25.0%) (p=0.01). The increased hazard of mortality associated with moderate/severe PH was observed in females, but not males (interaction p=0.03). In adjusted analyses, females with moderate/severe PH had an increased hazard of death at 1 year compared with females without PH (adjusted HR 2.14, 95% CI 1.44 to 3.18), whereas those with mild PH did not. Among males, there was no increased hazard of death associated with any severity of PH. In a multivariable Cox model of patients with moderate/severe PH, oxygen-dependent lung disease, inability to perform a 6 min walk, impaired renal function and lower aortic valve mean gradient were independently associated with increased 1-year mortality (p<0.05 for all), whereas several haemodynamic indices were not. A risk score, including these factors, was able to identify patients with a 15% vs 59% 1-year mortality., Conclusions: The relationship between moderate/severe PH and increased mortality after TAVR is altered by sex, and clinical factors appear to be more influential in stratifying risk than haemodynamic indices. These findings may have implications for the evaluation of and treatment decisions for patients referred for TAVR with significant PH., Trial Registration: NCT00530894., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Background: Little is known about the incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) and its impact on outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)., Objectives: The objectives of this study were: 1) to compare the incidence of PPM in the TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) randomized control trial (RCT) arms of the PARTNER (Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valves) I Trial cohort A; and 2) to assess the impact of PPM on regression of left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy and mortality in these 2 arms and in the TAVR nonrandomized continued access (NRCA) registry cohort., Methods: The PARTNER Trial cohort A randomized patients 1:1 to TAVR or bioprosthetic SAVR. Postoperative PPM was defined as absent if the indexed effective orifice area (EOA) was >0.85 cm(2)/m(2), moderate if the indexed EOA was ≥0.65 but ≤0.85 cm(2)/m(2), or severe if the indexed EOA was <0.65 cm(2)/m(2). LV mass regression and mortality were analyzed using the SAVR-RCT (n = 270), TAVR-RCT (n = 304), and TAVR-NRCA (n = 1,637) cohorts., Results: The incidence of PPM was 60.0% (severe: 28.1%) in the SAVR-RCT cohort versus 46.4% (severe: 19.7%) in the TAVR-RCT cohort (p < 0.001) and 43.8% (severe: 13.6%) in the TAVR-NRCA cohort. In patients with an aortic annulus diameter <20 mm, severe PPM developed in 33.7% undergoing SAVR compared with 19.0% undergoing TAVR (p = 0.002). PPM was an independent predictor of less LV mass regression at 1 year in the SAVR-RCT (p = 0.017) and TAVR-NRCA (p = 0.012) cohorts but not in the TAVR-RCT cohort (p = 0.35). Severe PPM was an independent predictor of 2-year mortality in the SAVR-RCT cohort (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.78; p = 0.041) but not in the TAVR-RCT cohort (HR: 0.58; p = 0.11). In the TAVR-NRCA cohort, severe PPM was not a predictor of 1-year mortality in all patients (HR: 1.05; p = 0.60) but did independently predict mortality in the subset of patients with no post-procedural aortic regurgitation (HR: 1.88; p = 0.02)., Conclusions: In patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk, PPM is more frequent and more often severe after SAVR than TAVR. Patients with PPM after SAVR have worse survival and less LV mass regression than those without PPM. Severe PPM also has a significant impact on survival after TAVR in the subset of patients with no post-procedural aortic regurgitation. TAVR may be preferable to SAVR in patients with a small aortic annulus who are susceptible to PPM to avoid its adverse impact on LV mass regression and survival. (The PARTNER Trial: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve Trial; NCT00530894)., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to examine the relationship between left ventricular mass (LVM) regression and clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)., Background: LVM regression after valve replacement for aortic stenosis is assumed to be a favorable effect of LV unloading, but its relationship to improved clinical outcomes is unclear., Methods: Of 2,115 patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis at high surgical risk receiving TAVR in the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) randomized trial or continued access registry, 690 had both severe LV hypertrophy (left ventricular mass index [LVMi] ≥ 149 g/m(2) men, ≥ 122 g/m(2) women) at baseline and an LVMi measurement at 30-day post-TAVR follow-up. Clinical outcomes were compared for patients with greater than versus lesser than median percentage change in LVMi between baseline and 30 days using Cox proportional hazard models to evaluate event rates from 30 to 365 days., Results: Compared with patients with lesser regression, patients with greater LVMi regression had a similar rate of all-cause mortality (14.1% vs. 14.3%, p = 0.99), but a lower rate of rehospitalization (9.5% vs. 18.5%, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.32 to 0.78; p = 0.002) and a lower rate of rehospitalization specifically for heart failure (7.3% vs. 13.6%, p = 0.01). The association with a lower rate of rehospitalization was consistent across subgroups and remained significant after multivariable adjustment (HR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.84; p = 0.007). Patients with greater LVMi regression had lower B-type natriuretic peptide (p = 0.002) and a trend toward better quality of life (p = 0.06) at 1-year follow-up than did those with lesser regression., Conclusions: In high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis and severe LV hypertrophy undergoing TAVR, those with greater early LVM regression had one-half the rate of rehospitalization over the subsequent year compared to those with lesser regression., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background—After aortic valve replacement, left ventricular afterload is often characterized by the residual valve obstruction. Our objective was to determine whether higher systemic arterial afterload—as reflected in blood pressure, pulsatile and resistive load—is associated with adverse clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Methods and Results—Total, pulsatile, and resistive arterial load were measured in 2141 patients with severe aortic stenosis treated with TAVR in the PARTNER I trial (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) who had systolic blood pressure (SBP) and an echocardiogram obtained 30 days after TAVR. The primary end point was 30-day to 1-year all-cause mortality. Lower SBP at 30 days after TAVR was associated with higher mortality (20.0% for SBP 100–129 mm Hg versus 12.0% for SBP 130–170 mm Hg; P<0.001). This association remained significant after adjustment, was consistent across subgroups, and confirmed in sensitivity analyses. In adjusted models that included SBP, higher total and pulsatile arterial load were associated with increased mortality (P<0.001 for all), but resistive load was not. Patients with low 30-day SBP and high pulsatile load had a 3-fold higher mortality than those with high 30-day SBP and low pulsatile load (26.1% versus 8.1%; hazard ratio, 3.62; 95% confidence interval, 2.36–5.55). Conclusions—Even after relief of valve obstruction in patients with aortic stenosis, there is an independent association between post-TAVR blood pressure, systemic arterial load, and mortality. Blood pressure goals in patients with a history of aortic stenosis may need to be redefined. Increased pulsatile arterial load, rather than blood pressure, may be a target for adjunctive medical therapy to improve outcomes after TAVR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]