Leon, Martin B.

Abstract Since its introduction in 2002, left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) has rapidly expanded as an alternative to anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation at high risk of stroke. Harmonized processes for data collection, analysis, and reporting in LAAC trials are essential to enhance research quality and improve clinical practice. The Left Atrial Appendage Academic Research Consortium (LAARC) initiative is an independent collaboration of academic research organizations, cardiology and neurology experts, clinical trialists, and regulatory authorities from the USA, Europe, and Asia. The consortium engaged clinical experts, regulators—including the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Notified Bodies, and Japan’s Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA)—and industry leaders to define standardized study elements and endpoints for LAAC trials. Key considerations included alignment with prior Academic Research Consortium initiatives, procedural and mechanistic insights, and clinical relevance. Consensus definitions were proposed for mortality, stroke, bleeding, and device performance, along with composite endpoints for safety and effectiveness. The proposed LAARC consensus definitions aim to standardize endpoint reporting, improve comparability across studies, and support regulatory and clinical trial applications for this evolving therapy through broad dissemination in the peer-reviewed literature.

Importance Clinical trials in cardiovascular medicine aim to deliver high-quality evidence with greater efficiency, including smaller sample sizes and shorter timelines. The selection of sensitive and reliable end points is central to this goal. Right ventricular (RV) structure and function play a critical role in many cardiovascular conditions; however, RV-specific parameters remain underused and inconsistently applied in interventional clinical trials. In this article, the current and emerging role of RV-focused imaging and hemodynamic parameters as end points in clinical trials are explored and a comprehensive framework for their development, validation, and broader implementation is proposed. Observations Across multiple disease domains, RV-focused parameters derived from echocardiography, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, and right-sided heart catheterization demonstrate potential value in assessing the therapeutic effects of new medicines or devices across a wide range of conditions including heart failure, cardiomyopathies, valve diseases, pulmonary hypertension, and congenital heart conditions. However, their use is inconsistent, and feasibility challenges are common, particularly in multicenter clinical trial settings. Key limitations include variability in imaging acquisition, incomplete data capture, lack of standardized protocols, and insufficient validation linking short-term RV changes to long-term clinical outcomes. Emerging tools such as artificial intelligence may improve reproducibility and efficiency, while collaborative, multidisciplinary efforts are essential for advancing end-point development. Conclusions and Relevance RV-specific end points hold substantial promise for enhancing the sensitivity and mechanistic insight of clinical trials but remain inadequately integrated into current practice. Optimal end-point selection requires balancing clinical relevance, analytical validity, and operational feasibility, with consideration of disease-specific pathophysiology and trial design. Standardization of acquisition, validation of clinically meaningful changes, and centralized data analysis are important next steps. Broader adoption of robust RV metrics supported by technological innovation and cross-sector collaboration has the potential to improve trial efficiency, accelerate therapeutic development, and ultimately enhance patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The EARLY TAVR trial (Evaluation of TAVR Compared to Surveillance for Patients with Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis) demonstrated that early transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was superior to clinical surveillance (CS) in asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis. The relative impact of early TAVR versus CS strategy by age is unknown. METHODS: The study population of the EARLY TAVR trial was stratified into 4 age groups: 65 to 69 years (n=141), 70 to 74 years (n=263), 75 to 79 years (n=250), and ≥80 years (n=247). Associations between age and the trial primary end point of death, stroke, or unplanned cardiovascular hospitalization; the composite end point of death, stroke, or heart failure hospitalization; and its individual components were examined. Interaction tests evaluated whether the treatment effect of early TAVR versus CS differed by age. RESULTS: No interaction was detected between age and the treatment effect of early TAVR versus CS for the composites or individual outcomes. We observed lower stroke rates with early TAVR compared with CS in the youngest (65–69 years, absolute risk reduction, 13%; P =0.008) and oldest (≥80 years; absolute risk reduction, 12.3%; P =0.029) age groups. The absolute difference in heart failure hospitalization rates between the early TAVR and CS arms at 2 years was greatest in the oldest patients (≥80 years, 9.1%; 75–79 years, 5.9%; 70–74 years, 5.1%; 65–69 years, 4.4%). In the CS group, time to conversion to AVR was similar across all age groups (median, 11 months; P =0.73). Approximately one-third of younger patients (65–69 years) in the CS arm presented with acute valve syndrome at the time of conversion, the frequency of which tended to increase with age ( P =0.06). CONCLUSIONS: In the EARLY TAVR trial, the relative benefit of early TAVR over CS was consistent among all age groups. The greatest absolute reduction in stroke rate with early TAVR compared with CS appeared in the youngest and oldest groups, whereas reduction in heart failure hospitalization was most pronounced in the oldest patients. These data suggest that early TAVR should be considered in all age groups above 65 years. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03042104.

Importance Sex-related disparities affect diagnosis, referral, and prognosis of aortic valvular diseases. Contemporary US data on transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) by sex are limited. Objective To characterize 10-year trends in TAVI use, periprocedural complications, and long-term outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries, stratified by sex. Design, Setting, and Participants This nationwide, retrospective, population-based cohort study used US Medicare claims data from fee-for-service beneficiaries discharged after TAVI from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2022. The median follow-up time was 2.19 (IQR, 0.94-3.79) years. Exclusions included patients who had concomitant valve surgery, infective endocarditis, valve-in-valve TAVI, transapical TAVI, TAVI for pure aortic insufficiency, or later conversion to Medicare Advantage. Analyses were conducted between October 1, 2024, and April 1, 2025. Exposure TAVI. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included periprocedural mortality, vascular complications, acute kidney injury, major or life-threatening bleeding, stroke, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), and hospitalization for heart failure (HF). Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and hazard ratios (AHRs) with 95% CIs were estimated. Results The study included 314 123 patients (141 233 women [45.0%] and 172 890 men [55.0%]). Women were older than men (mean [SD] age, female: 80.3 [7.8] years; male: 79.4 [7.7] years; standardized mean difference, 12%). The proportion of female patients who underwent TAVI declined from 47.6% in 2013 to 43.6% in 2022 ( P < .001). Compared with men, women had higher periprocedural mortality (2.5% vs 2.2%; AOR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.14-1.26]), vascular complications (5.8% vs 3.6%; AOR, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.60-1.71]), and bleeding (10.4% vs 6.8%; AOR, 1.67 [95% CI, 1.62-1.71]) but less PPI (16.9% vs 20.0%; AOR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.79-0.82]). Long-term mortality was lower in female patients (AHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.91-0.93), although their risks of HF hospitalization, AMI, stroke, and bleeding were higher. Conclusions and Relevance Among Medicare beneficiaries, women constituted a progressively declining proportion of patients treated with TAVI, experienced more periprocedural complications, and demonstrated modestly better long-term survival compared with men. Further work is needed to understand factors influencing these trends and to refine sex-specific strategies for optimal outcomes.

Background Bileaflet aortic valve prevalence in transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) patients is poorly defined. We evaluated a TAVR cohort to determine the bileaflet aortic valve prevalence and understand features which may improve detection. In addition, we related valvar morphology to the occurrence of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) following TAVR. Methods Aortic valvar morphology diagnosis was recorded from the pre-procedural cardiac CTA reports prior to TAVR. Commissural angles, comparison of commissural heights, and dynamic visual inspection of the aortic valve were subsequently evaluated on pre-procedural cardiac CTA by an expert cardiac anatomist and imager, methods previously validated in a surgical cohort, to determine aortic valvar morphology and compared to the historical diagnosis. Relationships between valvar morphological characteristics with the need for PPM within 30-days post-TAVR were determined. Results Four-hundred and thirty-three (mean age 81.3 ± 6.6 years, 53.8% female) underwent TAVR [corrected diagnosis: 393 (90.8%) trileaflet vs. 40 (9.2%) bileaflet valves]. Bileaflet valves were historically misdiagnosed in 80% of pre-procedural cardiac CTA reports. Thirty-four (85.0%) had intercoronary leaflet fusion [mean commissural angle = 148.1 (18.3) degrees]. A commissural angle threshold of 141.1 degrees had a sensitivity of 0.73 and specificity of 0.86 for identifying a bileaflet valve. PPI post-TAVR occurred in 38% bileaflet vs. 19% trileaflet patients ( p = 0.0114 ) [unadjusted OR for bileaflet valve requiring PPI = 2.54, 95% CI (1.25–5.01)]. Conclusions Bileaflet aortic valves are commonly misdiagnosed. Assessment of the commissural angle and comparison of commissural heights may improve CTA-based diagnostic accuracy prior to TAVR. Improved detection may guide improved outcomes in this higher risk population.

Background A classification system describing clinical presentation before aortic valve replacement (AVR) has recently been proposed (stable valve syndrome [SVS]), mildly symptomatic (progressive valve syndrome), or with acute and severe signs and symptoms (acute valve syndrome [AVS]). We aimed to evaluate the clinical impact, health care costs, and resource use associated with the mode of clinical presentation at the time of AVR among patients presenting with aortic stenosis. Methods Using the Market Clarity database (2017–2023), patients >18 years old with aortic stenosis and undergoing AVR (transcatheter or surgical) were included. Patients were categorized as SVS, progressive valve syndrome, or AVS based on their clinical presentation during the 1 year before AVR. All‐cause death, heart failure hospitalization, total health care costs (index hospitalization plus 1‐year follow‐up), and resource use were compared across clinical presentation groups using adjusted regression models. Results Of the 24 075 patients undergoing AVR for aortic stenosis, 270 (1.1%) had SVS, 10 195 (42.3%) progressive valve syndrome, and 13 610 (56.5%) AVS. Compared with SVS, AVS presentation was associated with increased risk of 1‐year death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.93 [95% CI, 1.1–7.8]; P =0.03) and heart failure hospitalization (aHR, 4.15 [95% CI, 1.6–11.1]; P <0.01) after AVR. The total costs of AVR and 1‐year follow‐up were significantly higher in both the progressive valve syndrome (difference $27 410 [$13 507–$41 314]) and AVS groups (difference $36 267 [$22 302–$50 232]) compared with patients with SVS. Conclusions AVS was frequent among patients undergoing AVR and was associated with increase in death, heart failure hospitalization, health care costs, and resource use 1 year after AVR, and SVS presentation was associated with the best clinical and economic outcomes.

Abstract Background and Aims The TRISCEND II trial demonstrated superior clinical benefits for patients with ≥severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR) treated with the EVOQUE transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement (TTVR) system plus medical therapy vs medical therapy alone. This work reports 1-year and 18-month outcomes in patients stratified by baseline TR severity. Methods The multicentre, prospective TRISCEND II trial enrolled 400 patients with symptomatic, ≥severe TR, and randomized 2:1 to TTVR (n = 267) or control (n = 133). In a post hoc analysis, patients were stratified into severe TR (n = 172) and massive/torrential TR (n = 220) cohorts. Clinical and quality-of-life outcomes were reported at 1 year, with Kaplan–Meier estimates for all-cause mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization assessed at 18 months. Study oversight included an independent echocardiographic core laboratory, clinical events committee, and data safety monitoring board. Results One year after TTVR, TR was ≤mild in 95.2% of severe TR and 95.3% of massive/torrential TR patients. The primary safety and effectiveness endpoint (win ratio) favoured TTVR over control regardless of baseline TR severity: severe {1.64 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11, 2.43]} and massive/torrential [2.20 (1.55, 3.14)]. At 18 months, TTVR patients had similar mortality to controls [rate difference: severe 0.2% (−11.6, 11.9), massive/torrential −5.8% (−17.6, 6.0)], whereas HF hospitalization rates favoured TTVR in the massive/torrential cohort [vs control, severe 9.8% (−3.0, 22.7), massive/torrential -15.2% (−28.9, −1.5)]. Conclusions Patients with ≥severe TR benefit from TTVR, experiencing improvements in TR severity, functional capacity, and quality of life regardless of baseline TR severity, with a signal for greater benefit in patients with more advanced disease.

Abstract Background and Aims Classification and risk stratification in aortic (AR), mitral (MR), and tricuspid regurgitation (TR) remains a significant clinical challenge. This study aimed to develop an artificial intelligence (AI) system to assess valvular regurgitation and stratify MR-progression risk. Methods Using transthoracic echocardiograms (TTEs) at two sites (internal development/test, external test), the DELINEATE-Regurgitation system was developed to classify AR, MR, and TR severity using colour Doppler videos. Methods of summating video-level classifications into study-level predictions were tested, comparing single-view with multiview approaches integrating predictions across multiple videos. Model agreement with cardiologists was assessed by weighted kappa. A separate AI system (DELINEATE-MR-Progression) analysing colour Doppler videos was developed to predict which patients with mild, mild–moderate, and moderate MR were most likely to progress to moderate–severe or severe MR with analysis by Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional hazards models. Results A total of 71 660 TTEs with 1 203 980 colour Doppler videos were included. The weighted kappa in internal/external test sets for regurgitation classification was 0.81/0.76 for AR, 0.76/0.72 for MR, and 0.73/0.64 for TR using a multiview approach taking all colour Doppler videos in a study, demonstrating substantial agreement with cardiologist interpretation with superiority of multiview over single view approaches. In the progression analysis, the AI score stratified MR-progression risk even when controlled for clinical factors known to be associated with MR progression [internal test set hazard ratio 4.1 (95% confidence interval 2.5–6.6)]. Conclusions An AI system can accurately classify AR, MR, and TR and predict MR progression beyond currently known risk factors.

Abstract Worldwide, valvular heart disease (VHD) is a common cause of hospitalization for acute heart failure. In acute heart failure caused by VHD, symptoms result from rapid haemodynamic changes and subsequent decline in cardiac function, and if left untreated, leads to acute decompensation and cardiogenic shock. Current evidence remains scarce and recommendations regarding the management of acute heart failure caused by VHD are lacking in most recent international guidelines. Herein, we review the management of acute heart failure caused by VHD with a focus on transcatheter therapies and describe currently available evidence based on a systematic literature search on the following valve pathologies: (i) aortic stenosis, (ii) aortic regurgitation, (iii) mitral regurgitation, and (iv) mitral stenosis. Articles reporting outcomes following urgent or emergent valve intervention in the setting of cardiogenic shock or acute heart failure were considered. After screening a total of 2234 articles, 76 published between 1994 and 2023 were included in subsequent analysis. Based on available evidence, proposed treatment algorithms to guide optimal management of acute heart failure caused by VHD were created. As the number of patients presenting with acute heart failure caused by VHD continues to rise and outcomes following transcatheter valve interventions continue to improve, it is inevitable that minimally invasive options will play an increasingly important role in the acute setting, especially given these patients are at an increased operative risk. This review aims to present an organized approach to the complex management and interventional treatment of patients with acute heart failure caused by VHD.