ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Aged 65 Years and Younger: Unresolved Issues and Future Directions.
Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become the predominant treatment for severe aortic stenosis across all surgical risk categories. However, its role in patients aged 65 years and younger remains uncertain, and current guideline recommendations continue to favor surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in this population. Despite this, contemporary real-world data demonstrate a marked increase in TAVR utilization among younger patients, creating an important gap between guidelines and clinical practice.
methodsThis review synthesizes contemporary observational evidence evaluating TAVR in patients ≤65 years, with a focus on patient selection, clinical outcomes, and lifetime management considerations.
resultsAvailable studies demonstrate that younger patients undergoing TAVR often represent a highly selected and clinically complex population with greater comorbidity burden, higher surgical risk, and shorter life expectancy than age-matched SAVR recipients, yet substantial hospital-level variation in TAVR utilization exists even after risk adjustment. Mid-term observational data suggest higher mortality and heart failure readmission rates following TAVR compared with SAVR, although these findings are likely influenced by substantial baseline differences between treatment groups. No randomized controlled trial has specifically compared TAVR and SAVR in patients ≤65 years. Furthermore, long-term issues including valve durability, coronary access, redo-TAVR feasibility, and THV optimization remain incompletely understood.
conclusionsTAVR recipients ≤65 are often a clinically distinct group characterized by significantly heavier comorbidity burdens than SAVR recipients of the same age with standard surgical risk models possibly underestimating the true clinical risk. Despite this, significant hospital-level variation in TAVR utilization persists even after risk adjustment, suggesting that institutional practice patterns and other non-clinical factors continue to influence treatment selection.
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.