Primary Outcome Measures:
Secondary Outcome Measures:
- Mortality 30 days after implant [ Time Frame: 30 days ]
- Morbidity 30 days after implant [ Time Frame: 30 days ]
Great debates revolve around the hemodynamic performance of prosthetic tissue valves. It is influenced by the design and the specific sizing strategy. Design determines the actual geometric orifice area (GOA), sizing strategy the actual size of the selected valve. Currently, hemodynamic performance is generally assessed by determining the effective orifice area (EOA, derived from the continuity equation by relating flow velocities and LVOT area). The question whether a prosthesis patient mismatch (PPM) is present is then addressed by relating EOA to body surface area (EOAi). However, this relation may not be reasonable because EOAi relates flow velocity twice to patient-specific anatomic parameters (LVOT area and body surface area) . Considering this potential methodological flaw, debate and confusion regarding PPM is easily understood, despite the fact that, intuitively leaving a gradient behind after aortic valve replacement cannot be irrelevant. Thus a reliable and comparable method to determine the presence of PPM is needed. In PAR I Trial the relation between true prothetic GOA and LVOT area will be assesses as a potentially new parameter for prediction of hemodynamic outcome, to possibly guide future valve size selection (inclusive valve-in-valve) and to allow the detection of functionally relevant PPM. In the trial it will be assessed how anatomic dimensions of patients and implanted valves relate to each other and whether they allow the prediction of hemodynamic outcome.