TAVR vs Surgery at 75 — Heart Team Decision.
An active 75-year-old golfer needed an aortic valve. The choice between TAVR and surgery was not straightforward.
This is a composite narrative based on common clinical scenarios. Patient details have been anonymized and combined for educational purposes. Individual results vary based on specific clinical circumstances.
A 75-year-old retired businessman from Florida was diagnosed with severe aortic stenosis after experiencing shortness of breath on the golf course. His local cardiologist recommended TAVR, while a surgeon he consulted suggested surgical aortic valve replacement. Confused by conflicting recommendations, he sought a Heart Team evaluation.
What our Heart Team found.
Our Heart Team review considered his anatomy, comorbidities, activity level, and life expectancy. His STS score was 2.1% (low risk). CT imaging showed favorable anatomy for either approach. However, his bicuspid valve morphology introduced a consideration: while TAVR is FDA-approved for bicuspid valves, surgical replacement offers more reliable results in this anatomy. His active lifestyle and 15+ year life expectancy favored a durable solution.
What happened next.
The Heart Team recommended surgical AVR with a bioprosthetic valve, acknowledging that TAVR was a reasonable alternative but that the bicuspid anatomy and expected longevity favored surgery. He underwent successful minimally invasive AVR and returned to golf within 6 weeks.
The TAVR vs surgery decision is not simply about age — it requires careful evaluation of anatomy, valve morphology, life expectancy, and patient preferences. The Heart Team approach ensures both perspectives are considered.
Your situation is unique. Let us review it.
Apply this evidence to your actual case.
Get an independent review from a cardiac surgeon and cardiologist in 24 hours after records are received. No referral needed — pricing is shared on your complimentary discovery call.
Or read how we review cases like this one.