International Age and Use Criteria for Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) have transformed the management of severe aortic stenosis across a wide range of patient risk profiles. As populations age and indications extend to lower-risk and younger patients, determining the appropriate role of age in selecting TAVR versus SAVR has become increasingly complex. Current guidelines emphasize individualized decision-making, yet age-based referral patterns remain common in clinical practice. This review examines how age thresholds are applied in contemporary guidance from the United States (US), Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region. Additionally, this review evaluates whether chronological age alone is a defensible basis for referral or treatment selection. This evidence-based narrative review queried PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2025, using the search terms: ("aortic stenosis" AND ("TAVR" OR "transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI)" OR "SAVR")) AND ("age" OR "appropriateness"). English-language abstracts and full texts were screened in duplicate. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials, national or continental registries, health economic simulations, and clinical practice guidelines that reported age-stratified outcomes or recommendations. Single-case reports, editorials, and animal studies were excluded. Of the 1628 titles screened, 87 full texts were reviewed, and 45 studies were retained. Across regions, guidelines converge on a core principle: age is informative but insufficient in isolation. U.S. guidance generally favors SAVR in patients younger than 65 years or those with a life expectancy greater than 20 years, and favors transfemoral TAVR in patients older than 80 years or with a life expectancy shorter than 10 years. European guidance typically favors SAVR in patients younger than 75 years and TAVR in those older than 75 years. Meanwhile, Asia-Pacific recommendations adopt a similarly individualized approach but place greater emphasis on bicuspid anatomy, rheumatic disease, local health system infrastructure, and cost. Recent data support a cautious approach in younger patients. In observational U.S. analyses of patients younger than 65 years, TAVR use increased substantially despite guideline preference for surgery, and TAVR was associated with higher long-term mortality or higher pacemaker and readmission burdens in selected cohorts. Contemporary randomized data suggest broadly similar outcomes between TAVR and SAVR in older or intermediate-age populations; however, uncertainty persists in younger low-risk patients, particularly those with bicuspid anatomy and long projected survival. Age-based cutoffs should be interpreted as decision anchors rather than rigid rules. The most defensible framework integrates age with life expectancy, valve durability, anatomy, frailty, comorbidity burden, coronary artery disease, feasibility of future valve-in-valve therapy, and patient preferences within a multidisciplinary heart team. Expansion of TAVR into younger populations should remain measured until more robust long-term durability and lifetime management data become available.