ArticleEuropean heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes2026
Optimizing patient triage on the waiting list for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the clinical utility of the cardiac damage staging system.
Article in European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsAccess to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is generally prioritized for symptomatic patients presenting with severe heart failure, syncope, angina, and decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction <40%. However, a substantial number of patients die while awaiting TAVR. In response to rising demand driven by an ageing population, it is essential to stratify interventions, as proposed by Généreux's Aortic Stenosis staging. METHODS AND
resultsWe conducted a retrospective, single-center, longitudinal study in patients referred for TAVR. We specifically analysed the characteristics of 98 patients who died while on the TAVR waiting list. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality from the time of a patient's inclusion on the TAVR waiting list or non-proceeding to TAVR. The overall proportion of deceased patients was 8.4% [95% confidence interval (CI), 6.9-10.1] and 4% when excluding deaths occurring after 2019. By 3 months, 61.2% of patients had undergone TAVR, and this increased to 85.4% at 6 months. Deaths occurred in 6.3% of patients by 3 months and 7.8% by 6 months. We notice that 90% of deaths took place within the first 3 months. Multivariable analysis identified several variables independently associated with mortality on the TAVR waiting list: prior myocardial infarction [subdistribution hazard ratio (sHR), 1.87 (95% CI, 1.12-3.13); P = 0.017] and pulmonary artery systolic pressure > 60 mmHg [sHR, 2.37 (95% CI, 1.36-4.12); P = 0.002]. Généreux stages 3 and 4 showed a strong association with waiting-list mortality, more than doubling the risk of death [sHR, 2.12 (95% CI, 1.33-3.38); P = 0.002].
conclusionThese findings suggest that TAVR candidates at Généreux stages 3 and 4 should receive higher priority on the waiting list.
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.