{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024147727272727272, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0035511363636363635, 'mean_word_length': 5.318385650224215, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Does transcatheter aortic valve implantation mean the end of surgical aortic valve replacement?

Although the results of the early TAVI experience are promising, longer-term follow-up is necessary before the procedure can be extended to lowerrisk patients. Many issues are not yet resolved, including the long-term effects of paravalvular leaks (which occur in most TAVI patients), the true stroke rate in TAVI patients (which is probably in the range of 5% to 6%), and the need for permanent pacemaker implantation (which ranges from 5% to 40% in TAVI patients, depending upon the device used). As the procedure is extended into the lower-risk population, these issues will assume greater import than they have in the population currently in treatment—very elderly, high-risk patients with limited life expectancy. As in the coronary-revascularization paradigm of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting, there will be increasing adoption of the transcatheter approach. Just as the rumors of the demise of surgical bypass were premature, conventional AVR will continue to be the predominant technique for the treatment of aortic stenosis during at least the next decade. Although the percentage of patients treated by a transcatheter approach will continue to increase, regulatory and reimbursement factors are likely to be the primary determinants of the rate of adoption.