Executive Summary

Between January 2025 and March 2026, valvular heart disease crossed a strategic threshold.

Not a device revolution. Not a single headline trial. Something more consequential: a fundamental shift from procedural validation to lifetime architectural planning.

For two decades, the central question in structural heart disease was “Can we intervene?” That question has been answered. The question that now governs every MDT discussion, every imaging report, and every consent conversation is different: “When do we intervene, how early, and what does this first decision commit the patient to for the next twenty years?”

This transformation is not theoretical. The 2025 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease—published at ESC Congress in Madrid, August 2025—codify it. The PARTNER 3 seven-year data, the EARLY TAVR trial, the TRILUMINATE two-year outcomes, and the emergence of dedicated transcatheter aortic regurgitation platforms have collectively moved the field from device enthusiasm to strategic architecture.

This article provides a structured, consultant-level breakdown of every major valve domain. Each section follows the same clinical logic: guideline change, pivotal evidence, imaging upgrade, clinical impact, practical algorithm, and consultant pearls. It is designed to be read once and referenced repeatedly—the kind of resource that sits on your desktop, not in your recycling bin.

1. Aortic Stenosis: From Threshold Thinking to Lifetime Architecture

The Guideline Shift That Changes Everything

The single most system-altering recommendation in the 2025 ESC/EACTS guidelines is the reduction of the TAVI age threshold from ≥75 years to ≥70 years for patients with tricuspid aortic valve morphology and suitable anatomy. This is not merely an administrative change. It fundamentally reconfigures referral pathways, MDT case-mix, and—critically—demands that every Heart Valve Centre develops a coherent lifetime management strategy before the first intervention.

The guidelines simultaneously strengthen the emphasis on Heart Valve Centre governance, CT integration in discordant severity assessment, and—for the first time in such explicit terms—lifetime procedural planning as a Class I principle. The era of evaluating TAVI and SAVR as standalone procedures is over. Every index intervention is now the first move in a multi-decade chess game.

Consultant Pearl
The 2025 guidelines do not say “TAVI is better for patients aged 70+.” They say the Heart Team should consider TAVI in preference to SAVR for patients ≥70 with tricuspid AV anatomy. For bicuspid anatomy, younger patients, or those with concomitant disease requiring surgery, SAVR remains the recommended first-line approach. Nuance matters.

The Evidence That Built This Recommendation

PARTNER 3: Seven-Year Follow-Up (NEJM, October 2025)
The seven-year data from PARTNER 3—the landmark trial comparing balloon-expandable TAVI (SAPIEN 3) with SAVR in 1,000 low-surgical-risk patients—were presented at TCT 2025 and published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine. The headline finding: no significant difference in the composite primary endpoint of death, stroke, or rehospitalisation (34.6% TAVI vs 37.2% SAVR; HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.70–1.08).

Individual endpoints at seven years were similarly concordant. All-cause mortality was 19.5% after TAVI and 16.8% after SAVR (HR 1.17; p=0.31). Stroke rates were essentially identical (8.5% vs 8.1%). Bioprosthetic valve failure, assessed by VARC-3 criteria, was low and comparable in both groups (6.9% vs 7.3%). Valve haemodynamics remained stable and virtually equivalent, with mean aortic valve gradients of 13.1 mmHg after TAVI versus 12.1 mmHg after SAVR.

⚠️ Reality Check
Apparent equivalence deserves scrutiny. TAVI was associated with significantly higher rates of paravalvular leak (17.7% vs 2.0%) and clinical valve thrombosis (2.8% vs 0.5%). New permanent pacemaker implantation was numerically higher after TAVI (6.5% vs 4.0% at 30 days). Approximately one quarter of SAVR patients underwent concomitant CABG—a confounder that depresses early surgical outcomes. The late mortality curves show a crossing trend that warrants continued surveillance. Ten-year data are planned and will be decisive.

EARLY TAVR (NEJM, October 2024)
The EARLY TAVR trial rewrote the script on asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis. In 901 patients with rigorously confirmed asymptomatic severe AS (negative treadmill stress test in >90%), early TAVI reduced the composite of death, stroke, or unplanned cardiovascular hospitalisation by 50% compared with guideline-recommended surveillance at a median follow-up of 3.8 years (26.8% vs 45.3%; HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.40–0.63; p<0.001).

The number needed to treat was just six at two years. Perhaps more revealing: within the surveillance arm, 47% of patients required aortic valve replacement within twelve months, and 87% ultimately crossed over to intervention. Approximately 40% of those who converted did so with advanced symptoms—NYHA III–IV heart failure, pulmonary oedema, or syncope. The so-called “safe window” of watchful waiting was, in reality, a period of unpredictable and often precipitous clinical deterioration.

⚠️ Main Caveats
Details matter: Mortality: unchanged between groups. Hospitalisations: drove most of the difference. Bias risk: industry-sponsored, endpoints included QoL and admission rates. And here comes the psychological dimension — subtraction anxiety. Patients randomised to “watchful waiting” knew they had severe AS but weren’t being treated. That awareness alone may have increased perceived symptoms and hospital visits.

Imaging Upgrades: CT Is No Longer Optional

The 2025 guidelines elevate CT calcium scoring from a useful adjunct to an essential diagnostic tool in discordant aortic stenosis. CT calcium scoring now serves as both the adjudicator in low-flow low-gradient AS with preserved ejection fraction and the confirmation tool in cases where echocardiographic severity indices conflict. The sex-specific thresholds (Agatston ≥2000 in men, ≥1200 in women for very likely severe AS) remain the reference standard.

The integration of CT into the diagnostic algorithm is not about replacing echocardiography—it is about acknowledging that CT calcium scoring has moved from supportive to decisive.

Clinical Impact: The Conversation Has Changed

The MDT conversation has evolved from “TAVI versus SAVR?” to “What is the lifetime valve strategy?” Every first intervention must now be evaluated through the lens of: coronary re-access planning, valve-in-valve feasibility, small annulus foresight, and redo pathway mapping. The 2025 guidelines explicitly require that Heart Valve Centres document lifetime management planning.

AS: Practical Algorithm

• Confirm true severity (echo ± CT ± DSE)
• Evaluate symptoms or exercise testing
• Stratify by age, anatomy, and comorbidity
• Build lifetime procedural strategy BEFORE first intervention
• Document MDT rationale and redo pathway

AS: Critical Pitfalls

• Treating discordant AS without CT confirmation
• Ignoring coronary re-access implications in TAVI
• Delaying intervention in asymptomatic LV dysfunction
• Failing to plan for redo before index procedure
• Applying the ≥70 threshold to bicuspid anatomy

2. Aortic Regurgitation: The Forgotten Valve Finally Gets a Pathway 

Why AR Matters Now 

For decades, pure native aortic regurgitation in high-surgical-risk patients represented a therapeutic dead end. Unlike aortic stenosis—where calcification provides a scaffold for transcatheter valve anchoring—the non-calcified, compliant annulus of AR patients offered no reliable fixation. That era is ending.

ALIGN-AR / JenaValve Trilogy
The JenaValve Trilogy system, a dedicated transcatheter device for native AR, has demonstrated high procedural success and acceptable early safety in high-risk patients. This is the first purpose-built structural pathway for pure native AR—a population previously consigned to either high-risk surgery or medical palliation.

The technical nuances are critical. AR TAVI is not AS TAVI. The absence of annular calcification fundamentally changes anchoring mechanics. Root geometry variability demands meticulous CT assessment. Oversizing carries catastrophic consequences. Device-specific experience and dedicated centre expertise will determine outcomes in this space.

Consultant Pearl
Before referring a high-risk AR patient for transcatheter intervention, ensure the receiving centre has specific device experience and CT root analysis capability. Anchoring strategy determines outcome. This is not a procedure to attempt with borrowed expertise.
 

AR: Practical Pathway

• Confirm severe AR (echo + CMR for volumes)
• Surgical risk assessment (EuroSCORE II/STS)
• CT root assessment (anatomy, geometry, sizing)
• Heart Team: surgery vs dedicated AR device
• Centres without AR device: refer early
  
  

AR: Pearls & Pitfalls

• Anchoring strategy determines everything
• Oversizing in AR is unforgiving
• Device-specific experience matters more than volume
• CT analysis is decisive, not optional
• Do not wait for LV decompensation to refer

3. Mitral Regurgitation: Phenotype Precision or Therapeutic Failure 

The Phenotype Revolution

 The 2025 ESC/EACTS guidelines formalise what experienced valve operators have known for years: treating “mitral regurgitation” as a single disease is a path to suboptimal outcomes. The guidelines now mandate explicit phenotype classification into three mechanistically distinct entities: primary (degenerative) MR, ventricular secondary MR, and—for the first time in a major guideline—atrial secondary MR as a formally recognised phenotype.

This is not a semantic distinction. Each phenotype has a different natural history, a different imaging signature, a different response to intervention, and a different set of failure modes. Treating atrial SMR like ventricular SMR, or managing primary MR without assessing repairability, is no longer defensible.

Key Evidence: What Changed in 2025

Post-TEER Haemodynamics: The Gradient That Matters (JACC 2025)
Emerging data confirm that MR reduction alone does not define procedural success. Elevated transmitral pressure gradients following TEER (≥5 mmHg) are independently associated with worse clinical outcomes, including higher rates of heart failure hospitalisation and mortality. This fundamentally changes how we evaluate TEER results—and when we should be concerned.

ENCIRCLE / TMVR (SAPIEN M3): The Emergence of Plan B
One-year data from the SAPIEN M3 transcatheter mitral valve replacement programme confirm device durability and a meaningful quality-of-life signal. TMVR is transitioning from an experimental curiosity to a scalable clinical pathway—critical for patients with anatomy unsuitable for TEER, failed prior repair, or complex mixed mitral pathology.

Ventricular SMR: TEER Elevated to Class I
The 2025 guidelines elevate TEER to a Class I, Level A recommendation for haemodynamically stable symptomatic patients with LVEF <50% and persistent severe MR despite optimised GDMT and CRT, provided strict eligibility criteria are met. This is a significant upgrade from the 2021 guidelines and reflects the accumulated weight of the COAPT evidence and real-world registry data.

Atrial SMR: Formal Recognition and Therapeutic Option
Atrial secondary MR—driven by AF-mediated left atrial and annular dilatation with preserved LV function—now receives a dedicated recommendation pathway. Surgery with concomitant AF ablation and left atrial appendage occlusion carries a Class IIa recommendation. TEER may be considered in non-surgical candidates after optimisation of medical and rhythm therapy (Class IIb).

🔍 Imaging Mandate

Every MR report must now explicitly state the phenotype (primary, ventricular secondary, or atrial secondary), the mechanism (leaflet, annular, tethering, or mixed), and the 3D quantification. The days of “severe MR” without mechanistic classification are over. Neo-LVOT modelling is mandatory before any TMVR consideration.

MR: Practical Algorithm

• Define mechanism (leaflet vs annular vs LV tethering)
• Classify phenotype explicitly in the report
• Optimise GDMT and CRT where indicated
• Assess TEER suitability (anatomy, coaptation, gradient risk)
• Consider TMVR in complex anatomy / failed TEER
• Monitor post-TEER TMPG: >5 mmHg warrants concern

MR: Critical Pitfalls

• Treating atrial SMR with LV-directed therapy
• Ignoring post-TEER transmitral gradient
• Failing to report phenotype in imaging
• Under-recognising atrial SMR in elderly AF patients
• Referring for TEER without 3D assessment

4. Tricuspid Regurgitation: The Valve We Can No Longer Afford to Ignore 

The Evidence Base Has Arrived

For decades, tricuspid regurgitation was the “forgotten valve”—acknowledged as prognostically important, but rarely intervened upon. That era is over. TR now receives unprecedented attention in the 2025 ESC/EACTS guidelines, with new recommendations for both surgical and transcatheter intervention, and a mandatory comprehensive Heart Team evaluation before any therapeutic decision.

TRILUMINATE Pivotal: Two-Year Outcomes (Circulation, March 2025)
The two-year data from the TRILUMINATE Pivotal trial—the first randomised controlled trial of transcatheter tricuspid TEER—were presented at ACC 2025 and published simultaneously in Circulation. In 572 patients (mean age 78 years, 59% female) with severe symptomatic TR randomised to TriClip TEER plus medical therapy versus medical therapy alone, the results demonstrate sustained benefit.

At two years, 84% of TEER-treated patients maintained TR severity of moderate or less. Heart failure hospitalisation rates were significantly reduced: 0.19 versus 0.26 events per patient-year (HR 0.72; p=0.02), representing a 28% relative risk reduction. KCCQ improvements exceeded 15 points and were sustained. The safety profile remained excellent—no device embolisation, no thrombosis, no pacemaker-requiring conduction disturbance.

Crucially, after year one, more than half of eligible control patients crossed over to TEER—a finding that, while complicating intention-to-treat analysis, powerfully validates the clinical demand for this therapy.

TRISCEND II / EVOQUE: Transcatheter Replacement Validated
The EVOQUE tricuspid valve replacement system (Edwards Lifesciences) has demonstrated safety and effectiveness in the pivotal TRISCEND II trial, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in January 2025. This establishes transcatheter replacement as a viable option for patients with anatomy unsuitable for TEER, expanding the therapeutic toolkit for severe TR.

Consultant Pearl
Timing determines candidacy. Late referral with established RV failure and end-organ dysfunction is the single greatest predictor of futile intervention. The 2025 guidelines emphasise early identification and structured pathway development. If you are seeing severe TR for the first time when the patient is in decompensated right heart failure, you are seeing it too late.

TR: Practical Pathway

• Early identification (do not wait for RV failure)
• Phenotype: AF-driven vs RV-driven vs primary
• Coaptation gap measurement (critical for TEER)
• RV-PA coupling assessment
• 3D leaflet analysis
• Heart Team: TEER vs replacement vs surgery

TR: Key Pitfalls

• Dismissing severe TR as “functional” and conservative
• Late referral after RV decompensation
• Failing to assess RV function beyond TAPSE
• Ignoring TR in the context of left-sided valve disease
• Underestimating prognostic impact of untreated severe TR

5. Prosthetic Valve Disease: Longitudinal Management, Not Episodic Surveillance 

The 2025 guidelines reframe prosthetic valve management from episodic surveillance to longitudinal architectural planning. Three developments drive this shift.

First, CT is now increasingly essential in suspected leaflet thrombosis—subclinical and clinical. Hypo-attenuated leaflet thickening (HALT), once an incidental CT finding, is now formally recognised, though its clinical significance remains contextual. The guidelines recommend CT when clinical suspicion exists but do not mandate routine CT surveillance in asymptomatic patients.

Second, redo-TAVI and valve-in-valve (ViV) planning is becoming routine. As the population of patients living with transcatheter bioprostheses grows, the need for systematic redo pathway planning has become operationally urgent. Coronary access after ViV, commissural alignment, neo-LVOT obstruction risk, and small-annulus considerations must all be anticipated at the index procedure.

Third, the antithrombotic recommendations have been refined. Routine DAPT after valve procedures is discouraged. Mechanical valves require lifelong VKA; DOACs remain contraindicated. Post-TAVI, low-dose aspirin alone is preferred unless an independent OAC indication exists.

Consultant Pearl
Valve management is now longitudinal. Every operator must plan at the time of index intervention for: coronary access at redo, ViV haemodynamics, future intervention complexity, and the patient’s likely trajectory over 15–20 years. The best time to plan for redo is before the first procedure.

6. Infective Endocarditis: A Structural-Era Disease Demanding Structural-Era Thinking 

Infective endocarditis is increasingly a disease of the structural heart era. TAVI-associated IE has been recognised as a high-mortality subgroup with distinct diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. The 2025 guidelines formalise the Endocarditis Team as a mandatory governance structure and integrate PET-CT into the diagnostic algorithm for prosthetic and device-related IE.

Imaging Algorithm: Stepwise Escalation

The diagnostic pathway follows a clear escalation: TTE as the first-line screening tool; TOE when TTE is non-diagnostic or when prosthetic valve, device, or perivalvular complications are suspected; and PET-CT plus cardiac CT in prosthetic or equivocal cases.
The Duke criteria, while still relevant, are acknowledged as insufficient in isolation—particularly for prosthetic valve and device-related IE, where sensitivity is limited.

Clinical Impact

IE management in 2026 requires multidisciplinary coordination from the point of clinical suspicion. The Endocarditis Team—cardiologist, cardiac surgeon, infectious disease specialist, microbiologist, and imaging specialist at minimum—must be involved in all cases of confirmed or suspected IE. Early surgical consideration, imaging escalation, and structured source-control thinking are the pillars of modern IE management.

IE: Diagnostic Pathway

• TTE: first-line screening in all suspected IE
• TOE: prosthetic valves, non-diagnostic TTE, complications
• Cardiac CT: perivalvular abscess, pseudoaneurysm, fistula
• PET-CT: prosthetic/device IE, equivocal TOE
• Neuroimaging: embolic screening before surgery timing

IE: Management Principles

• Cultures first, antibiotics second (always)
• Endocarditis Team involvement from suspicion
• Early surgical consideration for HF, abscess, embolic risk
• OPAT eligibility requires structured risk assessment

MDT Decision Summary: UK Practice Essentials

This section distils the key decision points for UK multidisciplinary valve teams.

Aortic Stenosis MDT Checklist

• Confirm true severity: echo ± CT calcium scoring ± DSE in low-flow states
• Apply the 2025 age/anatomy framework: ≥70 with tricuspid AV = consider TAVI; bicuspid/concomitant = SAVR/individualise
• Document lifetime strategy BEFORE index intervention
• Plan coronary re-access and ViV feasibility at first procedure
• Asymptomatic severe AS: early intervention now supported if low procedural risk

Mitral Regurgitation MDT Checklist

• Phenotype FIRST: primary, ventricular secondary, or atrial secondary
• Primary MR: surgery remains first-line; Class I for repair in asymptomatic patients meeting criteria
• Ventricular SMR: optimise GDMT + CRT first; TEER now Class I (Level A) if criteria met
• Atrial SMR: surgery + AF ablation (IIa); TEER in non-surgical candidates (IIb)
• Monitor post-TEER TMPG: ≥5 mmHg or ≥ moderate MR = concern

Tricuspid Regurgitation MDT Checklist

• Do not dismiss severe TR as benign—independent mortality risk
• Assess RV function comprehensively (not TAPSE alone)
• Refer BEFORE RV decompensation
• TEER: coaptation gap and leaflet morphology determine candidacy
• Replacement (EVOQUE): option for TEER-unsuitable anatomy

UK Best Practice Alignment

NICE Guidance: Scope and intended use

NICE publishes both (a) procedure-focused guidance (Interventional Procedures/HealthTech guidance) and (b) an overarching clinical guideline, NG208 (2021): Heart valve disease presenting in adults: investigation and management. Procedure guidance (e.g., TAVI and percutaneous mitral leaflet repair) primarily addresses whether a procedure is acceptable in terms of safety and efficacy in defined contexts; it does not function as a comprehensive, end-to-end structural valve management framework.

NICE does address transcatheter tricuspid leaflet repair for TR (IPG731), but NICE guidance (including NG208 and current procedure guidance) does not currently operationalise many contemporary structural-era concepts emphasised in ESC/EACTS frameworks—such as explicit lifetime valve strategy documentation, ESC age-threshold framing (e.g., ≥70 TAVI preference in suitable tricuspid AS anatomy), and formal guideline-level handling of newer phenotype constructs (e.g., atrial secondary MR) as a distinct decision pathway.

For specialist decision-making in UK Heart Valve Centres, clinical governance is therefore typically anchored in ESC/EACTS guideline recommendations, supported by BSE/EACVI imaging standards, relevant UK professional society guidance, and NHS England service specifications/commissioning positions where applicable.

What Drives Clinical Decisions vs Service Delivery

In UK practice, NICE guidance (including NG208 and procedure-specific recommendations) and NHS England commissioning frameworks shape adoption, commissioning and service delivery within the NHS. ESC/EACTS guidelines provide additional contemporary clinical decision frameworks widely used within specialist Heart Valve Centres. High-quality valve care requires alignment between international evidence-based guidance and local governance structures.

BSE / EACVI Imaging Standards

All echocardiographic assessments referenced in this document should conform to BSE minimum dataset requirements and EACVI quantification standards. Particular attention should be paid to: 3D quantification of MR (mandatory for TEER assessment); CT calcium scoring methodology for discordant AS; and standardised reporting templates that capture phenotype, mechanism, severity, and MDT-relevant decision data.

MDT-friendly Reporting Templates 

The following templates provide MDT-friendly reporting language for common clinical scenarios.
Adapt to local protocols.

Template 1: Severe AS — Pre-Intervention Assessment
Echocardiographic assessment confirms severe aortic stenosis: peak velocity [X] m/s, mean gradient [X] mmHg, AVA [X] cm². LV function preserved/impaired (EF [X]%). No significant concomitant valvular disease / [describe if present]. CT calcium scoring: [X] Agatston units (threshold for sex-specific severe AS: ≥2000 men, ≥1200 women). Anatomy: tricuspid/bicuspid aortic valve. Clinical status/Frailty score; [X – Description]. 
Recommended for Heart Valve Centre MDT discussion re: intervention strategy and lifetime management planning per 2025 ESC/EACTS guidelines.

Template 2: Mitral Regurgitation — Phenotype & Severity
Severe mitral regurgitation confirmed. Phenotype: [primary (degenerative) / ventricular secondary / atrial secondary]. Mechanism: [P2 prolapse with flail / annular dilatation with AF / posterior leaflet tethering with LV remodelling]. Quantification: EROA [X] cm², regurgitant volume [X] ml (3D-derived). LV function: EF [X]%, LVESD [X] mm. LA volume index [X] ml/m². SPAP [X] mmHg. Suitability for TEER: [favourable / unfavourable — specify limiting anatomy]. Clinical status/Frailty score; [X – Description].
Recommended for MDT discussion re: intervention timing and modality.

Template 3: Tricuspid Regurgitation — Severity & RV Assessment
Severe/torrential tricuspid regurgitation confirmed. Phenotype: [AF-driven / RV-driven / primary]. Coaptation gap: [X] mm. Tethering height: [X] mm. RV function: TAPSE [X] mm, RV S’ [X] cm/s, RV FAC [X]%, RV free wall strain [X]%. RA volume [X] ml. SPAP [X] mmHg. Evidence of RV-PA uncoupling: [yes/no]. Hepatic vein flow reversal: [present/absent]. Clinical status/Frailty score; [X – Description].
Recommended for Heart Valve Centre MDT discussion re: transcatheter vs surgical intervention and timing assessment.

The Bigger Shift: From Procedure to Architecture

The real transformation of 2025–2026 is conceptual, not technological.

We have moved from asking whether a device works to asking how a single decision shapes the next two decades of a patient’s cardiovascular life. Valvular heart disease is no longer about intervention alone. It is about phenotype precision, imaging authority, timing optimisation, lifetime strategy, and multidisciplinary governance.

The 2025 ESC/EACTS guidelines codify this shift. The evidence provides the data to support it. The challenge now is implementation: building Heart Valve Networks that function in practice, not just on paper; training MDTs to think in decades rather than discharge summaries; and holding ourselves accountable to the standard these guidelines demand.

Structural heart disease has matured. The question is whether our programmes have.

Dr Mohamed Mansour
Consultant Cardiologist | Cardiac Imaging Specialist

EchoMasters Insights
Master Echocardiography. Lead with Confidence.

References

1. Praz F, Borger MA, Lanz J, Marin-Cuartas M, Abreu A, Adamo M, et al. 2025 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J. 2025;46(44):4635–4736. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehaf194
2. Leon MB, Mack MJ, Pibarot P, Hahn RT, Thourani VH, Kodali SH, et al. Transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement in low-risk patients at 7 years. N Engl J Med. 2025 Oct 27. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2509766
3. Généreux P, Schwartz A, Oldemeyer JB, Pibarot P, Cohen DJ, Blanke P, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement for asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2025;392:217–227. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2405880
4. Kar S, Makkar RR, Whisenant BK, et al. Two-year outcomes of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair for severe tricuspid regurgitation: the TRILUMINATE pivotal randomized controlled trial. Circulation. 2025;Epub ahead of print. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.125.074536
5. Tang GHL, Hahn RT, Whisenant BK, et al. Tricuspid transcatheter edge-to-edge repair for severe tricuspid regurgitation: 1-year outcomes from the TRILUMINATE randomized cohort. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2025;85(3):235–246. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2024.10.086
6. Hahn RT, Makkar R, Thourani VH, et al. Transcatheter valve replacement in severe tricuspid regurgitation (TRISCEND II). N Engl J Med. 2025;392:115–126. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2401918
7. Arnold SV, Goates S, Sorajja P, Adams DH, von Bardeleben RS, Kapadia SR, et al. Health status after transcatheter tricuspid-valve repair in patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2024;83(1):1–13. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2023.10.008
8. Sorajja P, Whisenant B, Hamid N, et al. Transcatheter repair for patients with tricuspid regurgitation (TRILUMINATE Pivotal). N Engl J Med. 2023;388:1833–1842. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2300525
9. Loganath K, Craig NJ, Everett RJ, et al. Early intervention in patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis and myocardial fibrosis: the EVOLVED randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2025;333:213–221. doi:10.1001/jama.2024.22730
10. Vahanian A, Beyersdorf F, Praz F, et al. 2021 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J. 2022;43(7):561–632. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehab395
11. Mack MJ, Leon MB, Thourani VH, et al. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a balloon-expandable valve in low-risk patients (PARTNER 3). N Engl J Med. 2019;380:1695–1705. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1814052
12. Stone GW, Lindenfeld J, Abraham WT, et al. Transcatheter mitral-valve repair in patients with heart failure (COAPT). N Engl J Med. 2018;379:2307–2318. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1806640
13. NICE Interventional Procedures Guidance [IPG586]. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for aortic stenosis. NICE; 2017.
14. NICE Interventional Procedures Guidance [IPG649]. Transcatheter mitral valve leaflet repair for mitral regurgitation. NICE; 2019.
     
15. Banovic M, Putnik S, Penicka M, et al. Aortic valve replacement versus conservative treatment in asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis: the AVATAR trial. Circulation. 2022;145(9):648–658. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.057639
16. Kang DH, Park SJ, Lee SA, et al. Early surgery or conservative care for asymptomatic aortic stenosis (RECOVERY). N Engl J Med. 2020;382:111–119. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1912846

Disclaimer

Content published under the EchoMasters brand is intended for healthcare professionals and is provided for educational purposes only. It reflects the author’s personal expert interpretation of the available scientific evidence, clinical guidelines, and professional practice at the time of writing.

This content does not constitute clinical advice, formal guidance, or institutional policy, and should not be used as a substitute for local protocols, official guideline documents, or multidisciplinary team (MDT) decision-making. Clinical management decisions must always be individualised, made within appropriate clinical governance frameworks, and aligned with local regulatory and institutional requirements.

EchoMasters accepts no liability for clinical decisions made on the basis of this content.