Table 2: Variables that may Influence ID and Outcomes Following TAVR.

Study	Sample size	Type of study	Device type	Impact on ID	Impact on outcome	Follow-up period (days)
Veulemans et al 2021[25]	473	Retrospective PSM	SEV (100%) newer generation	LVOT calcification ‘Flare’ aortic root Rapid pacing EvR 34 mm	None	NA
Veulemans et al. 2023[30]	398	Retrospective, multicentre	SEV (EvR 34;100%) newer generation	Guidewires	None	NA
Jilaihawi et al. 2010[34]	50	Retrospective	SEV (100%) old generation	OID 5–10 mm	Incidence of patient– prosthesis mismatch	NA
Hamdan et al. 2015[8]	73	Retrospective	SEV (100%) old generation	ΔMSID	Predictor of new high-degree AV block and PPI	NA
Oestreich et al. 2019[9]	102	Retrospective	BEV (100%)	Low ID (≥6 mm below annulus)	Predictor of new PPI	30
Jilaihawi et al. 2019[2]	248	Retrospective	SEV (100%) newer generation	ID > MS length	Predictor of new PPI	NA
Breitbart et al. 2021[35]	104	Retrospective	SEV (100%) newer generation	Low ID (≥4 mm below annulus)	Predictor of new conduction disturbances No association with the extent of PVL	NA
Hokken et al. 2022[36]	1,811	Retrospective, multicentre	SEV (62%) BEV (38%) newer generation	ID towards NCC	Predictor of new PPI	30

Data given as mean ± SD or n/n (%). ΔMSID = difference between MS length and ID; AV = atrioventricular; BEV = balloon-expandable valve; EvR 34 = Evolut R 34 mm; ID = implantation depth; LVOT = left ventricular outflow tract; NA = not available; NCC = non-coronary cusp; OID = optimal ID; PPI = permanent pacemaker implantation; PSM = propensity-score matching; PVL = paravalvular leak; SEV = self-expandable valve; TAVR = transcatheter aortic valve replacement.