Editorial

DOI: 10.4244/EIJ-E-25-00028

The challenge of interpreting comparative TAVI studies

Liesbeth Rosseel1, MD, PhD; Arif A. Khokhar2, BM, BCh, MA; Ole De Backer2,3, MD, PhD

Over the last 20 years, the evolution in transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has resulted in several devices becoming commercially available for selection. Transcatheter aortic valves (TAVs) exhibit significant heterogeneity in the design of their stent frame, leaflets and/or method of implantation, rendering specific TAVs potentially more or less favourable for specific patient anatomies. The anatomy of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) can vary significantly based on the underlying aortic valve phenotype (tricuspid, bicuspid), distribution and degree of leaflet calcification, size of the aortic annulus and aortic root, and height of the coronary ostia. Consequently, studies evaluating which valve designs perform favourably in specific anatomical scenarios are necessary to enable physicians to adopt a more patient-tailored approach, which is increasingly relevant given the expansion of TAVI into younger and more complex patient cohorts.

In this issue of EuroIntervention, Yamamoto et al1 present a study comparing outcomes obtained with the Navitor (n=518; Abbott) versus Evolut FX (n=401; Medtronic) TAV in patients with a small aortic annulus (area <430 mm2). Both are self-expanding TAVs, with the Navitor having an intra-annular leaflet...

Sign in to read
the full article

Forgot your password?
No account yet?
Sign up for free!

Create my pcr account

Join us for free and access thousands of articles from EuroIntervention, as well as presentations, videos, cases from PCRonline.com

Volume 21 Number 13
Jul 7, 2025
Volume 21 Number 13
View full issue


Key metrics

Suggested by Cory

10.4244/EIJV10SUA5 Sep 27, 2014
Selection of TAVI prostheses: do we really have the CHOICE?
Abdel-Wahab M and Richardt G
free

Editorial

10.4244/EIJ-E-24-00065 Apr 21, 2025
From invasive gradients to pressure recovery: rethinking long-standing paradigms
Joner M and Mylotte D
free

10.4244/EIJV10SUA13 Sep 27, 2014
New-generation TAVI devices: description and specifications
Tchétché D and Van Mieghem NM
free

10.4244/EIJV9SSA20 Sep 15, 2013
JenaValve – transfemoral technology
Rudolph TK and Baldus S
free

10.4244/EIJV14I18A313 Apr 5, 2019
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients at low surgical risk
Søndergaard L et al
free

AORTIC VALVE INTERVENTIONS

10.4244/EIJV12SYA9 Sep 18, 2016
TAVI device selection: time for a patient-specific approach
Lee M et al
free

AORTIC VALVE INTERVENTIONS

10.4244/EIJV12SYA11 Sep 18, 2016
Patient selection for TAVI in 2016: should we break through the low-risk barrier?
Abdelghani M and Serruys PW
free

Viewpoint

10.4244/EIJ-D-23-00363 Nov 17, 2023
Redo-TAVI with a balloon-expandable valve and the impact of index transcatheter aortic valve design
De Backer O et al
free

10.4244/EIJV14I2A24 Jun 20, 2018
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: don’t forget the coronary arteries!
Søndergaard L and De Backer O
free
Trending articles
172.05

Focus article

10.4244/EIJY19M08_01 Jan 17, 2020
EHRA/EAPCI expert consensus statement on catheter-based left atrial appendage occlusion – an update
Glikson M et al
free
42

Original Research

10.4244/EIJ-D-25-00331 May 21, 2025
One-month dual antiplatelet therapy followed by prasugrel monotherapy at a reduced dose: the 4D-ACS randomised trial
Jang Y et al
open access
26.5

Expert Review

10.4244/EIJ-D-24-00535 May 5, 2025
Catheter-based techniques for pulmonary embolism treatment
Costa F et al
X

The Official Journal of EuroPCR and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI)

EuroPCR EAPCI
PCR ESC
Impact factor: 9.5
2024 Journal Citation Reports®
Science Edition (Clarivate Analytics, 2025)
Online ISSN 1969-6213 - Print ISSN 1774-024X
© 2005-2025 Europa Group - All rights reserved