Aortic Valve (TAVR/TAVI)LancetFriday, August 28, 2026

[Department of Error] Department of Error

1 min read·By E. Nolan Beckett, MD·Source: Lancet

Key Numbers

95% CI error bar have

2% and the one

95% CI of

From The Valve Wire

Two studies this morning sharpen the durability-and-selection tension that has defined the low-risk expansion debate.

The Bern cohort (N=1,032, Sapien S3/Ultra, single-center, non-randomized) found that 43% of implants met at least one criterion for suboptimal deployment — noncoaxial (23%), too deep (25%), or underexpanded (5%).

Editor’s take pending for this article; this is the section commentary excerpt.

Source Abstract

Terkelsen CJ, Freeman P, Dahl JS, et al. SAPIEN 3 versus Myval transcatheter heart valves for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (COMPARE-TAVI 1): a multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2025; 405: 1362–72—In figure 2 of this Article, the position of the –1·2 label on the x axis, the border between the light and dark blue shading, and the corresponding lower one-sided 95% CI error bar have been corrected to reflect the risk difference of –1·2% and the one-sided lower 95% CI of –4·7.

Read the Original

Full article at Lancet

Open at Lancet →

The Valve Wire summarizes; we link out to primary sources for verification.