Leon, Martin B.

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.

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.