Numerous studies have reported the efficacy and safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for pure severe native aortic valve regurgitation (psNAVR) in recent years; however, these studies show considerable variability in outcomes such as success rate and mortality. Therefore, this meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TAVR in patients with psNAVR based on the latest research evidence.
Methods
Relevant studies were searched in four databases—PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library—up to August 27, 2025. The primary outcomes were device success, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality during the perioperative period. Secondary outcomes included perioperative and 1-year post-operative adverse events, such as stroke, acute kidney injury (AKI), new-onset myocardial infarction, major vascular complications, major bleeding events, readmission due to heart failure (HF), and new permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata 14.0 software.
Results
A total of 29 articles involving 2,773 patients with psNAVR undergoing TAVR were included in the meta-analysis. The device success rate was 87.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 83.3%−91.2%]. Perioperative all-cause mortality was 3.1% (95% CI: 1.6%−5.1%), and perioperative cardiovascular mortality was 1.4% (95% CI: 0.2%−3.5%). During the perioperative period, the incidence of adverse events was as follows: stroke, 0.7%; AKI, 4.5%; new-onset myocardial infarction, 0.0%; major vascular complications, 3.3%; major bleeding events, 4.4%; and new PPM implantation, 11.4%. At 1 year, the incidence rates were 9.3% for all-cause mortality, 4.3% for cardiovascular mortality, 2.6% for stroke, 9.1% for AKI, 0.0% for new-onset myocardial infarction, 1.6% for major bleeding events, 19.0% for readmission due to HF, and 10.0% for new PPM implantation. Subgroup analysis indicated that geographic location, surgical risk, valve type, and procedural approach influenced the incidence of post-operative adverse events.
Conclusion
TAVR is a valuable therapeutic option for patients with psNAVR at high surgical risk. However, geographic location, surgical risk, valve type, and procedural approach appear to influence the incidence of adverse events after TAVR.
efficacymeta-analysispure severe native aortic valve regurgitationsafetytranscatheter aortic valve replacementThe author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.section-at-acceptanceGeriatric MedicineHighlights
The device success rate of TAVR for psNAVR treatment was 87.5%.
TAVR is a valuable therapeutic option for patients with psNAVR who are at high surgical risk.
Geographic location, surgical risk, valve type, and procedural approach influence the incidence of adverse events after TAVR.
This study provides comprehensive and objective evidence to support clinical decision-making.
Introduction
Aortic valve regurgitation (AR) is a common valvular disease (1, 2). Among its subtypes, pure severe native aortic valve regurgitation (psNAVR) is characterized by structural or functional abnormalities of the aortic valve leaflets, leading to retrograde blood flow from the aorta into the left ventricle during diastole (3). The occurrence of psNAVR is closely related to factors such as degenerative changes in the valve leaflets, congenital malformations, and infective endocarditis (4). In the Chinese population, the prevalence of psNAVR is 1.2%, rising to 2% in individuals aged 70 years and older (5). Long-term AR with chronic volume overload increases left ventricular end-diastolic volume and pressure, which initially results in increased left ventricular compliance (6). Although this adaptation allows the left ventricle to accommodate the increased volume, prolonged overload ultimately causes progressive ventricular enlargement, a reduction in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and elevated left atrial and pulmonary artery wedge pressures, leading to left heart failure (HF) and, in severe cases, biventricular failure (7, 8).
The traditional treatments for AR mainly include drug therapy and surgical aortic valve replacement (9). However, many patients with severe AR are unable to undergo surgery due to factors such as reduced LVEF, advanced age, and multiple comorbidities (10). In recent years, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as an effective treatment for aortic valve stenosis (11). However, in patients with pure aortic valve regurgitation without valve calcification or stenosis, TAVR still presents considerable technical challenges (12). Although numerous studies in recent years have reported the efficacy and safety of TAVR in psNAVR, the results vary substantially with respect to success rate and mortality. Whether factors such as valve type, procedural approach, and geographic region significantly affect outcomes remains controversial (13–18).
Therefore, this meta-analysis was conducted to summarize the latest evidence and comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of TAVR in patients with psNAVR. This study aims to provide comprehensive and objective evidence to support clinical decision-making.
MethodsSearch strategy
A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library up to August 27, 2025, with no language restrictions. The search keywords were “aortic valve regurgitation,” “transcatheter aortic valve replacement,” “transcatheter aortic valve implantation,” “TAVR,” and “TAVI.” Keywords within the same category were combined with “OR,” whereas keywords across categories were combined with “AND” (Supplementary Tables S1–S4). In addition, the reference lists of relevant reviews and included articles were screened to identify additional studies eligible for meta-analysis.
Eligibility criteria
The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) patients with psNAVR, excluding those with mild or moderate AR or concomitant aortic stenosis; (2) patients with psNAVR undergoing TAVR; (3) studies reporting at least one outcome, such as device success, mortality, or adverse events; and (4) no restriction on study design, with both prospective and retrospective studies eligible. Non-academic publications such as reviews, conference abstracts, commentaries, and letters were excluded. Studies with a sample size of fewer than 10 participants were also excluded to minimize selection bias (19). In cases of duplicate publications or overlapping datasets, only the article with the most complete research information was included.
Data extraction and quality assessment
Two investigators independently screened the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. After identifying studies for inclusion in the meta-analysis, the investigators independently extracted data using a predesigned standardized form. The extracted information included the first author, publication year, study region, baseline characteristics of the study population (sample size, age, and sex ratio), aortic valve morphology, surgical risk level, device manufacturer, device type, procedural approach, follow-up duration, and study outcomes. After completing data extraction, the investigators exchanged verification sheets and resolved discrepancies through discussion.
For quality assessment, the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) (20) was applied. The MINORS instrument includes 12 evaluation items; however, for single-arm studies without a control group, only the first eigt items were assessed. Each item was scored from 0 to 2, with a maximum total of 16 points. A score of 0 indicated “not reported,” 1 indicated “reported but inadequate,” and 2 indicated “reported and adequate.” Studies were categorized as having low (0–5), moderate (6–11), or high (12–16) methodological quality.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analyses were performed using Stata 14.0 software (StataCorp). The primary outcomes were device success, perioperative all-cause mortality, and perioperative cardiovascular mortality, where the perioperative period was defined as during surgery and within 30 days post-operatively. Secondary outcomes included perioperative and 1-year post-operative adverse events, such as stroke, acute kidney injury (AKI), new-onset myocardial infarction, major vascular complications, major bleeding events, readmission due to HF, and new permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation.
All study outcomes were categorical variables, and incidence rate (IR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used as the effect size (ES). Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q test and the I2 statistic (21). A Q test P-value < 0.05 or I2 > 50% indicated significant heterogeneity; otherwise, heterogeneity was considered non-significant. Because of notable heterogeneity in study design, treatment protocols, and device types among the included studies, a random-effects model was applied to synthesize the ES.
For perioperative outcomes, subgroup analyses were conducted to examine the effects of study design, geographic region, surgical risk, valve type, procedural approach, generation of devices, and risk of bias on heterogeneity and pooled ES. Through sensitivity analysis, studies with a significant impact on heterogeneity were excluded, and the difference between the pooled ES of the remaining studies and the original meta-analysis result was compared. Publication bias was evaluated using the Egger test and funnel plots (22).
ResultsStudy selection
A total of 813 articles were identified through the initial search. Of these, 418 were removed as duplicates. After screening titles and abstracts, 353 articles were excluded, and 42 articles were retrieved for full-text eligibility assessment. Ultimately, 29 articles (4, 13–18, 23–44) met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis (Figure 1).
Flow diagram of the study selection process.
PRISMA flow diagram illustrating study selection for a meta-analysis, showing initial identification of 813 records, screening of 395 after removal of duplicates, with 42 reports assessed for eligibility, leading to 29 studies included.Study characteristics and study quality
The 29 included studies involved 2,773 patients with psNAVR undergoing TAVR, with sample sizes ranging from 10 to 598 participants. Among them, six were prospective studies (13, 30, 35, 37, 38, 42), and the remainder were retrospective. Apart from a few multinational collaborative studies (15, 17, 31–33, 41), most were conducted in China, Germany, Italy, France, and the United States. The characteristics of these studies are summarized in Table 1.
CoreValve, Lotus, Spien XT, Evolut R, J-valve, et. al
SEV or BEV
TF (233/331)
331, 172/159
74.4 ± 12.2
293 (88.5)
Yu, FC 2025
China
PS
1
Bicuspid or Tricuspid valve
Not High risk only
VitaFlow
Second -generation valve
TF
100, NR
72.7 ± 7.2
NR
Zheng, HJ 2023
China
RS
12
Tricuspid valve (97.8%)
High risk only
Venus-A
First-generation valve
TF
45, 33/12
73.5 ± 5.5
43 (95.6)
Zhu, L 2018
China
RS
6
Tricuspid valve
High risk only
J-Valve
Third-generation AR-specific valve
TA
44, 31/13
73.8 ± 5.6
43 (100)
Zhu, P 2025
China
RS
6
Tricuspid valve (87.1%)
Not High risk only
J-Valve
Third-generation AR-specific valve
TA
47, 35/12
73.0 ± 9.0
46 (97.9)
AV, aortic valve; BEV, Balloon-Expandable valve; F, female; M, male; NR, not reached; NYHA, New York Heart Association; PS, Prospective study; RS, Retrospective study; SEV, self-expandable valve; TA, transapical; TF, transfemoral; USA, the United States of America.
The MINORS scores of the included studies ranged from 9 to 15. Thirteen studies scored 12 or higher and were classified as low risk of bias (13, 14, 25, 29, 35–38, 40–43), while the remaining studies were classified as moderate risk of bias (Supplementary Table S5).
Meta-analysisPrimary outcomes
Because four studies stratified participants by specific clinical features and reported results separately, a total of 33 datasets were available. Figure 2 presents the forest plot of device success, including 33 datasets and 2,773 participants (Table 2). The pooled random-effects model yielded an IR of 0.875 (95% CI: 0.833–0.912), indicating a device success rate of 87.5% (95% CI: 83.3%−91.2%). Significant heterogeneity was observed among the included studies (I2 = 87.0%, P < 0.001).
Forest plot of device success. The size of the black squares is proportional to the weight of each study in the pooled estimate calculated using a random-effects model. The diamond below the studies represents the pooled effect estimate, with its center and vertical line (red) indicating the overall event rate and its lateral edges denoting the 95% CI.
Forest plot displaying effect sizes with ninety-five percent confidence intervals for multiple studies, showing heterogeneity among results. Each study lists case number, sample size, and weight. The overall pooled estimate appears at the bottom with a diamond symbol.
Summary of perioperative outcomes.
Outcomes
No. of study
Sample size
Incidence rate (95%CI)
Heterogeneity test
Egger' s test P value
Pvalue
I2(%)
Device success
33
2,773
0.875 (0.833, 0.912)
<0.001
87.0
0.367
Total mortality
31
2,139
0.031 (0.016, 0.051)
<0.001
71.2
0.349
Cardiovascular disease mortality
19
1,589
0.014 (0.002, 0.035)
<0.001
69.3
0.058
Stroke
19
1,953
0.007 (0.001, 0.017)
0.034
40.7
0.891
Acute kidney injury
18
1,977
0.045 (0.022, 0.074)
<0.001
79.6
0.683
New-onset Myocardial infarction
16
1,361
0.000 (0.000, 0.001)
0.934
0.0
0.892
Major vascular complication
19
1,916
0.033 (0.010, 0.066)
<0.001
84.9
0.461
Major bleeding events
21
2,025
0.044 (0.018, 0.076)
0.001
83.9
0.333
New permanent pacemaker implantation
27
2,411
0.114 (0.084, 0.147)
<0.001
76.2
0.741
A total of 2,139 participants contributed data on perioperative all-cause mortality (Figure 3A, Table 2). The pooled estimate was IR = 0.031 (95% CI: 0.016–0.051), with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 71.2%, P < 0.001). In addition, 1,589 participants provided data on perioperative cardiovascular mortality (Figure 3B, Table 2). The pooled estimate was IR = 0.014 (95% CI: 0.002–0.035), with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 69.3%, P < 0.001).
Forest plots of perioperative mortality outcomes. (A) All-cause mortality. (B) Cardiovascular mortality. The size of the black squares is proportional to the weight of each study in the pooled estimate calculated using a random-effects model. The diamond below the studies represents the pooled effect estimate, with its center and vertical line (red) indicating the overall event rate and its lateral edges denoting the 95% CI.
Forest plot comparing multiple studies. Panel A (left) and Panel B (right) each list studies with author and year, sample size (n), case count, effect size (ES) with confidence intervals, and study weight percentage. Horizontal lines with squares represent individual study effect sizes and confidence intervals, and a diamond at the bottom summarizes the overall effect size and heterogeneity statistics for each group.Secondary perioperative outcomes
The pooled results for stroke, AKI, new-onset myocardial infarction, major vascular complications, major bleeding events, and new PPM implantation are shown in Figures 4A–F and Table 2. The random-effects model indicated that, for TAVR in psNAVR, the perioperative incidences were 0.7% for stroke, 4.5% for AKI, 0.0% for new-onset myocardial infarction, 3.3% for major vascular complications, 4.4% for major bleeding events, and 11.4% for new PPM implantation. Except for new-onset myocardial infarction, all outcomes demonstrated significant heterogeneity (I2 > 50%, P < 0.05).
Forest plots of perioperative adverse events. (A) Stroke. (B) Acute kidney injury. (C) New-onset myocardial infarction. (D) Major vascular complications. (E) Major bleeding events. (F) New permanent pacemaker implantation. The size of the black squares is proportional to the weight of each study in the pooled estimate calculated using a random-effects model. The diamond below the studies represents the pooled effect estimate, with its center and vertical line (red) indicating the overall event rate and its lateral edges denoting the 95% CI.
Six forest plots labeled A to F present meta-analysis data for different studies. Each plot lists study names, number of cases, sample sizes, effect sizes with confidence intervals, and study weights. Summary diamonds indicate overall effect estimates and heterogeneity statistics appear below each plot. Data are organized in columns with horizontal lines showing confidence intervals for each study along a shared x-axis.Secondary 1-year post-operative outcomes
The pooled results for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, AKI, new-onset myocardial infarction, major bleeding events, readmission due to HF, and new PPM implantation at 1 year are shown in Supplementary Figures S1–S8, and Table 3. The random-effects model indicated incidence rates of 9.3% for all-cause mortality, 4.3% for cardiovascular mortality, 2.6% for stroke, 9.1% for AKI, 0.0% for new-onset myocardial infarction, 1.6% for major bleeding events, 19.0% for readmission due to HF, and 10.0% for new PPM implantation. Significant heterogeneity was observed for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, readmission due to HF, and new PPM implantation (I2 > 50% or P < 0.05). For the remaining outcomes, no significant heterogeneity was found (I2 = 0%, P > 0.05).
Summary of 1-year post-operative outcomes.
Outcomes
No. of study
Sample size
Incidence rate (95%CI)
Heterogeneity test
Egger' s test P value
Pvalue
I2(%)
Total mortality
16
895
0.093 (0.065, 0.126)
0.026
45.1
0.058
Cardiovascular disease mortality
9
342
0.043 (0.012, 0.088)
0.021
55.8
0.714
Stroke
4
199
0.026 (0.005, 0.056)
0.911
0.0
0.051
Acute kidney injury
2
120
0.091 (0.044, 0.151)
NA
NA
NA
New-onset myocardial infarction
6
328
0.000 (0.000, 0.010)
0.459
0.0
0.350
Major bleeding events
4
164
0.016 (0.000, 0.047)
0.413
0.0
0.536
Readmission due to heart failure
6
148
0.190 (0.066, 0.351)
0.001
75.2
0.156
New permanent pacemaker implantation
6
327
0.100 (0.029, 0.200)
<0.001
81.7
0.861
Subgroup analysis
Table 4 summarizes the subgroup analyses of perioperative outcomes. Because of the extremely low incidence of new-onset myocardial infarction, no subgroup analysis was performed for this outcome. For device success, cardiovascular mortality, and stroke, and major bleeding events, geographic location, valve type, and procedural approach significantly influenced the pooled ES (P < 0.05). For major bleeding events, geographic location, valve type, generation of devices, and procedural approach significantly influenced the pooled ES (P < 0.05). For all-cause mortality, study design, surgical risk, and valve type were significant influencing factors (P < 0.05). For AKI, study design, surgical risk, valve type, and procedural approach were significant influencing factors (P < 0.05). For major vascular complications and new PPM implantation, procedural approach was the influencing factor (P < 0.05). For new PPM implantation, procedural approach, and generation of devices were the influencing factors (P < 0.05). Geographic location and procedural approach also contributed to heterogeneity in stroke incidence after surgery. No significant influencing factors were found for the remaining outcomes.
Outcomes of subgroup analyses of perioperative outcomes.
The sensitivity analysis results of device success, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, AKI, major vascular complications, major bleeding events, and new PPM implantation of perioperative were shown in Supplementary Figures S9–S15. After excluding 13 studies (14, 15, 18, 27, 28, 31, 33, 37, 40, 41, 43, 44), the I2 of device success dropped to 36.5%, and the pooled ES was 87.6% (95% CI: 84.5%−90.4%). Following the exclusion of seven studies (15, 16, 26, 34, 36, 41, 42), the I2 of all-cause mortality fell to 27.4%, corresponding to a pooled ES of 2.4% (95% CI: 1.3%−3.7%). Exclusion of two studies (36, 41) reduced the I2 for cardiovascular mortality to 16.7%, and the pooled ES was 0.6% (95% CI: 0.0%−1.6%). After excluding one study (41), the I2 of stroke dropped to 12.1%, and the pooled ES was 0.4% (95% CI: 0.0%−1.0%). After excluding three studies (26, 30, 37), the I2 of AKI dropped to 16.7%, and the pooled ES was 6.7% (95% CI: 4.8%−8.9%). Exclusion of four studies (14, 31, 39, 41), the I2 of major vascular complications fell to 36.3%, corresponding to a pooled ES of 1.6% (95% CI: 0.3%−3.5%). After excluding six studies (14, 23, 31, 33, 36, 41), the I2 of major bleeding events dropped to 35.4%, and the pooled ES was 2.0% (95% CI: 0.6%−3.8%). After excluding ten studies (23, 25–27, 31, 37, 39, 41, 43, 44), the I2 of new PPM implantation dropped to 26.1%, and the pooled ES was 10.2% (95% CI: 7.8%−12.8%). Overall, after excluding studies that exerted a significant impact on heterogeneity, the pooled ES for AKI exhibited a slight increase, whereas major vascular complications and major bleeding events showed a significant reduction, with minimal changes observed in all other indicators.
Publication bias test
Tables 2, 3 present the results of the publication bias assessment for perioperative and 1-year post-operative outcomes. Because only two studies reported the 1-year incidence of AKI, the Egger test could not be performed for this outcome. For all other outcomes, the Egger test indicated no significant publication bias (P > 0.05).
Discussion
TAVR was initially used primarily for the treatment of patients with pure severe aortic valve stenosis (11). In recent years, with device improvements and advances in clinical research, its use has expanded to patients with psNAVR who are at high surgical risk or have contraindications to surgery, providing a minimally invasive therapeutic alternative (45, 46). However, the success rate, mortality, and outcome-influencing factors of TAVR in psNAVR remain highly controversial. Therefore, this meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TAVR in patients with psNAVR using the most recent evidence. This analysis included 2,773 patients with psNAVR undergoing TAVR. We found that TAVR is a feasible treatment option for patients with psNAVR who are at high surgical risk. However, geographic location, surgical risk, valve type, and procedural approach influenced the incidence of adverse events after TAVR in psNAVR.
The main challenge in treating patients with psNAVR using TAVR is the absence of calcification in the device landing zone, which may lead to inadequate fixation of the prosthetic valve at the annulus during deployment and result in device displacement (13). In this study, the device success rate of TAVR for psNAVR was 87.5%, a satisfactory outcome consistent with the findings of Beerkens F J et al. (11), who reported a device success rate of 86.3% in patients with NAVR undergoing TAVR. It has also been reported that the operative mortality of patients with AR undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement is 3.4% (10). In comparison, although the perioperative all-cause mortality of psNAVR patients undergoing TAVR was only 3.1%, the 1-year all-cause mortality reached 9.3%. The higher mortality in psNAVR patients treated with TAVR is likely attributable to the fact that most patients included in this meta-analysis were at high surgical risk and often had depressed LVEF, concomitant severe mitral regurgitation, or an enlarged aortic diameter. Overall, TAVR appears to be a valuable therapeutic option for patients with psNAVR who are at high surgical risk.
The worsening of HF has been recognized as the most common cause of rehospitalization after TAVR (47). In this study, the incidences of perioperative adverse events such as stroke and myocardial infarction were relatively low; however, the 1-year rehospitalization rate due to HF reached 19%. This phenomenon may be attributable to multiple post-operative factors, including severe prosthesis–patient mismatch, significant paravalvular leaks, and conduction disturbances, all of which can increase the risk of HF. We also found that the 1-year incidences of AKI and new PPM implantation were close to 10%, which warrants clinical attention. AKI is a serious complication of TAVR and may result from several factors, including the transapical approach, sustained hypotension, and high contrast volume (48). In addition, several factors may contribute to adverse events after TAVR for psNAVR. For example, Witberg et al. (49) reported a significant association between center valve preference and late mortality. Similarly, Protasiewicz et al. (50) emphasized that when TAVR is performed with self-expanding valves at centers that predominantly favor balloon-expandable valves, 2-year mortality and periprocedural outcomes appear to be compromised. In this study, subgroup analyses showed that geographic location, surgical risk, valve type, and procedural approach were factors influencing the incidence of adverse events after TAVR for psNAVR. SEV combined with the TA are associated with the most favorable outcomes (highest device success, lowest overall adverse events); for patients at high risk of mortality, BEV may be preferred for their superior mortality reduction; SEV/BEV and multi-approach should be avoided due to significantly worse outcomes. In addition, geographic location is a surrogate for modifiable clinical and systemic factors (patient selection, procedural care, center expertise) rather than an independent risk factor. Its primary value is to highlight: (a) Targetable risks: western centers should prioritize bleeding/stroke prevention strategies proven effective in Chinese cohorts; (b) Contextualized risk stratification: adjust risk estimates based on regional practice patterns (e.g., higher bleeding risk in Western patients); (c) Quality improvement: standardize best practices (e.g., high-volume centers, personalized anticoagulation) across regions to reduce disparities. In clinical practice, geographic location should complement—not replace—objective risk scores and patient-specific factors (e.g., comorbidities, anatomy) to guide TAVR candidate selection and perioperative management. Also, subgroup analysis indicated that the generation of devices had significant impact on the major bleeding events and new PPM implantation. Therefore, when applying TAVR for psNAVR in clinical practice, these influencing factors should be carefully considered.
In this meta-analysis, the number of included studies was moderate, the cumulative sample size was large, and the pooled effect sizes were estimated with high precision. The methodological quality of the included studies was generally moderate, and the overall risk of bias was low. Importantly, no significant publication bias was detected, supporting the reliability of the results. However, several limitations should be considered. First, for outcomes other than all-cause mortality, relatively few studies reported 1-year post-operative data. Additional high-quality research is needed to confirm the stability and generalizability of these findings. Second, the methodological and clinical heterogeneity among the included studies was considerable, which contributed to substantial statistical heterogeneity in some outcomes. Although random-effects models were applied, interpretation of these results should remain cautious. Third, due to limited follow-up data, it was not possible to assess the medium- or long-term benefits of TAVR in psNAVR patients.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this meta-analysis demonstrated that TAVR is a feasible treatment option for patients with psNAVR who are at high surgical risk. Geographic location, surgical risk, valve type, and procedural approach were identified as factors influencing the incidence of adverse events after TAVR in psNAVR. These findings provide an evidence-based reference to guide clinicians and healthcare teams in the management of patients with psNAVR.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Special thanks to chair of my department and office mates, for their invaluable editing help and moral support.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2026.1735206/full#supplementary-material
Forest plot of one-year all-cause mortality.
Forest plot of one-year cardiovascular mortality.
Forest plot of one-year stroke incidence.
Forest plot of one-year acute kidney injury.
Forest plot of one-year new-onset myocardial infarction.
Forest plot of one-year major bleeding events.
Forest plot of one-year readmission due to heart failure.
Forest plot of one-year new permanent pacemaker implantation.
Sensitivity analysis of device success of perioperative.
Sensitivity analysis of all-cause mortality of perioperative.
Sensitivity analysis of cardiovascular mortality of perioperative.
Sensitivity analysis of stroke of perioperative.
Sensitivity analysis of acute kidney injury of perioperative.
Sensitivity analysis of major vascular complications of perioperative.
Sensitivity analysis of major bleeding events of perioperative.
Search strategy and results for PubMed.
Search strategy and results for Embase.
Search strategy and results for the Cochrane Library.
Search strategy and results for Web of Science.
Methodological quality assessment of the included studies.
PRISMA_checklist.
ReferencesAttarRMalahfjiMAnguloCNguyenDTGravissEAShahDJ. Echocardiographic evaluation of chronic aortic regurgitation: comparison with cardiac magnetic resonance and implications for guideline recommendations. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. (2025) 18:403–17. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2024.08.01339545892MalahfjiMSaeedMZoghbiWA. Aortic regurgitation: review of the diagnostic criteria and the management guidelines. Curr Cardiol Rep. (2023) 25:1373–80. doi: 10.1007/s11886-023-01955-x37715804FanJLinDMiaoJWengZQiYZhanZ. Age-related outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with pure severe aortic regurgitation. Cardiology. (2025) 25: 1–10. doi: 10.1159/00054356739999812GarciaSYeJWebbJReardonMKleimanNGoelS. Transcatheter treatment of native aortic valve regurgitation: the North American Experience With a Novel Device. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. (2023) 16:1953–60. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2023.05.01837212431YangYWangZChenZWangXZhangLLiS. Current status and etiology of valvular heart disease in China: a population-based survey. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. (2021) 21:339. doi: 10.1186/s12872-021-02154-834256700AkinseyeOAPathakAIbebuoguUN. Aortic valve regurgitation: a comprehensive review. Curr Probl Cardiol. (2018) 43:315–34. doi: 10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2017.10.00429174586El HusseinMTJobDHakkolaJ. Aortic regurgitation: review of current management. Dimens Crit Care Nurs. (2024) 43:80–6. doi: 10.1097/DCC.000000000000062838271313PeighGPuthumanaJJBonowRO. Aortic regurgitation and heart failure: advances in diagnosis, management, and interventions. Heart Fail Clin. (2023) 19:285–96. doi: 10.1016/j.hfc.2023.02.00737230644Rodés-CabauJRibeiroHBMohammadiSSerraVAl-AtassiTIñiguezA. Transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis and small aortic annulus: a randomized clinical trial. Circulation. (2024) 149:644–55. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.06732637883682IungBBaronGButchartEGDelahayeFGohlke-BärwolfCLevangOW. A prospective survey of patients with valvular heart disease in Europe: the Euro Heart Survey on Valvular Heart Disease. Eur Heart J. (2003) 24:1231–43. doi: 10.1016/S0195-668X(03)00201-X12831818BeerkensFJTangGHLKiniASLerakisSDangasGDMehranR. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement beyond severe aortic stenosis: JACC State-of-the-Art Review. J Am Coll Cardiol. (2025) 85:944–64. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2024.11.05140044299OttoCMNishimuraRABonowROCarabelloBAErwinJPIII. 2020 ACC/AHA guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. (2021) 143:e35–71. doi: 10.1161/CIR.000000000000093233332149Le RuzRLerouxLLhermusierTCuissetTVan BelleEDibieA. Outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation for native aortic valve regurgitation. EuroIntervention. (2024) 20:e1076–85. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-24-0033939219361MaoYLiuYZhaiMJinPZhangHWeiL. Prognostic value of right ventricular dysfunction in aortic regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Front Cardiovasc Med. (2024) 11:1424116. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2024.142411639280033SawayaFJDeutschMASeiffertMYoonSHCodnerPWickramarachchiU. Safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the treatment of pure aortic regurgitation in native valves and failing surgical bioprostheses: results from an International Registry Study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. (2017) 10:1048–56. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2017.03.00428521923SchlingloffFSchäferUFrerkerCSchmoeckelMBaderR. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation of a second-generation valve for pure aortic regurgitation: procedural outcome, haemodynamic data and follow-up. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. (2014) 19:388–93. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivu15524893871SchoferJNietlispachFBijuklicKColomboAGattoFDe MarcoF. Transfemoral implantation of a fully repositionable and retrievable transcatheter valve for noncalcified pure aortic regurgitation. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. (2015) 8:1842–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2015.08.02226604062ZhuLGuoYWangWLiuHYangYWeiL. Transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement with a novel transcatheter aortic valve replacement system in high-risk patients with severe aortic valve diseases. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. (2018) 155:588–97. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2017.09.01528992963HolsterJJEl HassnaouiMFranssenSJNMIJde JongeJMostertB. Hepatic arterial infusion pump chemotherapy for unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. (2022) 29:5528–38. doi: 10.1245/s10434-022-11439-x35294656SlimKNiniEDKwiatkowskiFPanisYChipponiJ. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg. (2015) 73:712–6. doi: 10.1046/j.1445-2197.2003.02748.x12956787HigginsJPThompsonSGDeeksJJAltmanDG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. (2003) 327:557–60. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.55712958120EggerMDavey SmithGSchneiderMMinderC. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. (1997) 315:629–34. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629ChenJZhangYFengKHuangSXiaoHLiangM. [Clinical efficacy and safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for patients with severe pure native aortic regurgitation]. Zhejiang Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. (2025) 54:529–40. doi: 10.3724/zdxbyxb-2024-0515HinkovHLeeCBPittsLLanmüllerPKleinCKukuckaM. Transcatheter management of pure native aortic valve regurgitation in patients with left ventricular assist device. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. (2024) 65:ezae028. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezae02838273702KongXQZhangJGaoXFWangZMYePZhangJJ. Single-center experience with self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve system for symptomatic high-risk patients with severe aortic regurgitation: one-year outcomes. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. (2024) 104:1275–80. doi: 10.1002/ccd.3119339189047LinDWWengZLFanJNLongYLGuanLHPanWZ. Outcome of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for pure native aortic regurgitation in patients with pulmonary hypertension. Rev Cardiovasc Med. (2024) 25:307. doi: 10.31083/j.rcm250830739228503LiuHYangYWangWZhuDWeiLGuoK. Transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement for aortic regurgitation with a second-generation heart valve. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. (2018) 156:106–16. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2017.12.15029525255LiuLYaoXPengYHuangWJunSQianH. One-year outcome after transcatheter aortic valve replacement for aortic regurgitation: a single-center study. J Card Surg. (2022) 37:882–92. doi: 10.1111/jocs.1623835043502OrzalkiewiczMForoniMChieteraFBendandiFMazzapicchiABrunoAG. Off-label use of balloon-expandable transcatheter valves to treat pure aortic regurgitation. Am J Cardiol. (2024) 222:20–2. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2024.04.03038663573PanWChenSLiWLiuXChenYLuoJ. Early results of multicenter trial of a novel balloon-expandable valve with anchor for aortic regurgitation. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. (2025) 18:752–64. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2024.12.00640139852PolettiEDe BackerOScottiACostaGBrunoFFiorinaC. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for pure native aortic valve regurgitation: the PANTHEON International Project. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. (2023) 16:1974–85. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2023.07.026PuritaPAMTahocesLSFraccaroCNai FovinoLKimWKEspada-GuerreiroC. Transcatheter treatment of native aortic valve regurgitation: results from an international registry using the transfemoral ACURATE neo valve. Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. (2020) 27:100480. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2020.10048032083165RoyDASchaeferUGuettaVHildick-SmithDMöllmannHDumonteilN. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for pure severe native aortic valve regurgitation. J Am Coll Cardiol. (2013) 61:1577–84. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.01.01823433565SeiffertMBaderRKappertURastanAKrapfSBleizifferS. Initial German experience with transapical implantation of a second-generation transcatheter heart valve for the treatment of aortic regurgitation. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. (2014) 7:1168–74. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2014.05.01425129672ShiJWeiLChenYWangXYeJQinC. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation with J-valve: 2-year outcomes from a multicenter study. Ann Thorac Surg. (2021) 111:1530–6. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2020.06.13932980330TestaLLatibARossiMLDe MarcoFDe CarloMFiorinaC. CoreValve implantation for severe aortic regurgitation: a multicentre registry. EuroIntervention. (2014) 10:739–45. doi: 10.4244/EIJV10I6A12725330506VahlTPThouraniVHMakkarRRHamidNKhaliqueOKDanielsD. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with high-risk symptomatic native aortic regurgitation (ALIGN-AR): a prospective, multicentre, single-arm study. Lancet. (2024) 403:1451–9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)02806-438552656WangYWeiLLiuLShiJWangWCaoT. A multicenter prospective clinical study on transcatheter aortic valve implantation for aortic stenosis or pure aortic regurgitation: 5-year outcomes. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. (2025) 170:1379–91. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2025.03.03640204018YangLWengZChenSZhangYZhouDPanW. Noncoronary sinus pivot implantation for transcatheter aortic valve replacement with self-expanding valve for aortic regurgitation. JACC Asia. (2025) 5:884–94. doi: 10.1016/j.jacasi.2025.04.00440531075YinWHLeeYTTsaoTPLeeKCHsiungMCWeiJ. Outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for pure native aortic regurgitation with the use of newer- vs. early-generation devices. Ann Transl Med. (2022) 10:24. doi: 10.21037/atm-21-693635242869YoonSHSchmidtTBleizifferSSchoferNFiorinaCMunoz-GarciaAJ. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in pure native aortic valve regurgitation. J Am Coll Cardiol. (2017) 70:2752–63.YuFCPengXPYaoJYanYFCoronaSFuB. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in pure aortic regurgitation: one-year outcomes of the AURORA trial. EuroIntervention. (2025) 21:952–60. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-25-0022440828314ZhengHJChengYBYanCJLin DQ YuSJLiJ. Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement for pure native aortic regurgitation: one-year outcomes of a single-center study. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. (2023) 23:330. doi: 10.1186/s12872-023-03329-137386379ZhuPLiJXueBHuangJLingYZhangQ. Transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation with the J-valve system in aortic regurgitation. CJC Open. (2025) 7:145–52. doi: 10.1016/j.cjco.2024.10.00940060207IsogaiTSaadAMAhujaKRShekharSAbdelfattahOMGadMM. Short-term outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for pure native aortic regurgitation in the United States. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. (2021) 97:477–85. doi: 10.1002/ccd.2918932857915BaxJJDelgadoVHahnRTLeipsicJMinJKGrayburnP. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement: role of multimodality imaging in common and complex clinical scenarios. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. (2020) 13:124–39. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2018.10.037PanagidesVAlperiAMesnierJPhilipponFBernierMRodes-CabauJ. Heart failure following transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. (2021) 19:695–709. doi: 10.1080/14779072.2021.194998734227916RiveraFBAl-AbchaAAnsayMFMMagalongJVUTangVASOnaHM. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement-associated acute kidney injury: an update. Cardiorenal Med. (2023) 13:143–57. doi: 10.1159/00052972936801854WitbergGLandesUTalmor-BarkanYRichterIBarbantiMValvoR. Center valve preference and outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement: insights from the AMTRAC registry. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. (2022) 15:1266–74. doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2022.05.00435738747ProtasiewiczM. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement beneficial in patients with severely reduced left ventricle ejection fraction: does the type of valve also matter?ESC Heart Fail. (2024) 11:1813–5. doi: 10.1002/ehf2.1490238840426
Edited by: Plinio Cirillo, University of Naples Federico II, Italy
Reviewed by: Moyang Wang, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, China
Ishaque Hameed, MedStar Union Memorial Hospital, United States