Discrepancy Between Invasive and Echocardiographic Transvalvular Gradients After TAVI Procedure: A Review of the Literature

Background/Objectives: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become an established treatment for patients with severe aortic stenosis. The accurate post-procedural assessment of transvalvular gradients is essential for evaluating procedural success and long-term prognosis. However, significant discrepancies have been reported between gradients measured invasively and those derived by Doppler echocardiography. This systematic review aims to summarize the current evidence comparing invasive and echocardiographic gradient measurements after TAVI. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted of the PubMed database from inception to 8 November 2025 using the keywords: “TAVI/TAVR,” “invasive versus echocardiographic gradient,” and related terms. Studies were included if they compared invasive and Doppler-derived aortic valve gradients following TAVI. Out of 44 identified articles, 12 studies met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Results: Across all the included studies, the echocardiography-derived mean gradients were consistently 4–7 mmHg higher than those obtained invasively, reflecting physiologic rather than procedural discordance. The difference was more pronounced in balloon-expandable and small-diameter valves and in patients with high-flow states. Invasive gradients were independently associated with mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in multiple studies. An invasive mean gradient ≤ 10 mmHg immediately post-TAVI was repeatedly identified as the threshold for optimal procedural success and improved long-term outcomes. Conclusions: Doppler echocardiography systematically overestimates transvalvular gradients after TAVI. While both modalities remain valuable, an invasive hemodynamic assessment provides the most reliable evaluation of immediate procedural success and long-term prognosis. Echocardiographic gradients should be interpreted relative to the baseline invasive measurement to avoid overdiagnosis of prosthetic dysfunction and ensure appropriate clinical management.