Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Foreward to TAVI/SAVR supplement
  1. Marjan Jahangiri1,
  2. Norman Paul Briffa2
  1. 1 St. George’s Hospital, University of London, London, UK
  2. 2 Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust & University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Norman Paul Briffa, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust & University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK; norman.briffa{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

At the recent annual meeting of the British Heart Valve Society, an invited speaker asked: Why has Aortic Stenosis become so complicated? This rhetorical question was posted on Twitter and liked and retweeted several hundred times. Until recently, aortic stenosis was perceived as a relatively simple heart valve disorder. The diagnosis was straightforward—hear a systolic murmur, demonstrate a withdrawal gradient on cardiac catheterisation or an increased velocity on echocardiography and the diagnosis was complete. If the patient was symptomatic, they were referred for the only available treatment—surgical aortic valve replacement. The surgeon saw them in the clinic and they were listed for surgery. If aged ≥70, then they received a tissue prosthesis, if aged <70, then a mechanical one.

With the dawning of a new millennium, came change—the realisation that with an ageing population, the incidence and prevalence of heart valve disease in high-income countries was, for the first time in half a century, since the successful control …

View Full Text


  • Contributors Equal contribution by both the authors.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement Not applicable.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.