ArticleAmerican heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice2026
Impact of pre-procedural requirements on time to aortic valve replacement: Transcatheter AVR vs surgical AVR.
Article in American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/objective: This study aims to understand the extent that cardiac specialist visits and imaging requirements contribute to the difference in time to Aortic valve replacement (AVR) stratified by approach transcatheter AVR (TAVR) and surgical AVR (SAVR). Methods: Optum Market Clarity Data was used to identify patients with clinically significant AS (CSAS) who received an AVR between 2016 and 2023 and whose AVR occurred within two years of their CSAS diagnosis. Patient characteristics were measured at baseline; pre-procedural factors, including the number of cardiac specialist visits and imaging events, were measured from CSAS diagnosis to AVR (TAVR vs SAVR). Stepwise generalized linear models were used to assess whether the number of cardiac specialist visits and imaging events contribute to the differences in time to TAVR and SAVR, after adjusting for baseline characteristics. Results: Of the 14,225 patients in the cohort, 42 % received a TAVR. Compared to the SAVR cohort, the TAVR cohort was, on average, more male, older, sicker, and had more Medicare enrollees. TAVR patients had approximately two times more cardiac specialist visits (3.73 vs 6.37) and imaging events (1.18 vs 2.07) than SAVR patients. Time to TAVR is 65 days longer (RR = 1.77, 1.67-1.87) than SAVR, after adjustment for patient characteristics. This difference reduces to 11 days (RR = 1.12, 1.07-1.17) after accounting cardiac specialist encounters and imaging events. Discussion: Pre-procedural encounters significantly contribute to the longer time to AVR for TAVR patients. Findings suggest a need for streamlining the pre-procedural process for TAVR to enhance timely care delivery for CSAS patients.
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.