Purpose of reviewThis review analyzes currently available commercial transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) valves as well as valves in investigational status and those in preclinical testing. The design features and clinical outcomes of the Edwards SAPIEN S3 and Medtronic Evolut PROþ are described and compared with highlight clinical circumstances where one may be favoured over the other. Recent findingsMultiple randomized and nonrandomized trials have compared commercial and investigational TAVR valves. The results of these are summarized and discussed within this review with a focus on how the SAPIEN S3 and Evolut PROþ both compare to each other as well as various valves in different investigational stages. SummaryTAVR is an innovative and ground-breaking technology that will forever have revolutionized the management of aortic stenosis. Though the technology and valves themselves have come a long way, further developments are necessary if we are to continue to expand its indications and achieve a safer perioperative experience with more durable valves.

To advance the field of health sciences simulation, research must be of high quality and would benefit from multi-institutional collaboration where centres can leverage and share expertise as well as work together to overcome limits to the generalizability of research findings from single-institution studies. A needs assessment in emergency medicine simulation has illustrated the importance of identifying research priorities in Canada. The main purpose of this study was to identify simulation research priority directions for Canadian simulation centres. The current survey study drew on 16 research priorities developed through a two-round internal Delphi study at McGill University that 15 of 17 simulation centre advisory board members participated in. The final 16 research priorities were then rated by a total of 18 of 24 simulation centre directors and/or delegates contacted from 15 of 19 Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada-accredited simulation centres in Canada. Results revealed 9 common research priorities that reached 70% or higher agreement for all respondents. We anticipate that our findings can contribute to building a shared vision of priorities, community, and collaboration to enhance health care simulation research quality amongst Canadian simulation centres.