Depta, Jeremiah P

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 Transcatheter tricuspid valve replacement (TTVR) demonstrated superior outcomes over medical therapy in patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR) in the Edwards EVOQUE Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Replacement: Pivotal Clinical Investigation of Safety and Clinical Efficacy Using a Novel Device II (TRISCEND II) randomized clinical trial, and received regulatory approval in the US in 2024. Contemporary real-world data on its effectiveness and safety remain limited. Objective To evaluate 30-day clinical, echocardiographic, and health status outcomes of TTVR in real-world use. Design, Setting, and Population Retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients who underwent TTVR in the US from February 2024 through March 2025 in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. Patients had symptomatic, severe TR despite optimal medical therapy and TTVR was deemed appropriate by a heart team. Statistical analysis was conducted from September 2025 to February 2026. Exposure Device-enabled TTVR. Main Outcomes and Measures Thirty-day event rates (all-cause death, stroke, bleeding, new cardiac implantable electronic device [CIED] implantation, heart failure hospitalizations), TR reduction, and changes in health status (New York Heart Association [NYHA] functional class and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary [KCCQ-OS] score) are reported. Subgroup analyses examined the impact of baseline CIED status on outcomes. Results Among 1034 attempted procedures at 82 centers (mean [SD] age, 77.1 [10.6] years; 69.1% female; 73.2% NYHA functional class III/IV), a valve was successfully implanted in 1017 patients (98.4%). Mild or less TR was achieved in 98.4% of patients post procedure and in 97.7% at 30 days. At 30 days, all-cause mortality was 3.1%; stroke, 0.2%; bleeding, 7.9%; new CIED, 15.9% in CIED-naive patients; and heart failure hospitalization, 3.1%. There were significant improvements in NYHA functional class (class I/II, 82.7%; P < .001) and mean KCCQ-OS score (22.4 points; P < .001) from baseline to 30 days. There were no significant differences in 30-day mortality ( P = .47), heart failure hospitalization ( P > .99), and functional outcomes ( P = .55) when patients were stratified by baseline CIED status. Conclusions and Relevance Early US real-world experience with TTVR confirms safety and effectiveness in patients with severe TR. Thirty-day outcomes are consistent with the TRISCEND II pivotal trial, demonstrating acceptable safety, near-complete TR elimination, and significant health status improvements in an older, comorbid population. Rates of new CIED implantation and bleeding were lower than randomized clinical trial experience.

Introduction: Data on clinical outcomes of early transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) (<48 hours) compared to late (≥48 hours) TAVR in patients hospitalized with acute heart failure (AHF) and aortic stenosis (AS) remains limited. We aim to evaluate the differences between early vs. late TAVR regarding major clinical outcomes using a real-world US database. Hypothesis: There is no differences in the clinical outcomes based on the timing of TAVR procedural intervention in patients with acute heart failure. Methods: We used the National Inpatient Sample database by utilizing ICD-10 codes to identify all hospitalizations with a diagnosis of AHF and TAVR (2015-2020). The associations between the time of TAVR and outcomes were examined using multivariable logistic regression. Propensity-score matched (PSM) analysis was utilized to determine the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of major clinical outcomes. Results: A total of 25,285 weighted hospitalizations of AHF were identified, of which 6,855 patients (27.1%) underwent early TAVR and 18,430 (72.9%) had late TAVR. Compared with early TAVR, Late TAVR was associated with less need for mechanical circulatory support (MCS) (aOR 0.97 [0.96-0.98], p<0.01) and acute hypoxic respiratory failure (aOR 0.99 [0.98-0.99], p<0.01), but higher odds of developing septic shock (aOR 2.06 [1.52-2.80], p <0.01). However, there was no significant difference between both procedures regarding in-hospital mortality (aOR 1.01 [1.00-1.02], p=0.14), cardiac arrest (aOR 0.99 [0.98-1.00], p=0.21), and stroke (aOR 1.01 [1.00-1.02], p=0.18). Conclusions: Most patients with AHF and AS undergo TAVR after 48 hours of their presentation. After PSM, there was no difference in inpatient mortality, cardiac arrest, and stroke between both procedures. Late TAVR was associated with lower odds for MCS and acute hypoxic respiratory failure. The optimal timing of TAVR in patients with AHF and AS needs further study.