ABSTRACT
					
	The continued evolution of transcatheter aortic valve implantation 
(TAVI) technology and the results of multiple randomized clinical trials
 (RCTs) have firmly established this approach as an alternative to 
surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in the treatment of aortic 
stenosis in all risk groups. Deciding on TAVI or SAVR depends on 
patient-specific factors, including technical, procedure-specific 
contraindications and the balance between estimated life expectancy and 
anticipated prosthesis durability. These factors pertain to the decision
 between mechanical and biological prostheses, and if the choice is 
biological, between SAVR and TAVI. A strong emphasis is now placed on 
shared decision-making with the patient and involvement of the 
multidisciplinary heart team. For most patients younger than 65 years, 
SAVR is recommended, with mechanical valves favored in those younger 
than 50 years. For those older than 65 years, the perioperative risks of
 mortality and stroke are lower with transfemoral TAVI compared with 
SAVR, but the risks of paravalvular leak, a pacemaker requirement, and 
vascular complications are higher.