ArticleEuropean heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes2025
Wait-times benchmarks for risk-based prioritization in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a simulation study.
Article in European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Efficiency and Outcomes in the Canadian Healthcare Environment.CJC open · 2026Article
- Fighting time: the critical importance of pre-TAVR mortality risk prediction.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2025Article
- Unexpected Clinically Relevant Findings Detected via Computed Tomography in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis Who Are Candidates for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDemand for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has increased in the last decade, resulting in prolonged wait-times and undesirable health outcomes in many health systems. Risk-based prioritization and wait-times benchmarks can improve equitable access to patients. METHODS AND
resultsWe used simulation models to follow-up a synthetic population of 50 000 individuals from referral to completion of TAVI. Based on their risk of adverse events, patients could be classified as 'low-', 'medium-', and 'high-risk', and shorter wait-times were assigned for the higher risk groups. We assessed the impacts of the size and wait-times for each risk group on waitlist mortality, hospitalization, and urgent TAVIs. All scenarios had the same resource constraints, allowing us to explore the trade-offs between faster access for prioritized patients and deferred access for non-prioritized groups. Increasing the proportion of patients categorized as high-risk, and providing more rapid access to the higher-risk groups achieved the greatest reductions in mortality, hospitalizations and urgent TAVIs (relative reductions of up to 29%, 23%, and 38%, respectively). However, this occurs at the expense of excessive wait-times in the non-prioritized low-risk group (up to 25 weeks). We propose wait-times of up to 3 weeks for high-risk patients and 7 weeks for medium-risk patients.
conclusionPrioritizing higher-risk patients with faster access leads to better health outcomes, however this also results in unacceptably long wait-times for the non-prioritized groups in settings with limited capacity. Decision-makers must be aware of these implications when developing and implementing waitlist prioritization strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.